brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

I remember a time when the details surrounding conference realignment were interesting.

I guess all things taper-off eventually.

Of course lets assume I'm right that the right of first refusal should apply to both I don't think it's as big a problem for the C7 as it is for the Big East. The C7 doesn't appear to want to split it's deal up among multiple networks, and probably wouldn't have any issue with the amount of content being the same in the new Fox deal as it was in the old ESPN deal. Also if matched by ESPN the C7 would still get whatever Fox was willing to pay them and the same number of games on TV.

(02-12-2013 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

Interesting observation. I would think the answer is yes--just as in a divorce both parties are subject to the liens that they both signed (say for instance a mortgage or business loan). I'll add one more point. If in fact, Fox actually contacted the C-7 prior to thier decision to leave the conferece as Frank has indicated, they could have very well been speaking during the ESPN exclusive negotiation period (Septemeber and October of 2012). I believe ESPN has already sued Fox once before over this exact issue. Just ask CUSA how well that worked out for them.

(02-12-2013 11:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Of course lets assume I'm right that the right of first refusal should apply to both I don't think it's as big a problem for the C7 as it is for the Big East. The C7 doesn't appear to want to split it's deal up among multiple networks, and probably wouldn't have any issue with the amount of content being the same in the new Fox deal as it was in the old ESPN deal. Also if matched by ESPN the C7 would still get whatever Fox was willing to pay them and the same number of games on TV.

true. Only think would be would fox be wanting to set the market if you will?

And- black helicopter time- I know McMurphy didn't bring up in his column this point. I wonder if ESPN wants the C7 to not think of this and spring at the end perhaps?

I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

(02-12-2013 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

Interesting observation. I would think the answer is yes--just as in a divorce both parties are subject to the liens that they both signed (say for instance a mortgage or business loan). I'll add one more point. If in fact, Fox actually contacted the C-7 prior to thier decision to leave the conferece as Frank has indicated, they could have very well been speaking during the ESPN exclusive negotiation period (Septemeber and October of 2012). I believe ESPN has already sued Fox once before over this exact issue. Just ask CUSA how well that worked out for them.

Don't believe it was such a terrible outcome. It was settled by allowing C-USA to keep its new contracts but leaving the FB championship with ESPN.

(02-12-2013 11:48 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

Interesting observation. I would think the answer is yes--just as in a divorce both parties are subject to the liens that they both signed (say for instance a mortgage or business loan). I'll add one more point. If in fact, Fox actually contacted the C-7 prior to thier decision to leave the conferece as Frank has indicated, they could have very well been speaking during the ESPN exclusive negotiation period (Septemeber and October of 2012). I believe ESPN has already sued Fox once before over this exact issue. Just ask CUSA how well that worked out for them.

Don't believe it was such a terrible outcome. It was settled by allowing C-USA to keep its new contracts but leaving the FB championship with ESPN.

but, didn't that then not allow C-USA to monetize it's championship game?

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

true, but the basketball side they could match. All I'm saying is could easily see ESPN try this.

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

The C7's big point about what's going on is that they aren't leaving, they are divorcing and splitting assets (and liabilities). I don't see any legal leg to stand on where you take assets and the name and then say you have no liability to the provisions of a TV deal signed under that name. No they couldn't meet everything in that deal because they don't offer football, but I don't think that's enough to say they are completely free from the negative aspects of that deal, especially if they are getting the name.

(02-12-2013 11:48 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

Interesting observation. I would think the answer is yes--just as in a divorce both parties are subject to the liens that they both signed (say for instance a mortgage or business loan). I'll add one more point. If in fact, Fox actually contacted the C-7 prior to thier decision to leave the conferece as Frank has indicated, they could have very well been speaking during the ESPN exclusive negotiation period (Septemeber and October of 2012). I believe ESPN has already sued Fox once before over this exact issue. Just ask CUSA how well that worked out for them.

Don't believe it was such a terrible outcome. It was settled by allowing C-USA to keep its new contracts but leaving the FB championship with ESPN.

My understanding is that ESPN gets that game for free as damages.

(02-12-2013 11:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

The C7's big point about what's going on is that they aren't leaving, they are divorcing and splitting assets (and liabilities). I don't see any legal leg to stand on where you take assets and the name and then say you have no liability to the provisions of a TV deal signed under that name. No they couldn't meet everything in that deal because they don't offer football, but I don't think that's enough to say they are completely free from the negative aspects of that deal, especially if they are getting the name.

It's possible we'd be liable for the basketball section. So if ESPN wants to match the Fox offer and show 45 C-7 games on ESPN/2 and 30 on ESPN-U, I guess we'll just have to bear our fate with resolution and good grace.

Or we could do a victory hula dance. Either way.

(02-12-2013 11:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:48 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:40 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  brought this up on the BE and C7 boards but....

What if the football schools had beat the C7 to the punch and invoked the pre-nup?

Would at that point C7 been subject to the right of first refusal to ESPN?

Bonds brought up a point that shouldn't both be subject to the right of first refusal since it's a divorce. Initially I dismissed out of hand, but the more I think about it, the more I coudl see ESPN taking to court, and I could see ESPN winning.

Interesting observation. I would think the answer is yes--just as in a divorce both parties are subject to the liens that they both signed (say for instance a mortgage or business loan). I'll add one more point. If in fact, Fox actually contacted the C-7 prior to thier decision to leave the conferece as Frank has indicated, they could have very well been speaking during the ESPN exclusive negotiation period (Septemeber and October of 2012). I believe ESPN has already sued Fox once before over this exact issue. Just ask CUSA how well that worked out for them.

Don't believe it was such a terrible outcome. It was settled by allowing C-USA to keep its new contracts but leaving the FB championship with ESPN.

My understanding is that ESPN gets that game for free as damages.

That's true, and I don't think it cost CUSA anything...more likely it cost Fox by not having that game.

As we can see with CUSA or the ACC or now the nBE, ESPN tailored its contracts with the ability to control the marketplace somewhat. CUSA wanted out because it wanted to stop playing Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday games...now those are MAC or Sun Belt games. One would think the nBE (a lot of old CUSA programs) are going to go down the same road and not try to sign with ESPN again. Best case for the nBE would be to be able to break up the contract, but we'll have to see what ESPN decides to do with matching the offer or not...a lot still to be decided, its really only a starting point.

As to whether the C7 are tied to the existing contract....it may have something to do with the basketball contract being over next month but there is still another football season to go...maybe they are on different time frames.

The right of first refusal is less a big deal than most assume. All it means is ESPN can match prices others offer. ESPN is never going to offer the Catholic 7 what FOX is so it wouldn't be relevent there even if it applied. For the football schools, if ESPN matches or exceeds what FOX/NBC/CBS offer, the conference will probably be happy anyway as exposure is still likely be greater with ESPN. The only time we get an issue is if NBC (or someone else) and ESPN are willing to make the exact same offer (and no more) and the Big East wants to go with NBC instead.

Example: If NBC offers x dollars for the 2nd tier rights, all this deal does is let ESPN match. NBC can then still offer more. The only way this is relevent is if NBC isn't willling to offer more than ESPN in the first place (in which case, going that route isn't even that desirable).

(02-12-2013 12:24 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The right of first refusal is less a big deal than most assume. All it means is ESPN can match prices others offer. ESPN is never going to offer the Catholic 7 what FOX is so it wouldn't be relevent there even if it applied. For the football schools, if ESPN matches or exceeds what FOX/NBC/CBS offer, the conference will probably be happy anyway as exposure is still likely be greater with ESPN. The only time we get an issue is if NBC (or someone else) and ESPN are willing to make the exact same offer (and no more) and the Big East wants to go with NBC instead.

I'd say it's very possible ESPN could match the fox bid for the C7. Would eliminate a huge domino for fox quite frankly. Also would protect them should the Big Ten leave in 2016.

(02-12-2013 12:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

The C7's big point about what's going on is that they aren't leaving, they are divorcing and splitting assets (and liabilities). I don't see any legal leg to stand on where you take assets and the name and then say you have no liability to the provisions of a TV deal signed under that name. No they couldn't meet everything in that deal because they don't offer football, but I don't think that's enough to say they are completely free from the negative aspects of that deal, especially if they are getting the name.

It's possible we'd be liable for the basketball section. So if ESPN wants to match the Fox offer and show 45 C-7 games on ESPN/2 and 30 on ESPN-U, I guess we'll just have to bear our fate with resolution and good grace.

Or we could do a victory hula dance. Either way.

Well the other issue is Frank claims that Fox has been talking to the C7 for a long time now and planning this. At what point in time did Fox approach the C7? Was it during the exclusive negotiating period with ESPN? If so doesn't that make the C7 in breach of contract with ESPN since they are still claiming to be the Big East?

(02-12-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

The C7's big point about what's going on is that they aren't leaving, they are divorcing and splitting assets (and liabilities). I don't see any legal leg to stand on where you take assets and the name and then say you have no liability to the provisions of a TV deal signed under that name. No they couldn't meet everything in that deal because they don't offer football, but I don't think that's enough to say they are completely free from the negative aspects of that deal, especially if they are getting the name.

It's possible we'd be liable for the basketball section. So if ESPN wants to match the Fox offer and show 45 C-7 games on ESPN/2 and 30 on ESPN-U, I guess we'll just have to bear our fate with resolution and good grace.

Or we could do a victory hula dance. Either way.

Well the other issue is Frank claims that Fox has been talking to the C7 for a long time now and planning this. At what point in time did Fox approach the C7? Was it during the exclusive negotiating period with ESPN? If so doesn't that make the C7 in breach of contract with ESPN since they are still claiming to be the Big East?

Our claim to the name wouldn't enter into it--if it was during the exclusive negotiating period, then we'd be in breach. We were Big East members at that time, we were operating under the Big East contract. I don't have any reason to believe from what McMurphy tweeted Frank that Fox or the C-7 were that stupid, though, that they couldn't wait a few weeks to avoid a lawsuit.

(02-12-2013 12:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the deal could ever follow the C7 because the C7 could never fulfill an essential of the contract. Providing football games for telecast.

The C7's big point about what's going on is that they aren't leaving, they are divorcing and splitting assets (and liabilities). I don't see any legal leg to stand on where you take assets and the name and then say you have no liability to the provisions of a TV deal signed under that name. No they couldn't meet everything in that deal because they don't offer football, but I don't think that's enough to say they are completely free from the negative aspects of that deal, especially if they are getting the name.

It's possible we'd be liable for the basketball section. So if ESPN wants to match the Fox offer and show 45 C-7 games on ESPN/2 and 30 on ESPN-U, I guess we'll just have to bear our fate with resolution and good grace.

Or we could do a victory hula dance. Either way.

Well the other issue is Frank claims that Fox has been talking to the C7 for a long time now and planning this. At what point in time did Fox approach the C7? Was it during the exclusive negotiating period with ESPN? If so doesn't that make the C7 in breach of contract with ESPN since they are still claiming to be the Big East?

Our claim to the name wouldn't enter into it--if it was during the exclusive negotiating period, then we'd be in breach. We were Big East members at that time, we were operating under the Big East contract. I don't have any reason to believe from what McMurphy tweeted Frank that Fox or the C-7 were that stupid, though, that they couldn't wait a few weeks to avoid a lawsuit.

Somehow I think they are capable of anything. Hasn't realignment taught you that?

(02-12-2013 12:53 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Somehow I think they are capable of anything. Hasn't realignment taught you that?

I learned that my guys weren't morons when the pre-nup surfaced.

(02-12-2013 01:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:53 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Somehow I think they are capable of anything. Hasn't realignment taught you that?

I learned that my guys weren't morons when the pre-nup surfaced.

No one said they were morons. I absolutely believe the opposite to be true. Greed however is a human instinct. So is survival, so I guess that balances things out. Good luck to you guys. I hope the C-7 is successful.