TX AD on conference re-alignment

[Carl Spackler]

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

I'll argue that what Neinas has done, is more risky than Marinatto, actually trusting the word of his constituents, b/c if this deal goes through that way, 13 years? Any university leadership in today's current day and age would be stupid to sign somethign like that over and away from their university.

I think that when the contracts are actually up for signing, the first thing OFF the table, is going to be the grant of rights.

It's a nice house of cards right now though, that Neinas has built.

 

[businesslawyer]

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

I'll argue that what Neinas has done, is more risky than Marinatto, actually trusting the word of his constituents, b/c if this deal goes through that way, 13 years? Any university leadership in today's current day and age would be stupid to sign somethign like that over and away from their university.

I think that when the contracts are actually up for signing, the first thing OFF the table, is going to be the grant of rights.

It's a nice house of cards right now though, that Neinas has built.

You clearly do not understand how governments work in a democracy. Any normal governmental agency will sign something that gives them more money between now and the next election regardless of consequences after the next election. Republican or Democrat, that is simply how it works.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You clearly do not understand how governments work in a democracy. Any normal governmental agency will sign something that gives them more money between now and the next election regardless of consequences after the next election. Republic or Democrat, that is simply how it works.

Huh?

 

[TuxedoYoda]

but the 13 year GOR has not been signed according to multiple quotes

Of course.....like I said.....the 6 year GOR has been signed and the 13 year GOR will be signed any day now in conjunction with the signing of the new TV deal.

The conference pledge of rights that Neinas has, is no different than the word that Marinatto got from Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU leadership in fall 2011 that their respective universities were aligned with teh Big East moving forward.

It is COMPLETELY different.

Cuse, Pitt & WVU only were contractually obligated to pay a buyout fee and to give notice to leave the Big East.

In the Big 12, EVERY MEMBER HAS GRANTED THEIR TIER 1 AND TIER 2 RIGHTS TO THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE. Let's say that Texas decided to leave the Big 12 and go play football in the Pac 12 starting in 2013. For the first 5 years of the Longhorn's tenure in the Pac 12, all of their Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV money from the Pac 12 would be legally owned by the Big 12. Texas wouldn't see a penny of it. If Texas leaves after signing the extension, we are talking 12 years without Texas seeing TV money from the Pac 12, it would all go to the Big 12 to be divided up by its members. This is why the Big 12 has gone from being a mess to a desired destination. No athletic department would ever want to try to survive without the bulk of its TV money from football for that many years - not even one as wealthy as Texas. The Big 12 couldn't be more stable.

Spackler, you need to get the hell off this board and quit confusing people because you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[docsu]

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

 

[lv99]

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

How exactly do you think Texas would be able to get out of the contract? Do you think that the government makes special laws for them or something?

 

[Carl Spackler]

How does a contract get broken?

Ha! Conference re-alignment rookies.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Of course.....like I said.....the 6 year GOR has been signed and the 13 year GOR will be signed any day now in conjunction with the signing of the new TV deal.



It is COMPLETELY different.

Cuse, Pitt & WVU only were contractually obligated to pay a buyout fee and to give notice to leave the Big East.

In the Big 12, EVERY MEMBER HAS GRANTED THEIR TIER 1 AND TIER 2 RIGHTS TO THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE. Let's say that Texas decided to leave the Big 12 and go play football in the Pac 12 starting in 2013. For the first 5 years of the Longhorn's tenure in the Pac 12, all of their Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV money from the Pac 12 would be legally owned by the Big 12. Texas wouldn't see a penny of it. If Texas leaves after signing the extension, we are talking 12 years without Texas seeing TV money from the Pac 12, it would all go to the Big 12 to be divided up by its members. This is why the Big 12 has gone from being a mess to a desired destination. No athletic department would ever want to try to survive without the bulk of its TV money from football for that many years - not even one as wealthy as Texas. The Big 12 couldn't be more stable.

Spackler, you need to get the hell off this board and quit confusing people because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Funster posted this before, after what I wrote, maybe you missed it. You strike me as another one that bites on the media propoganda machines hook line and sinker....

unless you've got somethign that says different in the past 24 hours, this was in yesterday's Tulsa, OK Sunday papers, with the guys that would actually be signing stuff, talking.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...tid=216&articleid=20120603_29_B1_KANSAS291766

Nothing has been signed, between anyone of consequence.

 

[lv99]

How does a contract get broken?

Ha! Conference re-alignment rookies.

Perhaps you'd like to explain it to us then.

Let me guess... You're going to say Texas can get out of this the same way that West Virginia got out of the Big East.

 

[businesslawyer]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

How do you like them apples? My friend is wicked smaht.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

Nothing has been signed, between anyone of consequence.

For the love of Zeus, the 6 year Grant of Rights is signed, the extension to 13 will be signed very soon. This is the 3rd time I have posted this ( conversation between Ubben & Neinas):

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/45986/qa-big-12s-chuck-neinas-on-expansion

CN: Good question. I'd say that No. 1, the board of directors charged our expansion committee to continue to monitor the landscape of college athletics. We've just gone through a rather interesting year, and so we now have 10 good, solid members. We're very stable for a lot of reasons, and you can't ignore the fact that every one of the 10 signed a grant of rights, which means that the conference now has their television rights, so that puts us in a very secure position going forward.

DU: That was officially executed, correct?

CN: Oh, yes.

DU: When were the official documents actually signed?

CN: It was done. I can't remember -- I can't give you the date, but of course West Virginia was the last one to sign it over, but they're all in.

There you have it. The 6 year Grant of Rights has been signed by every Big 12 member. Please quit saying it hasn't be signed. Please quit saying the GOR is no different that what the Big East has/had. You are wrong. You are a ****ing idiot and you are providing misinformation to people who, ponderously, believe you.

Believing Texas (or even Oklahoma) will follow that agreement to the end is totally reasonable, and doesn't betray a laughable level of naivete in the least.

I'm not an attorney.....all I can do is base things off of what I observe. Various legal experts have said the GOR is ironclad. The Big 12 members say the Big 12 conference is exponentially more secure because of the GOR. FSU, Clemson, Louisville and several other schools have all expressed interest in the Big 12 BECAUSE of the GOR. The ACC couldn't get a GOR signed because too many of their current conference members fear it would be ironclad and won't sign it because they are unhappy with the ACC TV deal and are unsure whether or not they want to stay in the conference.

Look, if you are an attorney and can explain how Texas or any school could easily skate around the GOR, I am open to hearing how this would happen. If you aren't an attorney, I challenge you to give stronger circumstantial evidence than I gave in the previous paragraph to support your belief that a GOR can be easily circumvented.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

You could attack a 13 year grant of rights that your institution made on a number of theories. A disguised non-compete, and thus subject to tests of reasonableness put on non-competes. As punishment for a breach, which clauses are often unenforceable.

Without doing research I can't predict that these clauses will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out. I think it's a clever way to strengthen the conferences hand, but I'm not willing to swear they would be enforced against state institutions either.

"Without doing research"

There we go.....

Jesus christ, do some research or take of your lawyer hat but quit talking out of your a**.

Here is a quote from the University of Oklahoma President, who I am guessing HAS done his research, from right before the GOR was signed:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34294/big-12-headed-for-binding-tv-rights

Boren added: "That grant of rights really has teeth in it, because when you've granted your rights, it's very unlikely that a member would receive an invitation to another conference."

Here is Boren again:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/big-12big-12s-beebe-out-binding-tv-rights-on-1873832.html

Oklahoma President David Boren said all nine remaining schools — all those except for Texas A&M — have "agreed" to give a six-year grant of their first- and second-tier television rights to the Big 12 for the next six years. That means all revenue from the top television games — shown currently on networks owned by ABC/ESPN and Fox — would continue to go to the Big 12 even if a school bolts to another league.​

The six-year term runs past the next negotiating period for the top-tier contract, currently with ABC/ESPN, in a bid to keep the nine schools together for the next contract.​

"These are very strong handcuffs," Boren said Thursday night. "The grant of rights really does bind the conference together and it shows that we fully intend to stay together."​

​

Buy the way, Boren IS a lawyer, a Yale graduate and also a Rhodes Scholar.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

Also, the president of Oklahoma State, who was an attorney for 3 decades, said:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/31/3636145/ncaa-president-emmert-praises.html

“The granting of rights is a foundation for stability,” said Burns Hargis, chairman of the Big 12 Board of Directors and Oklahoma State president. “Withdrawal fees are not necessarily an impediment to leaving. But leaving one’s TV revenues behind certainly is.​

A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

 

[epark88]

How exactly do you think Texas would be able to get out of the contract? Do you think that the government makes special laws for them or something?

C'mon, it's the University of Texas at Austin. Their grads and fans practically ARE the government down there.

If they want to leave, they're leaving. Simple as that...

 

[Carl Spackler]

A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

Good, I'm glad you got that straight.

 

[TuxedoYoda]

C'mon, it's the University of Texas at Austin. Their grads and fans practically ARE the government down there.

If they want to leave, they're leaving. Simple as that...

You are impervious to facts. There is no point in having this discussion any further.

 

[businesslawyer]

Also, the president of Oklahoma State, who was an attorney for 3 decades, said:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/31/3636145/ncaa-president-emmert-praises.html



A lot of very important lawyers seem confident in the enforceability of the GOR but I am sure that businesslawyer, without doing any research, trumps them all.

LMAO. Nothing like quoting the future litigants to be convinced that their point of view is the correct one.

I made a statement of general legal principals. It was labeled as such, and I did not say the grants would be held unenforceable. If you really need to react like that to my level of statement, you need to have your first already.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LMAO. Nothing like quoting the future litigants to be convinced that their point of view is the correct one.

I made a statement of general legal principals. It was labeled as such, and I did not say the grants would be held unenforceable. If you really need to react like that to my level of statement, you need to have your first already.

You basically said they would be held unenforceable. Stand by your statement.

The non-compete comparison is weak, since these are institutions, not individuals. Court's will reverse individual non-competes all the time, and some jurisdictions simply won't enforce them at all. I do not recall a corporate non-compete ever getting reversed. Can you provide an example?

 

[businesslawyer]

You basically said they would be held unenforceable. Stand by your statement.

The non-compete comparison is weak, since these are institutions, not individuals. Court's will reverse individual non-competes all the time, and some jurisdictions simply won't enforce them at all. I do not recall a corporate non-compete ever getting reversed. Can you provide an example?

1. I most certainly did not say that. I said I hadn't looked but I did throw out some theories that, if I wanted to get out of it, I'd pursue.

2. Non-competes are most often thrown out relating to individuals. When buisnesses enter into them, they are usually in conjunction with a sale of a business and are generally (although not automatically) enforceable. When they are given outside the sale of a business, they raise antitrust concerns (as opposed to the public policy concerns when individuals are so bound). That is as good as I can do without putting work into it, and no, I could not cite you a case off the top of my head.

 

[UConnDan97]

Without doing research will or won't stand the test of litigation when someone wants out.

Nelson, Yoda, and everyone else settle down. It was clear that BizLaw said that he could not predict whether it would or wouldn't stand the test. I have outlined his words in bold for all of you to see. Gentlemen, let's all show a bit of decorum on the board, shall we? The attacks on people are going overboard. We can all debate the issue, but let's do it with UConn class...

 

[The Funster]

Neinas is no fool. He is in the business. I'm sure he told all the schools that if he wanted to be taken sertiously at the negotiating table and bring back serious money he had to do it with a united conference and not one that was ready to fall apart. So he suggests a GOR and everyone agrees and then he says, "See? We're united!" I'll wait to see if they actually go forward with a 13 year GOR. Then I'll want to see how ironclad it really is. To sign away your freedom in such a manner for 13 years seems foolhardy.

 

[CTMike]

It's not THAT foolhardy when it guarantees them all a poopton of money. But I'm definitely curious if we'll see a case where it is challenged. In the meantime, the proof is in the pudding... These GORs have to have some teeth, which is precisely why no members of the BE or ACC want one. Everyone in those conferences is searching for a new home. Not so in the Big12.

Basically, if the GORs weren't worth the paper they are written on, why havent members of the BE gone ahead and done so just to present a unified front?

 

[TuxedoYoda]

It's not THAT foolhardy when it guarantees them all a poopton of money. But I'm definitely curious if we'll see a case where it is challenged. In the meantime, the proof is in the pudding... These GORs have to have some teeth, which is precisely why no members of the BE or ACC want one. Everyone in those conferences is searching for a new home. Not so in the Big12.

Basically, if the GORs weren't worth the paper they are written on, why havent members of the BE gone ahead and done so just to present a unified front?

Everything you say makes complete sense so I fully expect business lawyer to say, while he hasn't done any research, everything you said is laughable.

 

[epark88]

Everything you say makes complete sense so I fully expect business lawyer to say, while he hasn't done any research, everything you said is laughable.

 

[lv99]

Businesslawyer also said that there was no way West Virginia would be allowed to leave...

Here's the reason why a GOR is bullet-proof and why a waiting period is not. You can break any contract you want. You just have to pay damages. This is done all the time in business. Let's say you are manufacturing something, and the raw materials suddenly jump in price. The company will then have to make a decision. Do we want to break our contract, or deliver the finished product and take a loss? It's just a business decision and neither party will be upset with the outcome. Contracts are broken all the time and if you do so, you just pay damages, and no one is upset.

The Big East was lucky to get $20 million for letting West Virginia go early. Why? Because the Big East, as it turned out later, was unwilling to even pay $10 million to get Boise State for next year. If that information had been known beforehand, it would have rightly killed the Big East's case that West Virginia shouldn't be allowed to leave early. It turned out it wasn't even worth $10 million to the Big East to get a replacement team. Both parties most likely both knew this, which is why insiders were reporting there wouldn't be any legal trouble for a Big East team to leave early, as long as they were willing to pay. Lawyers advised both Louisville and West Virginia to go ahead and leave if they got invited and just pay later.

A GOR is bullet-proof because the damages are obvious. It's the value of the contract. In fact, a school couldn't leave and take their rights with them. They would already be owned by the conference. The school would have to sue to get them back.

The Big 10, Pac 12, and Big 12 all have GOR's. This is just the way it's done now. Turns out when you're getting these hugh TV contracts, they kind of like to make sure teams won't be leaving, and they will actually be getting what they paid for...

 

[huskypantz]

Here's the reason why a GOR is bullet-proof and why a waiting period is not. You can break any contract you want. You just have to pay damages. This is done all the time in business. Let's say you are manufacturing something, and the raw materials suddenly jump in price. The company will then have to make a decision. Do we want to break our contract, or deliver the finished product and take a loss? It's just a business decision and neither party will be upset with tA GOR is bullet-proof because the damages are obvious. It's the value of the contract. In fact, a school couldn't leave and take their rights with them. They would already be owned by the conference. The school would have to sue to get them back.

Who ultimately owns the media rights to a Big 12 conference game between two schools? Is it the home team - or is it the conference?

 

[CL82]

Nelson, Yoda, and everyone else settle down. It was clear that BizLaw said that he could not predict whether it would or wouldn't stand the test. I have outlined his words in bold for all of you to see. Gentlemen, let's all show a bit of decorum on the board, shall we? The attacks on people are going overboard. We can all debate the issue, but let's do it with UConn class...

Aw heck, it the off-season and I'm bored.
Gentlemen have at each other!
(We should use the cesspool board to run book on it.)

 

[UConnDan97]

Aw heck, it the off-season and I'm bored.
Gentlemen have at each other!
(We should use the cesspool board to run book on it.)

That's true. The last time I had "UConn class," it was in 1997 and it was Sociology 107W. It didn't teach me much about being "social", so have at it, people!!

 

[UCFBfan]

That's true. The last time I had "UConn class," it was in 1997 and it was Sociology 107W. It didn't teach me much about being "social", so have at it, people!!

Yuck! You took Soc 107 as a writing class. Ugh! Then again I took an English class as my W and that may have been worse.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2