???
Hypothetically, if in an upcoming season had six, not seven games scheduled at the Rent and due to our proximity to the venue and that we were fortunate to have an open date that coincides with what they had planned, if the operators of Yankee Stadium were p to stage a game similar to what has happened at Jerry World or what will occur at Bristol Raceway, do you really believe that the State could step in and stop it?
1. I wrote "'neutral site' home game" in reference to the Yale Bowl. You introduced Gillette, the Meadowlands, and now Yankee Stadium III.
2. I would wager that the Yankees would not make Yankee Stadium available to any event outside of New York Yankees baseball until at least the second weekend of November (a la Army). The way P5 scheduling is headed, most "name" teams" are well into their Conference schedule by then and, barring a Hurricane Sandy event, won't make time for a G5 team, especially one that they could lose to, which I believe UConn will be by that point.
3. I think the State may raise a concern (weak as it may be) with any venue within New England and/or the Tri-State Area, unless the other team can conceivably be named "host" (i.e. the game with Army, a hypothetical game with BC at Gillette, Rutgers at the Meadowlands, etc.).
Why would we be able to schedule a true road game (after having six home and five road games already on our schedule) but not a neutral site game? What if we called the game that was within 100 miles of the Rent a road game? What if we were deemed the home team in a game play 1,500 miles away at a neutral field?
See
1. above. I believe the terms of the agreement with the context of the particular season would frame the state's argument...again, as weak as it may be, but just strong enough to get an injunction.
As legal action can be initiated over anything I imagine that the possibility does exist that the state could attempt to bring an injunction but other than being ridiculously petty I do not see why they would and if they did it would bring quite a few laughs from the court before being dismissed.
Given what huskymedic posted above, I'd imagine it'd be worked out somehow, but the state would have to get theirs in the end. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances and with 100s of $1,000s at stake, one party does not typically let the other out of a binding deal without some sort of consideration. Given Rentschler is a venue in the red (on paper), I would also expect that consideration to equal in the neighborhood of rent plus any anticipated loss by Ovations Company, LAZ parking, and any other 3rd party beneficiary to the term of, "
UConn agrees to play all of its home football games at Rentschler Field stadium during the term of the lease..." Of Course this is just my $0.02 as an accountant (meaning I have just enough knowledge in this area to be dangerous). I'll certainly defer to a practicing contract law attorney.