It all comes down to Oklahoma
- Thread starter SAMCRO
- Start date
- Status
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1913071&forum_id=5
Interesting thread discussing the lawsuit, with some lawyers who appear to have seen some of the details chiming in. They didn't coordinate the contracts because why bother? The TV contract was the operative agreement in everyone's mind, probably including A&M. It appears that withdrawal from the conference could constitute a breach of the TV agreement, based on the Aggie posters in that thread.
A year later, when A&M decides they want out, they look to the conference departure rules as the exit mechanism, despite being party to the TV agreement. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Missouri was leaving for the Big 10 or OU/OSU/Tex/TT were leaving for the Pac 12, A&M would do the same thing. The leftover schools stand to lose a ton of money because of this departure.
If I am ESPN, I want nothing to do with this move, and I would tell the SEC as much, because the TI claim is probably strongest against ESPN, since they would technically be rewarding the SEC for damaging the Big 12. ESPN has probably told the SEC that they will not provide a nickel of additional revenue without a full indemnification of any claims by the Big 12 or its members.
If that breach clause in the TV agreement is true, this is absolutely NOT a frivolous lawsuit.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 13,905
- Reaction Score
- 25,921
nelson/waylon
That sort of squares with something I heard last night...that the tv deal, not the conference deal would be the basis of any lawsuit. That the deal was based on all the schools, or comparable ones, being there. Basically, if you leave you need to find a comparable replacemnt. It also would make sense with the effort to bring BYU, who is clearly committed to test its independence, into the fold as a "comparable replacement."
That sort of squares with something I heard last night...that the tv deal, not the conference deal would be the basis of any lawsuit. That the deal was based on all the schools, or comparable ones, being there. Basically, if you leave you need to find a comparable replacemnt. It also would make sense with the effort to bring BYU, who is clearly committed to test its independence, into the fold as a "comparable replacement."
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,469
- Reaction Score
- 61,450
It is quite difficult to follow the conversations in that link as two opposing (apparantly legal) opinions have been deleted and evidently each side appears (from the fragments of the discussions) to believe they are correct. That thread appears to be little more than (extremel;y edited) speculation, something that happens on message boards everywhere. One poster did nail it when he suggested A&M spend time as an independent (and settle any and all legal actions from the B-12) and then apply for SEC admission. This would place any and all legal actions on A&M, not the SEC.
The manner in which Beebe kept the B-12(10) together last summer could easily have led the few who knew they could be left behind (Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU) to agree to almost any terms merely to remain in a BCS conference. I personally find it difficult to believe that OU (and to a lesser extent A&M, who absolutely wanted out a year ago) would be careless (and foolish) enough to leave themselves in a position where a departure would be materially different than what had been basically standard when Nebraska, Colorado or any other school that changed conferences. When settling contracts disputes, if one party can demonstrate that they acted in accordance to industry standards, there would need to be specific language against that action for it not to be viewed as acceptable. If OU, A&M, et al were this foolish (and careless), they deserve to be stuck as UT'minions.
The manner in which Beebe kept the B-12(10) together last summer could easily have led the few who knew they could be left behind (Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU) to agree to almost any terms merely to remain in a BCS conference. I personally find it difficult to believe that OU (and to a lesser extent A&M, who absolutely wanted out a year ago) would be careless (and foolish) enough to leave themselves in a position where a departure would be materially different than what had been basically standard when Nebraska, Colorado or any other school that changed conferences. When settling contracts disputes, if one party can demonstrate that they acted in accordance to industry standards, there would need to be specific language against that action for it not to be viewed as acceptable. If OU, A&M, et al were this foolish (and careless), they deserve to be stuck as UT'minions.
.-.
nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 46,758
- Reaction Score
- 39,930
They did it because ESPN offered them a ton of money and demanded they do it. At the time of the agreement, it was portrayed as a 10 year commitment. Then A&M has a temper tantrum and goes storming off to the SEC.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
"Because why bother." I haven't read the link yet, and will, but Waylon -- that is exactly the point. The most important thing a business lawyer is taught from day one is you bother about everything, and assume any detail, no matter how small, will bight you in the rump and ruin your career if you don't deal with it. I have trouble accepting the premise (although it doesn't mean the premise isn't correct -- there seems to be more and more I don't accept these days).
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 506
- Reaction Score
- 618
And BL I say this with the utmost respect: That is why you legal guys drive us sales/business development guys crazy!!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
Having now read Waylon's linked thread, which says very little, a few thoughts.
1. I still don't see what Baylor's claim is. I find it hard to believe that the TV deal constituted an agreement by any particular school not to leave. And harder to believe that any one school would be a third party beneficiary of such an agreement, if it existed, when they were all free to leave the conference at any time by following the conditions. So I still don't get it.
2. Lawyers talk about an old gypsy curse -- may you one day be sued in a matter in which you are totally in the right. Litigation sucks, and you never know for sure that the correct party will win. If I have to guess, the SEC, having heard rumor of a Baylor suit, simply doesn't want a part of it. The message to Aggies may be "you guys just leave on your own and then come to ask and ask again for admission." That way, the Aggies still have to deal with the suit but the SEC itself is less of a target.
3. At some point, does the Governor of Texas show any balls? Doesn't he at some point tell Ken Starr "if Baylor goes forward making these frivolous claims against a state institution you will never again see a dime from the State in support of anything?"
1. I still don't see what Baylor's claim is. I find it hard to believe that the TV deal constituted an agreement by any particular school not to leave. And harder to believe that any one school would be a third party beneficiary of such an agreement, if it existed, when they were all free to leave the conference at any time by following the conditions. So I still don't get it.
2. Lawyers talk about an old gypsy curse -- may you one day be sued in a matter in which you are totally in the right. Litigation sucks, and you never know for sure that the correct party will win. If I have to guess, the SEC, having heard rumor of a Baylor suit, simply doesn't want a part of it. The message to Aggies may be "you guys just leave on your own and then come to ask and ask again for admission." That way, the Aggies still have to deal with the suit but the SEC itself is less of a target.
3. At some point, does the Governor of Texas show any balls? Doesn't he at some point tell Ken Starr "if Baylor goes forward making these frivolous claims against a state institution you will never again see a dime from the State in support of anything?"
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,469
- Reaction Score
- 61,450
Evidently more than merely A&M is less than happy with the arrangement (although they are the most vocal) as the only members who aren't openly discussing the possibilty of a new conference are UT (who wants this conference to build the LHN) and those who know they may not find another conference.
The issue appears to be solely between individuasl members of the B-12 and whoever may want to leave and then it would come down to what responsibility any individual member has and how replaceable that member may be. Due to the size of this contract, aggrieved parties may have a bit more resolve in standing firm (leadfing to more time before this does get settled) and departure fees may be higher (again, based on the size of the contract) than it was in prior departures but this should be the only difference.
ESPN's stake in this is how this will effect the value of the LHN (in which they are a partner). I'm curious as to how forthcoming ESPN was about their interest in partnering with UT for the LHN when the B-12's television deal was negotiated as this could easily be a conflict of interest. If I were A&M, I would be looking into this, as the problem with the current B-12 is the money and exposure UT will receive from the LHN and evidently all other B-12 members (along with most of the collegiate sports world) was blindsided by the size of the deal ESPN agreed to). If the B-12 was misled by ESPB as to their interest in the LHN and what the size of their offer to UT would be (while keeping UT fully abreast), there could easily be a lawsuit here.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,958
- Reaction Score
- 20,877
Agreed and understood. It's because people in those two areas are given fundamentally different training as to how to make decisions. (That having been said, the good business lawyers understand that and work to understand that their client's way of proceeding may, in many instances, be worth the risk and thus better).
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 15,469
- Reaction Score
- 61,450
The only claim could be from within a partnership, that the actions of one partner damaged another's (or the partnership as a whole) ability complete a contract. This would be solely between Baylor (or any other B-12 member) and A&M and should be easily settled.
This is it exactly. Once in front of a judge (and possibly a jury) all absolutes are out the window and decisions will be subjective.
The governor is more worried about UT than anything else. As far as Ken Starr, I am still stunned that he ignored the fact that someone committed perjury (in a state where he once held the title of attorney general no less), used as a defense "the way I interpreted the question, my answer wasn't really a lie" and instead focused entirely on what he did with a cigar.
- Status