Mediator assigned in Maryland vs. ACC lawsuit

[Willy Gee]

Can someone explain why this analysis of the GOR is incorrect?

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...erage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php

The problem with the analysis is that the author assumes that a school which has granted its media rights to one conference can simply transfer those rights to another conference, with the only issue being damages. I am skeptical of that logic. Once a school has transferred its media rights, it can't just transfer them again because they are already gone.

A conference would be stupid to accept a school which has an existing GOR with another conference. The "new" conference would open itself up to liabilities. The media partner of the new conference also likely would want nothing to do with the school.

If a school with a GOR wishes to move to another conference, it would be wise to first negotiate out of the GOR or litigate with the existing conference about the validity of the GOR. Whether it would prevail in that litigation would depend on the terms of the GOR, but I would always prefer to be on the side of the party seeking to enforce a contract, rather than the one trying to get out of an agreement which it freely entered into. Believe it or not, courts tend to honor parties' agreements, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.

 

[UConn9604]

Tom Selleck would not be allowed to work again, would not get paid under his contract with CBS, AND would be liable for all damages related to the loss of the TV show. He has already sold his services. George Michael tried what you are saying and got his ass beat pretty badly in court, and flushed the prime of his career down the toilet in the process. Going back to the 70's, Redd Foxx had endless feuds with the producers of Sanford and Son which usually went Redd Foxx's way. That was 40 years ago and I imagine that the contracts have become a little tighter since.

You may wish to look up the facts of the George Michael case before declaring an apple to be an orange.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You may wish to look up the facts of the George Michael case before declaring an apple to be an orange.

It certainly is not a pumpkin, which is what the idea of a school beating a GOR is. In fact, a pumpkin is a bad analogy. You should create a make believe fruit, because there are no examples of a performer selling his rights and then beating that sale in court.

Even my Redd Foxx example is not great. Redd Foxx wasn't trying to leave the show, he just wanted more money. The producers were terrified that their hit show would go on hiatus and so the threw a few more dollars at Foxx.

Give me an example of someone selling media rights, and then going to court and getting them back. I suspect that the only way it can be done was if there was some kind of fraud.

 

[BC1978]

The problem with the analysis is that the author assumes that a school which has granted its media rights to one conference can simply transfer those rights to another conference, with the only issue being damages. I am skeptical of that logic. Once a school has transferred its media rights, it can't just transfer them again because they are already gone.

A conference would be stupid to accept a school which has an existing GOR with another conference. The "new" conference would open itself up to liabilities. The media partner of the new conference also likely would want nothing to do with the school.

If a school with a GOR wishes to move to another conference, it would be wise to first negotiate out of the GOR or litigate with the existing conference about the validity of the GOR. Whether it would prevail in that litigation would depend on the terms of the GOR, but I would always prefer to be on the side of the party seeking to enforce a contract, rather than the one trying to get out of an agreement which it freely entered into. Believe it or not, courts tend to honor parties' agreements, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.

On your first point. It is not only that the rights have been transferred but consideration has been paid for the transfer of those rights.

Agreed with your last point. Just to reinforce, courts tend to honor parties' agreements - especially those which have been willingly entered into.[/quote]

 

[Excalibur]

That is not what it says. I got to get back to work though. Read it again.

You are correct that the agreement prevents a team from granting media rights to a new conference that it has already granted to its old conference. That still does not prevent the team from actually moving to a new conference, and if kyleslamb's theory of consideration is correct, the old conference would still need to pay for the telecast rights granted to it by the departed team.

 

[businesslawyer]

I move from conference A to conference B. I don't let Conference A's Network into the broadcast booth at my stadium. I get sued for specific performance and monetary damages. I ask why monetary damages isn't a satisfactory remedy since my inventory can be replaced in Conference A by someone new joining. I don't know that there is a satisfactory answer to that.

So Waylon can keep repeating that this is easy, and the rights are already sold so it's not about breaking a contract, but since the rights are worthless without access to the building I don't see why anyone thinks this is an open and shut issue.

 

[sdhusky]

I move from conference A to conference B. I don't let Conference A's Network into the broadcast booth at my stadium. I get sued for specific performance and monetary damages. I ask why monetary damages isn't a satisfactory remedy since my inventory can be replaced in Conference A by someone new joining. I don't know that there is a satisfactory answer to that.

So Waylon can keep repeating that this is easy, and the rights are already sold so it's not about breaking a contract, but since the rights are worthless without access to the building I don't see why anyone thinks this is an open and shut issue.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[businesslawyer]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Well, that must reflect poorly on (at least) one of us. LOL.

 

[kyleslamb]

I move from conference A to conference B. I don't let Conference A's Network into the broadcast booth at my stadium. I get sued for specific performance and monetary damages. I ask why monetary damages isn't a satisfactory remedy since my inventory can be replaced in Conference A by someone new joining. I don't know that there is a satisfactory answer to that.

So Waylon can keep repeating that this is easy, and the rights are already sold so it's not about breaking a contract, but since the rights are worthless without access to the building I don't see why anyone thinks this is an open and shut issue.

While those are excellent points, it depends on who Conference A and Conference B have as networks. If Conference B is on the same network as Conference A, it wouldn't matter. That said, if Conference A is still paying the school for its media rights, why wouldn't Conference B allow the network to broadcast the rights and just deduct the payment to the school from Conference B's share? There's really no reason to deny access. If Conference A is willing to use its network's inventory broadcasting another conference's game, it's not that bad a deal.

 

[businesslawyer]

While those are excellent points, it depends on who Conference A and Conference B have as networks. If Conference B is on the same network as Conference A, it wouldn't matter. That said, if Conference A is still paying the school for its media rights, why wouldn't Conference B allow the network to broadcast the rights and just deduct the payment to the school from Conference B's share? There's really no reason to deny access. If Conference A is willing to use its network's inventory broadcasting another conference's game, it's not that bad a deal.

That is also a possibility. But I just think the more aggressive position -- just don't let Conference A's network in your building -- is likely to produce a satisfactory result.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I move from conference A to conference B. I don't let Conference A's Network into the broadcast booth at my stadium. I get sued for specific performance and monetary damages. I ask why monetary damages isn't a satisfactory remedy since my inventory can be replaced in Conference A by someone new joining. I don't know that there is a satisfactory answer to that.

So Waylon can keep repeating that this is easy, and the rights are already sold so it's not about breaking a contract, but since the rights are worthless without access to the building I don't see why anyone thinks this is an open and shut issue.

I was discussing this with some friends in NYC during the regional finals a few weeks ago. The wording of the contracts has to be very specific I think, for them to have any meaning for exactly these reasons.

Specific to football now - (not sure basketball) - but visiting teams, have no say in broadcasting rights. A program from conference A - only makes money from a broadcasting network for conference A games, and non conference HOME games. Non-conference away game revenue, to my knowledge, is entirely individual contract payout by the home team. (which would be drawing from their own broadcasting revenue stream, ticket sales, merchandising, etc.)

So the games that are of actual value (by actual being in the stadium with broadcasting equipment) for a program from conference A - are any home games (in or out of conference) and the away - in - conference games.......

So - say program X leaves conference A for conference B.

Conference B - now holds the rights to bring those broadcasters in to the arenas for program X home games. Or does conference B allow Conference A to continue to incur the expense/income of doing the actual broadcasts? The number of games that would be an actual revenue loss for conference A is entirely dependant on their ability to fill the holes in the schedule left by program X. If conference A fills those holes, there is no loss - excepting 2 possibilities: #1. The broadcasting contract terms were changed by the broadcasting company as a result of the loss. To my knowledge, that's not happening. An existing broadcasting contract is not getting knocked down because of any of this, no matter who the schedule is filled with. #2. Conference A actually does the broadcasts and incurs the expenses. That's also not happening - and if it would happen - would only involve 6-7 games a year at most, as non-conference away games, and conference away games would not apply - as the broadcasting rights would be held already by other conferences.

Grant of rights is nothing more than a promise ring.

 

[businesslawyer]

Grant of rights is nothing more than a promise ring.

I think it would be premature to go that far in the other direction from Waylon. There are arguments to be made for both sides on this, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. It was done by conferences because it was viewed as the strategy most likely to keep teams from bolting. That doesn't mean anyone determined, or legally advised anyone, that it would keep schools from bolting.

 

[06029]

I think it would be premature to go that far in the other direction from Waylon. There are arguments to be made for both sides on this, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. It was done by conferences because it was viewed as the strategy most likely to keep teams from bolting. That doesn't mean anyone determined, or legally advised anyone, that it would keep schools from bolting.

Schools, and the expanding conference, will make an economic decision when it comes to leaving if under a GOR. If they are going to increase their revenue in a new conference by 2 or 3x, then they will leave and let lawyers make a ton of money battling it out. Once the lawyers have made their millions on the case, the decision to continue litigation or settle comes. By that time, economic impact is measured, and likely mitigated thru some new arrangement, and the settlement that allows both sides to claim victory happens.I doubt that any conference movement that involves GOR goes to a full trial because the only conference expansion law suit that did go all the way to trial went against the conference (different circumstances but it established that the burden of proof is very high and that any small deviation from bylaws oust the conference on the wrong side). Since then, every team has bought their way out of a conference to move.

Every school subject to a GOR probably has a legal opinion or analysis regrading its enforcability and how to get out of it necessary. And in the end, the answer will be buy your way out, just like it always has been.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think it would be premature to go that far in the other direction from Waylon. There are arguments to be made for both sides on this, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. It was done by conferences because it was viewed as the strategy most likely to keep teams from bolting. That doesn't mean anyone determined, or legally advised anyone, that it would keep schools from bolting.

Premature? Sure. I'm not a lawyer - I can have those strong opinions!!

 

[sdhusky]

Well, that must reflect poorly on (at least) one of us. LOL.

Gosh. Don't take it personally BL

 

[businesslawyer]

Premature? Sure. I'm not a lawyer - I can have those strong opinions!!

I'm thinking about following up on the use of the word premature, but I'll pass.

 

[businesslawyer]

Gosh. Don't take it personally BL

Didn't take it that way. Just meant it was at least as likely that I didn't write it clearly as that you should have understood but didn't. No more jokes for me today.

 

[sdhusky]

Didn't take it that way. Just meant it was at least as likely that I didn't write it clearly as that you should have understood but didn't. No more jokes for me today.

Good golly. I knew you were joking. I was joking back. I will use next time

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I move from conference A to conference B. I don't let Conference A's Network into the broadcast booth at my stadium. I get sued for specific performance and monetary damages. I ask why monetary damages isn't a satisfactory remedy since my inventory can be replaced in Conference A by someone new joining. I don't know that there is a satisfactory answer to that.

So Waylon can keep repeating that this is easy, and the rights are already sold so it's not about breaking a contract, but since the rights are worthless without access to the building I don't see why anyone thinks this is an open and shut issue.

Piece of cake. Boy there are some stupid lawyers out there in Big 12 country. And ACC country. And Big 10 country. And at ESPN. And in the music, television and movie industry. All you have to do is physically restrain the cameraman from coming into your building and you are home free.

 

[businesslawyer]

Piece of cake. Boy there are some stupid lawyers out there in Big 12 country. And ACC country. And Big 10 country. And at ESPN. And in the music, television and movie industry. All you have to do is physically restrain the cameraman from coming into your building and you are home free.

I'm amazed you spend so much time misstating people's positions. I have no reason to think anyone was given bad advice. It would make sense to adopt these as the best plan you have (in terms of chances of keeping members together), and when you adopt them you say they work even though you don't know. Unless you know that lawyers never speak their client's position but only the truth.

 

[husky10]

Can someone explain why this analysis of the GOR is incorrect?

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-fo...erage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights.php

This line:
"In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. "

Should read: "In 2003, the Big East is raided for two name brand schools and a school that is irrelevant in everything but hockey"

 

[sdhusky]

Unless you know that lawyers never speak their client's position but only the truth.

So.... the choice is either Nelson is right or lawyers lie?

Tough call.

 

[btstimpy]

UL is a bigger draw nationally than MD, at least for now.

Adidas obviously thinks so. They endorsed it with a huge apparel contract just last month.

 

[StevieDude]

Adidas obviously thinks so. They endorsed it with a huge apparel contract just last month.

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/a-visitors-guide-to-our-board.59726/

 

[businesslawyer]

So.... the choice is either Nelson is right or lawyers lie?

Tough call.

I have to say -- that is a really, really good line.