Are you suggesting the State of Connecticut gives zero tax breaks to ESPN and has no influence?
Wrong. The GOR is always tied to the media contract. It's why they are the same length. But go on believing your nonsense.
Are you just being contrary? The GOR is to the conference. The media contract relies upon it. But they aren’t tied. Where did you get your law degree? Mine came from Green Hall in Lawrence.
From my non-lawyering perspective, we don't "know much about them" because we know everything about them. It's a straightforward and simple contract and it hasn't been challenged or tested because it's so straightforward no one has bothered to try and wiggle out of it.
ESPN took us to the cleaners years ago with financial incentives and tax breaks and nobody bothered to make sure UConn was properly taken care of in realignment.
The GOR is signed to the conference, but they are all signed in accordance to media deals. So that effect is the same. Like I said, go ahead and believe the nonsense you typed.
It’s all about each school licensing their rights to sports events to the conference as a group to allow the collective licensing of a package of games to media networks. The whole enchilada is turned over to the conference in exchange for teams getting a share of negotiated license fees. GOR is a grant of a conference member’s rights to the conference. This includes rights to exclusive TV, radio broadcast in the performances, recording, replay, syndication, sub licensing (ie second tier games to second tier networks and online platforms), rights to derivative works (I.e. reuse clips and recompositions, etc.). Usually the school retains rights to its logos, designs, name etc for merchandising, licensed seat revenue, concessions, etc. There is nothing magical going on.
As the white outfitted cowboy gunslinging dude in the vids says in the bar as he is about to plug a bad guy, "Might I suggest that you need a better class of friends". Although born in Texas, I have lived almost my entire life in the northeast and literally have never heard those kinds of remarks. And statistically if that was a factor, it would have been analysed to death a long ago. Were you being serious or facetious?
The schools enter into the GOR with the conference, not the network. That gives the conference the rights to the school’s home games for a period of time, whether the school remains in the conference or not. The conference then assigns those rights to the network as part of their TV deal (if you’re giving rights to one network), or assigns pieces of those rights to a number of networks.
Here is the issue: one is allowed to breach a contract as long as you’re willing to pay the other side’s damages. The issue on the GOR that hasn’t been tested in the courts, and is not as straightforward as you suggest, is whether the GOR is a transfer of property, such that there is nothing for a school to breach going forward — the rights are already gone — or is a promise to allow someone to televise its home games in the future, in which case it is a contract subject to future performance that the school can breach and be subject to damages.
People are being fed this victimization crap on the internet. And like to believe it for reasons I can’t fathom.
Exactly. I’ve been negotiating IP licensing contracts since the 90s. These are structured enough like that make then very risky to challenge. Intellectual Property conveyances are going to be different than a mere promise to perform.
Throwing us off the scent by arguing with yourself, clever
Marvel. Sony only owns the movie rights.
