From what I've heard this has some to do with allowing amortized payments (which the HL allowed both BU & LU to do previously).
Where do you get this from? Given that the fee at that time was just $50,000, that seems pretty unlikely.
The complaint says the fee was due June 24, which would be 30 days after Valpo announced it was leaving. Of course we don't know, but that sounds like a standard 30 day contract provision for paying liquidated damages.
the bylaws & amendments have never been public record
Actually, the bylaws and operating amendments as they existed in 2009 are readily available with a google search. Of course, all sides agree there have been amendments since, and an up-to-date version doesn't seem to be on-line. But the 2009 bylaws have nothing about arbitration, and the language quoted by CBS, presumably from the current bylaws, talks only about "negotiating in good faith" before filing a suit, not arbitration. An obligation to negotiate is not arbitration. They are very different things. (Note that Valpo's spokespeople aren't pointing to actual provisions or language in the bylaws. Note also that even an obligation to arbitrate, not complied with, still wouldn't excuse Valpo from paying anything it owes. If Valpo has no basis for not paying, demanding any arbitration--or really, it appears, just further negotiation--is just delay, which is poor behavior on VU's part. In other words, the obligation is there to address legit disagreements about the contract terms, not to address one side's desire to renegotiate the contract after the fact.)
everyone (including yourself) doesn't have all the facts or details on the situation.
True, but what we have looks very bad for Valpo, and the stuff about "binding arbitration" seems unlikely, especially if you consider CBS a reasonably good source.
VU always intended on paying an exit-fee
Or not. Maybe VU always figured it could weasel out of the fee. As you say, we don't know for sure. Assuming the basic truth that the fee was due on June 24 and Valpo hasn't paid it, I wouldn't be too quick to assert Valpo's intentions.
My best guess on all this--based on the complaint, reporting, your comments, knowledge of human nature and the legal system--is that Valpo's full exit fee payment was due on June 24, 30 days after they left the league. Valpo said they couldn't or wouldn't pay it, at least in one installment at that time. The two sides talked, with the League being adamant, and then the league sued. Given that the suit was filed June 27, they were probably anticipating having to sue before June 24, likely because the two sides were already in talks--"good faith negotiations"--after May 25 and Valpo was asking for time. My guess is that if Valpo was asking for reasonable terms to get the cash together--for example, collecting on some of those supposed alumni pledges, or just selling assets (an unanticipated one-time payment of $500K will put a crimp in cash flow, even for an organization with Valpo's budget) the league would have been fine. Probably Valpo asked for 5 years or some such thing, or (worst case for Valpo) actually claims they don't owe it, on the grounds that the 2007 letter or understanding was not altered by the later imposition of the higher fee and Valpo's decision to remain in the league after that (which is probably an untenable legal position). But again, even an obligation to negotiate, or even to arbitrate, doesn't change the underlying legal obligations of the contract. If the terms are clear, there's nothing to "negotiate."
We'll see what comes out (probably nothing, actually--they'll settle in a sealed agreement, with the money being paid but no admissions by Valpo or the Valley), but it doesn't look good for VU. Although there's probably a decent enough legal claim against the Valley, I can see why the Valley might be ticked that they've been dragged into this dispute--"what did we do? We just extended an invitation to Valpo to join. It's not like we haven't been raided by other conferences." But I wouldn't be making excuses for Valpo at this point.