ND vs BC at Fenway. BC tickets $5.4K

[uconndogs]

haha!... could be.. ' Missed that " you " were in fact " he ".

Anyway, my suggestion still stands, ie if you find my observations, assessments, comments, etc an " irritant " to you ( not my intent ), then simply put me on ignore. That is what that feature is for, and it does work effectively ( as it has for 2 posters on here for me ). Just a suggestion from me to you with a sensible and relatively easy solution for this for you.

My response is the same - ain't going to happen Yawkee

 

[Yawkey Way]

My response is the same - ain't going to happen Yawkee

No problem, it was just a suggestion.

 

[Yawkey Way]

I think that ship has sailed when UConn rejected the previous scheduling deal with ND.

It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them. Uconn decided the terms presented to them did not fit their needs at the time, so a mutually agreed too contract for future scheduled games between Uconn and ND did not take place. I'm not privy to the terms presented, but I can respect that apparently Uconn could not strike a deal with ND on terms they could live with back then, when the 2 schools met.

 

[BlueMAB]

I think that ship has sailed when UConn rejected the previous scheduling deal with ND.

Not the point.

 

[uconndogs]

No problem, it was just a suggestion.

Happy to know this is acceptable to you.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Happy to know this is acceptable to you.

Sure thing.

 

[TerryD]

It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them. Uconn decided the terms presented to them did not fit their needs at the time, so a mutually agreed too contract for future scheduled games between Uconn and ND did not take place. I'm not privy to the terms presented, but I can respect that apparently Uconn could not strike a deal with ND on terms they could live with back then, when the 2 schools met.

I practice law for a living, so I am familiar with contracts and their negotiation. My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.

 

[whaler11]

I practice law for a living, so I am familiar with contracts and their negotiation. My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.

I'm glad someone understands it. I sure don't.

 

[Yawkey Way]

My only point was that ND has no incentive to schedule any such games with UConn, in my opinion. It was a minor point I raised in response to a previous post. I understand why UConn rejected the prior scheduling deal.

I don't disagree with this observation, neither of them, as a matter of fact, TerryD

 

[uconndogs]

It takes 2 parties in a contract to believe that the terms are satisfactory to both in order to make any contact go forward. It is the right of any party to a potential contract agreement to not move forward if they believe that there are not sufficient benefits to them.

That's a special post to make as a response to an attorney.

....... and to think Terry D wasted three years on law school.

 

[Yawkey Way]

That's a special post to make as a response to an attorney.

.

I didn't think it was anything " special".. we even both agreed on the point he was making. I respect his commentary on this topic so far, and the fact that he is an "attorney" is irrelevant to that courtesy I have extended to him in his replies on this thread.