whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,374
- Reaction Score
- 68,261
A GOR is not an exit fee. It isn't "enforced." The conference legally owns the TV rights for a school.
Yes in theory. No one knows if it works.
A GOR is not an exit fee. It isn't "enforced." The conference legally owns the TV rights for a school.
A GOR is not an exit fee. It isn't "enforced." The conference legally owns the TV rights for a school.
Like any clause of a contract, though, it has limitations on the scope and duration. If the clause were deemed unreasonable, it could be struck down in court, meaning the entire Grant of Rights agreement is inapplicable.
The lawyers from the Big 10, Big 12, & Pac 12 all think they are ironclad. On Google, you can easily find university presidents (who are lawyers) from these conferences talking publicly about how they believe GORs are ironclad. The lawyers from the networks with contingent deals think they are ironclad. The football schools in the ACC are afraid to sign a GOR with the ACC because they are afraid it is ironclad.
At the very least, you guys have to admit that a GOR seems to be a superior tool for conference stability than an exit fee.
A decade ago the exit provisions were ironclad.
The lawyers from the Big 10, Big 12, & Pac 12 all think they are ironclad. On Google, you can easily find university presidents (who are lawyers) from these conferences talking publicly about how they believe GORs are ironclad. The lawyers from the networks with contingent deals think they are ironclad. The football schools in the ACC are afraid to sign a GOR with the ACC because they are afraid it is ironclad.
At the very least, you guys have to admit that a GOR seems to be a superior tool for conference stability than an exit fee.
Very little in law is "ironclad." There are exceptions to everything and all it takes is one judge to have a different opinion of an agreement to be tossed out in court.
Also, if the Big Ten thought it was 'ironclad' there'd be no rumors emanating from Big Ten country about Kansas. There'd be no reason to look at them if it were truly 'ironclad.'
Regardless of what you think about a Grant of Rights, the Big Ten seems to think if it decides it wants Kansas, the GOR won't be a total stumbling block to doing so.
For the record, Grant of Rights agreements are challenged often in the music industry as they are standard in recording contracts. And many artists have won lawsuits challenging them depending on the situation. They're not ironclad. Sometimes they hold up, sometimes they don't.
The Big 10 can add Kansas and potentially work around the "Grant of Rights" issue. A grant of rights does not prevent a school from moving. It only prevents a school from bringing its TV rights with them. So if Kansas left, all the Kansas games would remain property of the Big 12 for next dozen or so years. Or at least the rights Kansas granted to the Big 12. Remember that in the Big 12, that's only Tier 1 and Tier 2 television rights. Kansas retains its rights to Tier 3 sports.
If Kansas went Big 10, it could provide no Tier 1 or Tier 2 inventory to the Big 10 until its grant of rights expire or the grant of rights was bought out. However, it could grant Tier 3 rights (or buy out whomever owns them) to the conference. The Big 10 could then take the Tier 3 stuff and stick it on their network. While the main content providers might not likely pay the Big 10 any more money (since they'd get no more content than they already have), the Big 10 Network can increase its profits. The BTN would have Tier 3 Kansas content, not to mention all Kansas road games playing other Big 10 teams. The thought is that people in Kansas would still want to see these games and the Big 10 could still charge higher carriage rates to people in Kansas to keep the channel. So in reality, you'd only be missing around 6 football games and around 12-15 basketball games per year. Those games are still worth good money, but aren't the end all, be all of television content. The bottom line is that the grant of rights could be worked around if you really wanted it to happen.
I just don't think the Big 10 cares that much about Kansas to bother doing that.
I'm well aware that it doesn't prevent a team from moving. That's my point... the Big Ten wouldn't have interest in Kansas if it didn't think it could get around not having the television rights of the Jayhawks. Otherwise, no team would be worth the value of acquiring them in the short term.
I'm sure OU & OSU can't wait to go the next 13 years without a penny in TV revenue. You certainly have this all figured out.
My point is that you don't even need to get into the legal issues. The Grant of rights can be completely enforceable (and there's no reason it really shouldn't be) and The Big 10 could still make money off Kansas to make it wortwhile.
The lawyers from the Big 10, Big 12, & Pac 12 all think they are ironclad. On Google, you can easily find university presidents (who are lawyers) from these conferences talking publicly about how they believe GORs are ironclad. The lawyers from the networks with contingent deals think they are ironclad. The football schools in the ACC are afraid to sign a GOR with the ACC because they are afraid it is ironclad.
At the very least, you guys have to admit that a GOR seems to be a superior tool for conference stability than an exit fee.
I belive that the $50M came up for a vote at the meeting, and had not been previously proposed. Let's say you are part of a homeowners association, and they have a normal meeting where there is a suprise vote, with no warning, to say that each homeowner must put up $200k to build a community center and pool. The requirement is effective immediately, there is no delay in implementation to allow you to manuever. Your options: move out of your house immediately or pay. Enforce it? Might that be unconscionable? Might it also be a punitive amount with no basis in fact? Liquidated damages are reduced all the time.
I think Maryland has tons of arguaments here. They will definitely pay something. I also think that they will definitely pay less than $50M. I think one of the best arguments that this is unconsionable is that it took effect immediately, so that none of the schools had any option but to accept it. Maryland could not realistically withdraw from the ACC at that moment, which was the only choice given them.
A Grant of Rights agreement is completely enforceable... until it's not.
There are probably hundreds of cases over the years where GOR agreements were thrown out in the recording industry over various disputes. Sometimes they're enforceable... sometimes they ain't. Depends on the circumstances, the jurisdiction, etc.
In general, yes, they're enforceable. But it wouldn't be the first time they've been tossed out and if it ever happens in conference alignment, it won't be the last.
You might be right about making money off Kansas regardless of the TV rights (after all, they wouldn't likely need to join until 2017, which would knock off about 5 years of those 13 years of the GOR). It's probably worth it long term if it means Texas, Missouri and others also joined. That said, I don't believe the Big Ten is eyeing Kansas with the acquiescing of not having any TV money for nearly a decade.