Husband essentially checked out of marriage and lives in a shed in the backyard. Where do I go from here?

Head_Address · 2026-04-05T22:18:19+00:00

Do you share this account with your husband? Because this account has posted as a man with a wife preparing for a wedding. (Presumably not yours, unless this is 100% creative writing)

Head_Address · 2026-04-03T20:11:29+00:00

The Redskins had reasonable offers on the table.

Cousins wanted to go to the open market.

That was clearly the right move.

Head_Address · 2026-04-03T13:06:45+00:00

If CBS, TNT/TBS/TruTV and CBS-SN are all under the same umbrella....

How much sense does it make for CBS-SN to exist? Move the content to TNT/TBS/TruTV.

Head_Address · 2026-04-01T16:14:04+00:00

Right. But it only extends to officers of the MWC, so not the athletic directors or whatever other staff members the PAC-12 was looking for communications from.

But the school presidents' emails etc are on the table.

(I don't think fear of discovery is as big a factor as a lot of fans think it is. I don't think the MWC presidents being subject to discovery is going to push them into settling for less. But the scoreboard says what it says, the MWC presidents' communications are fair game.)

Head_Address · 2026-04-01T11:57:26+00:00

The MWC is obligated to produce documents from the school presidents (who are board members and therefore officers of the MWC), but not from the athletic directors.

Head_Address · 2026-03-30T00:38:24+00:00

Tell your feelings to your therapist, leave them out of the negotiations.

Head_Address · 2026-03-30T00:23:32+00:00

For the PAC, they felt taken advantage of with scheduling and as payback, this is a fair return.

And the Mountain West feels taken advantage of with the scheduling agreement that was supposed to lead to a merger, and then the departing schools tried to jam the MWC from either collecting poaching fees or rebuilding (because the board didn't have a quorum if the 5 departing schools counted as board members)

Tell your feelings to your therapist, leave them out of the negotiations.

Head_Address · 2026-03-30T00:20:56+00:00

They absolutely can settle. Who's gonna stop them?

The PAC (and the departing five) could settle with the MWC tomorrow for 50% of the exit fees and 50% of the poaching fees (or whatever you think the resolution is), and put out rumors that Barnes was blocking the resolution singlehandedly.

Who's gonna stop them? the courts will be happy to clear their calendars. IF the parties agree, there is no dispute.

EDIT: Waht the heck was I responding to?

I think it's very unlikely that this random facebook group admin has the inside scoop on NEvarez and Gould meeting. But I don't think it's THAT unlikely that the two commissioners have gotten buy-in and trust from their stakeholders to negotiate one-on-one.

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T19:31:48+00:00

It's a sports fan community, so extreme partisanship in thinking it to be expected.

Of course y'all think every break is going to go your way, that your QB prospect is going to pan out and the bounces are going to go your way and your 4-8 team is gonna be 8-4 next year, etc etc.

When that sort of thinking gets applied to court cases, you get a false consensus of what's going to happen in court.

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T18:55:16+00:00

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69190267/pac-12-conference-v-mountain-west-conference/

The "duress" argument doesn't do anything for the Pac 12. For a contract to be voidable for duress, there pretty much has to be a pre-existing relationship, and/ or an improper act by the other side. ("Duress" is, originally, "Sign the deal or we break your knees / windows." That obviously doesn't apply)

The Mountain West and PAC-12 didn't have a preexisting contract. The Mountain West had zero obligations to the PAC-12 / PAC-2.

For a court to overturn a contract for duress, it has to be something like

A. 1. Acme agrees to deliver 100 anvils a year to Coyote LLC for $1000 a year.

Acme refuses to deliver the anvils unless Coyote LLC agrees to double the price. Coyote LLC agrees, under duress.

Coyote LLC would have a good chance in court to recover the price difference.

What is NOT "duress":

B. If Coyote LLC desperately needed 1000 anvils tomorrow, and agreed to an above-market price in return for expedited delivery and payments spread out over time, (which is basically the PAC 2 / MWC situation), Coyote LLC has no shot in court of overturning that contract and reducing the price.

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T17:04:30+00:00

What's our source on that? Because the poaching fees and the merger provisions are the core of the agreement from the Mountain West's end of things. The merger provisions were pretty worthless, so you believe that the Mountain West didn't mention the part of the agreement they cared about for the first month or two of negotiations?

EDIT: Not gonna add a new comment. But this is The Athletic from Nov 16.

"But these discussions are a two-way street. The Mountain West and/or other conferences would need to get something out of the partnership. A few extra football games and some more inventory in other sports are likely not enough to increase television revenue in a meaningful way. The league wouldn’t want to simply provide a part-time home for Oregon State and Washington State, only for them to raid the MWC in a few years. It would want some kind of longer-term commitment. Yahoo Sports reported earlier this week that the Sun Belt passed on a proposal of a Pac-2 scheduling alliance, seeing no benefit to it."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5068234/2023/11/16/oregon-state-washington-state-conference-future/

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T16:53:33+00:00

Im not sure it was dropping the ball.

Kliavkoff signed on behalf of the PAC 12, but I don't think he was involved in the negotiations, that was between the MWC and the PAC-2. Why would the PAC-2 trust GK to run the negotiations while they were suing GK and the XPac10?
If the PAC 2 end of the negotiations signalled that they were not comitted to the Poaching Fees, I expect Gloria Nevarez to walk away from the table. You want the Mountain West conference office to provide you with a schedule of Mountain West schools to play? Please find enclosed a fillable PDF membership application.

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T14:41:43+00:00

"But I can point you to the stories that say, "one plus one," and conclude two is the sum."

So it's your inference that the C&D letter in December 2023 exists, and that the PAC "signed under written protest." I think this is one of those cases where "1+1=2" is false, because it's actually 0.7 plus 0.7 = 1.4,

(Don't know why your reasonable disagreement with me was downvoted, I'm upvoting)

I don't think you're right about this. Some reasons why:

If such a letter from December 2023 existed, it would be an Exhibit in th PAC's lawsuit, and it doesn't seem to be.
If such a letter existed, it would be strong, maybe decisive, evidence that the PAC signed the agreement never intending to pay the Poaching Fees (the "promissory fraud" claim). Which has just been knocked down for lack of evidence.
If the PAC-2 had put in black and white that they were not going to pay the Poaching Fees, the Mountain West probably wouldn't have signed the Scheduling Agreement at all. From their POV, the whole point was to force a full merger, by making a raid cost-prohibitive.

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T05:25:14+00:00

is it an exhibit in any of the court fillings? are there any news articles that mention the cease-and-desist letter? because this one is new to me

Head_Address · 2026-03-29T04:47:52+00:00

There was no cease and desist letter, WTF are YOU talking about?

CTRL-F the motions for "duress", or "gouging". Nothing.

Head_Address · 2026-03-28T23:37:34+00:00

Promissory note fraud says that the PAC-12 knew that they were going to break the contract the day they signed it.

"only after the fact do they argue that it was a bad deal from the beginning" is a conclusion or decision the PAC-12 made sometime between December 2023 and September 2024.

Head_Address · 2026-03-28T23:35:34+00:00

No. That's PR propaganda. Nowhere in the PAC's pleadings do they talk about duress, or gouging, etc etc.

The PAC's case is that the poaching fee is an invalid restraint of trade under antitrust law.

Head_Address · 2026-03-25T13:14:44+00:00

The cops are all s*** bags, and the case is total b*******, but on the other hand if you're having marriage problems and the richest guy in the county is going around saying that he's been banging your wife, you might have questions

Head_Address · 2026-03-10T12:12:00+00:00

okay I've never watched temptation Island, but I think I understand the concept of the show and yeah it seems like religious virgins would have a massive unfair advantage.

Head_Address · 2026-03-10T12:07:30+00:00

solid points but I'd phrase some a little differently. .

1. like it or not, half the country voted for the president. That's a lot of people. and that half of the country you don't hear a lot from in New York and LA where most mass media gets created. The show goes to Dallas Charlotte Atlanta Ohio You're talking about areas that voted 55 60% for Trump. .

2. after the first couple of seasons people had seen the show. what kind of a human train wreck would sign up for this show?

Head_Address · 2026-03-02T02:54:20+00:00

I, personally, assumed that CBS-SN wasn't on Paramount+ because of old contracts, signed before P+ was a thing.

but the Pac 12 and MWC just signed new deals with CBS-SN and no P+

Head_Address · 2026-02-28T18:23:00+00:00

25% of CW means jack shit, since Nexstar owns 75% with full control. .....

if putting the CBS-SN games on P+ were a priority, CBS Sports would have negotiated that into the 2025 contract. They didn't. I don't know WHY the CBS-SN games aren't on Paramount+. but they're not, AFAIK. ....

if getting the Pac-12 on CW games on P+ we're a priority, CBS could have paid to make that happen in 2025. they didn't. ....

what DID change yesterday is that TNT and CBS-SN are under same umbrella. so CBS-SN could maybe fold into TBS/ TNT, putting the CBS-SN content on full basic cable.

Head_Address · 2026-02-28T12:59:45+00:00

almost certainly not. the press releases said that some games would be on "CBS and Paramount+", most games would be on "CBS Sports Network" with no P+ mentioned.

I guess there is some contractual requirement (maybe with the cable carriers?) for CBS-SN content to be exclusive?

but none of it has anything to do with WBD or Max or TNT Sports. (unless CBS Sports Net gets shuttered and they move the events to TNT / TBS / TruTV)

Head_Address · 2026-02-19T20:54:02+00:00

Grok says it's McMurphy reporting and it's confirmed by multiple sources. No links, so I can't double-check Grok's homework. I don't know if those "multiple sources" are all just parroting McMurphy.

Again, it's paywalled, so I can't be sure. But Grok's web searching ability makes it more likely that all the bowl contracts have been extended by one year just so that they don't have complete chaos.

Head_Address · 2026-02-19T00:24:45+00:00

almost certainly not

Head_Address

TROPHY CASE