[OutsiderFan]

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...3161923584

"It ain't over til it's over". UCLA can liquidate it's entire athletic department debt with one full value year in the B1G, so it is said. Pretty big deal there, but I think it isn't true. OTOH, there are obvious down sides to Kal and the UC system. Who knows what happens here?

I couldn't read much of the story, but the question that begs is this:

When the USCLA move was announced, it was reported and seemingly assumed that UCLA had UC Regents approval and the "deal was done." How could it have been done if the regents are now discussing and there is litigation?

Who would be suing? Under what grounds?  Did UC Regents approve the move, and now just reacting to these lawsuits?

[OutsiderFan]

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...3161923584

"It ain't over til it's over". UCLA can liquidate it's entire athletic department debt with one full value year in the B1G, so it is said. Pretty big deal there, but I think it isn't true. OTOH, there are obvious down sides to Kal and the UC system. Who knows what happens here?

I couldn't read much of the story, but the question that begs is this:

When the USCLA move was announced, it was reported and seemingly assumed that UCLA had UC Regents approval and the "deal was done." How could it have been done if the regents are now discussing and there is litigation?

Who would be suing? Under what grounds?  Did UC Regents approve the move, and now just reacting to these lawsuits?