Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[businesslawyer]

To business lawyer. Can’t you just break a contract and pay damages?

GOR isn’t some blood oath.

i've addressed this a bunch of times. In brief, generally one has the right to breach an executory contact -- one that hasn't yet been fully performed -- and pay the other side monetary damages. A GOR, however, is meant to stop the agreement from being an executory one, in that it purports to ACTUALLY TRANSFER AT THE PRESENT TIME rights to show games in the future, so the performance under the contract -- the transfer of rights -- has already happened. In the music industry, there is precedent that when you enter into a GOR, the other side already owns the rights to your next album and therefore there is nothing left for you to breach. I have expressed that this might or might not work with respect to the broadcasting of games, and we wouldn't know for sure until it is litigated. I still hold to that belief. So FSU can't possibly know they can walk away from the GOR and just pay actual damages, but they can make a reasonable argument that they should be able to.

 

[HuskyHawk]

To business lawyer. Can’t you just break a contract and pay damages?

GOR isn’t some blood oath.

@businesslawyer

He went over this the other day and so did I. It's not just a contract, it's sale of an interest in property. Intellectual Property. You can't just "break" it, the ACC owns those rights. You can't get them back unless the ACC sells them back to you.

 

[noeynox]

An actual tweet

 

[ctchamps]

The crux of his argument from a Fox perspective seems to be that ESPN gets 2/3 of the games and Fox 1/3. So Fox would lose a lot of UConn basketball content if they move. Of course Fox would gain football content, but his comment on the other additions suggested that more mediocre football inventory wasn't a boost.

All this is a moot point of course because they have worked this out to everyone's satisfaction (B12, Colorado, UConn, ESPN and FOX) prior to Colorado joining. The delay we now have is some similar type of horse trading negotiating is going on between those entities and U of A plus ASU.

Which probably was loosely discussed prior to the Colorado announcement. I believe we're at the completion of the paperwork and the signing of the contracts stage.

 

[uconnyankee]

I think his point is Fox gets UConn basketball for $5 million annually. It wouldn't make sense to start paying $31 million just to add football.

Fox's perspective (as it pertains specifically to the question) in his interpretation (which may be excluding some pertinent items) is there is no reason to increase what they are paying for UConn just to add football.

Again, it’s UConn for $5 M playing BE.
It might not be $31M but it’s UConn playing Kansas, Baylor, TT, Okie, etc. that might be worth $10M
Throw in women in a better league, that’s another $2-3M

 

[HuskyHawk]

i've addressed this a bunch of times. In brief, generally one has the right to breach an executory contact -- one that hasn't yet been fully performed -- and pay the other side monetary damages. A GOR, however, is meant to stop the agreement from being an executory one, in that it purports to ACTUALLY TRANSFER AT THE PRESENT TIME rights to show games in the future, so the performance under the contract -- the transfer of rights -- has already happened. In the music industry, there is precedent that when you enter into a GOR, the other side already owns the rights to your next album and therefore there is nothing left for you to breach. I have expressed that this might or might not work with respect to the broadcasting of games, and we wouldn't know for sure until it is litigated. I still hold to that belief. So FSU can't possibly know they can walk away from the GOR and just pay actual damages, but they can make a reasonable argument that they should be able to.

It will be fascinating to see if they try it. I don't believe that any conference would pay them a penny that wasn't contingent upon them being able to provide those rights to the conference free of any challenge/claim by a third party.

Which is why I think the comments from FSU have nothing to do with the B1G. It can only be the SEC. Because then something could be worked out. ESPN holds those rights from the ACC, but obviously isn't going to challenge ESPNs broadcast of those games as SEC games.

 

[UConnJim]

The old Mansfield guard is dying. The next step is moving EO Smith and taking that massively valuable piece of land for commercial development.

EO Smith is where the on campus football stadium will go. They already have a football field there.

 

[RSTuthill]

All this is a moot point of course because they have worked this out to everyone's satisfaction (B12, Colorado, UConn, ESPN and FOX) prior to Colorado joining. The delay we now have is some similar type of horse trading negotiating is going on between those entities and U of A plus ASU.

Which probably was loosely discussed prior to the Colorado announcement. I believe we're at the completion of the paperwork and the signing of the contracts stage.

Have we seen posts regarding a basic conceptual understanding between the parties yet? Because I have not. And if not, then I would suspect the paperwork involves UConn rather than the AZ's.

 

[RSTuthill]

EO Smith is where the on campus football stadium will go. They already have a football field there.

Dreaming. The legislature will NEVER give them the money.

 

[upstater]

I find it extremely hard to believe UConn bb (men's and women's) is more valuable playing small private catholic schools in the BE vs playing larger state/flagship schools if in the Big12. Not buying it. Then add in any fb boost and his viewpoint seems plain wrong.

Well, consider that Fox paying $11m would only be for a portion of UConn, not the whole enchilada they're getting for $4-8m.

Also, consider, losing UConn weakens the BE appreciably, and they'd rather have that filler than the added of UConn in the B12.

Lastly, who gets Kansas Vs. UConn? ESPN is shelling out $20m. Hard to say to them, you're not going to get it.

There are a lot of stakes here.

UConn may even agree to a lesser payout from Fox if they can get the full amount from ESPN.

 

[JohnFSilver]

i've addressed this a bunch of times. In brief, generally one has the right to breach an executory contact -- one that hasn't yet been fully performed -- and pay the other side monetary damages. A GOR, however, is meant to stop the agreement from being an executory one, in that it purports to ACTUALLY TRANSFER AT THE PRESENT TIME rights to show games in the future, so the performance under the contract -- the transfer of rights -- has already happened. In the music industry, there is precedent that when you enter into a GOR, the other side already owns the rights to your next album and therefore there is nothing left for you to breach. I have expressed that this might or might not work with respect to the broadcasting of games, and we wouldn't know for sure until it is litigated. I still hold to that belief. So FSU can't possibly know they can walk away from the GOR and just pay actual damages, but they can make a reasonable argument that they should be able to.

So someone is going to have to test the GOR.

 

[upstater]

The people who are talking the expense of streaming on here need to also consider the add-ons for channels that are not in the Youtube or Fubo universe. I don't subscribe to either of the services, but since I'm a soccer fan, I do have Peacock and Paramount. These are the 2 best soccer channels. If you're not on these, you're not being seen by the vast majority of soccer fans.

I watch Serie A and Premier League because of these 2 channels. I know almost nothing about Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 these days because I don't have ESPN+ (and I have no reason to buy it). I do get ESPN and FS1/2 however.

What I'm saying is that fans will pay for the biggest aggregator in any given sport, and if that channel does not have a cable presence (I realize you can get some PL games on NBC), then sports administrators and leagues will have to make astute choices.

You can't bury yourself on Apple like the Pac10 is thinking of doing.

 

[Chin Diesel]

So someone is going to have to test the GOR.

I'm more curious to see how it works out between the ACC conference office who owns FSU's rights and how the remaining schools can influence what the conference does with the negotiation.

The WFU's, BCU's and the other grifters who make money off the contract are looking at probability of reduced payouts going forward. Do they have any recourse if the ACC negotiates with FSU and lets FSU go or have those schools given away their rights as part of the GOR as well?

 

[gioff2323]

So someone is going to have to test the GOR.

If you’re contemplating a 300MM negotiated settlement, you have to ponder spending 1-2% of that on litigation. If nothing else, it might help with the negotiations.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'd say this is Key, if not a Tweet and more forward looking.

Third-party influence may soon shake foundation of college football impacting conferences, programs

How does a new conference financed with a $1 billion investment sound to you, college football fan?

www.cbssports.com

 

[businesslawyer]

It will be fascinating to see if they try it. I don't believe that any conference would pay them a penny that wasn't contingent upon them being able to provide those rights to the conference free of any challenge/claim by a third party.

Which is why I think the comments from FSU have nothing to do with the B1G. It can only be the SEC. Because then something could be worked out. ESPN holds those rights from the ACC, but obviously isn't going to challenge ESPNs broadcast of those games as SEC games.

1. I don’t think there is anything behind what FSU said beyond pleasing boosters.

2. You are correct that no conference or network is going to pay for FSU’s games in advance of this being litigated. If FSU has a strategy to get out of the ACC before the GOR expiration, they would presumably move for a Declaratory Judgment that they can get out of it and just pay damages.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm more curious to see how it works out between the ACC conference office who owns FSU's rights and how the remaining schools can influence what the conference does with the negotiation.

The WFU's, BCU's and the other grifters who make money off the contract are looking at probability of reduced payouts going forward. Do they have any recourse if the ACC negotiates with FSU and lets FSU go or have those schools given away their rights as part of the GOR as well?

I imagine that as long as the ACC can defend that they acted in good faith there is little any of the grifters (awesome description!) can do.

The ACC has a fiduciary responsibility to all member schools but within this, as long as a decision was made worth good faith, even if it ended up with negative economic results, there is little a member school do.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'd say this is Key, if not a Tweet and more forward looking.

Third-party influence may soon shake foundation of college football impacting conferences, programs

How does a new conference financed with a $1 billion investment sound to you, college football fan?

www.cbssports.com

This is all college sports needs, private equity firms looking to further monetize intercollegiate athletics.

On the bright side, there are enough hedge funds here in lower Fairfield County that UConn would be set if just a few decided to adopt the state flagship.

 

[HuskyHawk]

1. I don’t think there is anything behind what FSU said beyond pleasing boosters.

2. You are correct that no conference or network is going to pay for FSU’s games in advance of this being litigated. If FSU has a strategy to get out of the ACC before the GOR expiration, they would presumably move for a Declaratory Judgment that they can get out of it and just pay damages.

The third option, and I do not think it is imminent at all, is the article I posted from Dennis Dodd CBS just above. It came out 40 minutes ago. He details an organized and third party funded option to create an alternative to the B1G and SEC. With that third party buying out the top schools and essentially owning the conference.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I think his point is Fox gets UConn basketball for $5 million annually. It wouldn't make sense to start paying $31 million just to add football.

Fox's perspective (as it pertains specifically to the question) in his interpretation (which may be excluding some pertinent items) is there is no reason to increase what they are paying for UConn just to add football.

It’s actually $20,000,000 which is chump change and from a business perspective and easily made up.
1. By not adding UConn they could lose them to the ACC and. ESPN which minimally impacts the Big East worth to them
2. Also They could save that amount by a new Big East Contract minus UConn.
Ie with UConn the new contract is $7,500,000 per team
Without UConn $5,500 ,000
$2,000,000*10 .= $20,000,000
3. the impact of making B12 football / Basketball a significant player in a huge new market could benefit them exponentially I wouldn’t even guess at the worth
4. Women’s / Men basketball ratings match ups in the B12 are ratings bonanzas . The entire level of basketball interests is worth more in that conference. UConn basketball alone could pay the $20million

 

[Kolumbo]

EO Smith is where the on campus football stadium will go. They already have a football field there.

And to stay on point, E.O. Smith serves Ashford and Willington too. The school should be north of the UConn campus, perhaps off Route 44. Move it and let Storrs Center grow.

 

[Jimdish255]

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, someone would consider whether trashing universities we are hoping will vote to admit us within a few days might not be a brilliant strategic move?

It just feeds a negative perception and accomplishes nothing. BC, Pitt and Cuse may be exceptions because they're pretty much guaranteed to work against us regardless. If you're one of those people please just take a break.

 

[businesslawyer]

The third option, and I do not think it is imminent at all, is the article I posted from Dennis Dodd CBS just above. It came out 40 minutes ago. He details an organized and third party funded option to create an alternative to the B1G and SEC. With that third party buying out the top schools and essentially owning the conference.

This is a hugely interesting topic, at least to me as a Private Equity M&A lawyer. But that’s for another day and thread, while we watch the current situation play out.

 

[king conn]

I'd say this is Key, if not a Tweet and more forward looking.

Third-party influence may soon shake foundation of college football impacting conferences, programs

How does a new conference financed with a $1 billion investment sound to you, college football fan?

www.cbssports.com

What a mess

Maybe the Mets owner can buy UConn for his sports network

 

[businesslawyer]

Not to totally change the subject from the purpose of this thread, but is anyone tweeting about things relevant to whether, when and with whom the Big XII might be filling any open spots?