(11-02-2013 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 07:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 07:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 06:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 06:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  See, now here you go again. No you weren't right in a sense of "pure contractual law". You thought that the conference could control and maintain the school in the conference through a GoR agreement. All the conference controls through the GoR agreement is the broadcasting rights and they only maintain that by making the payments specified.

What you think you were correcting is beyond me, you went after a term I used and not the point I was making. Yes, legally speaking there is no "voiding" going on. That generally happens when something in a contract is found to be illegal.

Everything else I am having to explain to you in detail.

YES, the GoR IS ugly. As long as the Big 12 maintains the payments to these schools whether or not they are in or out of the conference, then there is no problem because the conference based it's contract with Fox off of the ability to deliver the broadcasting of these teams. The Big 12 does not create those games, therefore they do not own them. The Universities do. The conference is simply negotiating the best price possible between the Network and the Schools. The conference owns nothing that it does not pay for. The conference cannot just flip the bird at a departing school and say that they wont pay them since they are leaving. Payment must be made.

It doesn't get any more "pure" and "simple" than that.

As to your final statement about an individual school being a greater barrier than the conference itself, you will have to be more detailed as to your meaning otherwise I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

As you've presented it, there are two ways of creating these contracts; there is the bilateral contract between a conference and an individual member school and a multilateral contract between the conference and all of its member schools.

If operating off of the multilateral theory then the biggest hurdles to realignment is other member schools, since they have actual damages and could make any moving very ugly. That is, if anybody cared to push that hard.

In the bilateral mold the school is at the mercy of the conference payments. Still, how that shakes out seems to be dependent on particulars nobody has mentioned. If the Conference holds the broadcasting rights contractually then that school moving anywhere becomes difficult based on wether or not the Conference will continue to perform, pay. If so, then the school essentially can't regain its control over those without a breach. However, you mentioned some other stuff that would seem to turn that on its head. If the conference is just 'leasing' the rights then I'd imagine there is a termination clause and if so then a conference has absolutely zero to say in the event of realignment.

Ahhhh, alright now I get what you are saying. Yeah if one school left it would absolutely set off the kind of ugly situation you are speaking of.

From what I saw of a copy of the Big 12 GoR that was provided due to an FOIA request, it is a multilateral contract with every University present on it and not a series of bilateral contracts between each individual school and conference. I definitely agree with you that such a multilateral contract makes the situation much uglier should complications arise.

In regard to the conference being willing to continue paying a school that departs. I suppose they could stop...and cause a much bigger problem to happen.

I would say the conference has much less control over the entire situation in comparison to what most folks like to believe. Somehow on the internet these GoR agreements have been turned into more than what they really are.

All the Big 12 GoR was designed to do was to allow the Big 12 to say to Fox that Fox would still be able to broadcast these games even if one or more of the member schools ended up going to the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. Once it became evident that a move to the PAC wasn't going to happen, then all of a sudden Fox had to protect it's broadcasting interests in regards to schools such as Texas and Oklahoma.

So poaching members from the Big12 would not be fun, right?

In terms of realignment and the Big12:

I could conceive of a situation where Oklahoma, Baylor, and such would rather pay Texas their piece and rake in the cash associated with Texas v Michigan, Texas v Ohio State and such since those are better money makers than Texas v Ok. State. That is if the numbers are right.

They could also use such a setup to simply prevent Kansas from moving under the same scheme.

Again, all of that assuming Texas could afford any loss and Kansas couldn't.

When do all of those contracts expire?

Alright, now you are going in deep. I get what you are saying with the Texas thing. All I will say to that is that it is possible I suppose.

In regards to preventing a school like Kansas leaving? I don't know how such prevention is possible. Are you saying the other schools could sue Kansas? I don't see how that would be possible.

If the contract were worded like we spoke about earlier then I'd say the other member schools could pretty much block a move by threatening some expensive damage claims. I suppose they'd only be interested in doing that if Kansas were somehow the linchpin in a situation that would leave Baylor, Tech, and the rest of the smaller fish out in the cold.

In the grander context, I think it's safe to say the Big12 isn't defenseless against an aggressive expansion bid by another conference.

So, what's the deal with the ACC and their arrangement?

(11-02-2013 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 07:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 07:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 06:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  As you've presented it, there are two ways of creating these contracts; there is the bilateral contract between a conference and an individual member school and a multilateral contract between the conference and all of its member schools.

If operating off of the multilateral theory then the biggest hurdles to realignment is other member schools, since they have actual damages and could make any moving very ugly. That is, if anybody cared to push that hard.

In the bilateral mold the school is at the mercy of the conference payments. Still, how that shakes out seems to be dependent on particulars nobody has mentioned. If the Conference holds the broadcasting rights contractually then that school moving anywhere becomes difficult based on wether or not the Conference will continue to perform, pay. If so, then the school essentially can't regain its control over those without a breach. However, you mentioned some other stuff that would seem to turn that on its head. If the conference is just 'leasing' the rights then I'd imagine there is a termination clause and if so then a conference has absolutely zero to say in the event of realignment.

Ahhhh, alright now I get what you are saying. Yeah if one school left it would absolutely set off the kind of ugly situation you are speaking of.

From what I saw of a copy of the Big 12 GoR that was provided due to an FOIA request, it is a multilateral contract with every University present on it and not a series of bilateral contracts between each individual school and conference. I definitely agree with you that such a multilateral contract makes the situation much uglier should complications arise.

In regard to the conference being willing to continue paying a school that departs. I suppose they could stop...and cause a much bigger problem to happen.

I would say the conference has much less control over the entire situation in comparison to what most folks like to believe. Somehow on the internet these GoR agreements have been turned into more than what they really are.

All the Big 12 GoR was designed to do was to allow the Big 12 to say to Fox that Fox would still be able to broadcast these games even if one or more of the member schools ended up going to the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. Once it became evident that a move to the PAC wasn't going to happen, then all of a sudden Fox had to protect it's broadcasting interests in regards to schools such as Texas and Oklahoma.

So poaching members from the Big12 would not be fun, right?

In terms of realignment and the Big12:

I could conceive of a situation where Oklahoma, Baylor, and such would rather pay Texas their piece and rake in the cash associated with Texas v Michigan, Texas v Ohio State and such since those are better money makers than Texas v Ok. State. That is if the numbers are right.

They could also use such a setup to simply prevent Kansas from moving under the same scheme.

Again, all of that assuming Texas could afford any loss and Kansas couldn't.

When do all of those contracts expire?

Alright, now you are going in deep. I get what you are saying with the Texas thing. All I will say to that is that it is possible I suppose.

In regards to preventing a school like Kansas leaving? I don't know how such prevention is possible. Are you saying the other schools could sue Kansas? I don't see how that would be possible.

If the contract were worded like we spoke about earlier then I'd say the other member schools could pretty much block a move by threatening some expensive damage claims. I suppose they'd only be interested in doing that if Kansas were somehow the linchpin in a situation that would leave Baylor, Tech, and the rest of the smaller fish out in the cold.

In the grander context, I think it's safe to say the Big12 isn't defenseless against an aggressive expansion bid by another conference.

So, what's the deal with the ACC and their arrangement?

Ahh, well I would agree to some extent about possibilities of litigation happening if certain schools left the Big 12 in a hole. I have actually stated similar in some of my theories as to why I say it is very likely all or nothing in terms of schools leaving the Big 12 for other conferences. For that to happen, I do believe that it would fall upon the shoulders of ESPN and to a lesser extent FOX, to make it happen.


As to the ACC? Well it is similar. With the Big 12, when it became evident that no move to the PAC would happen, FOX then had to protect their interests because their strongest broadcasting rights stem from the PAC and then the Big 12. They would have profited in terms of broadcasting ability if the likes of Texas and Oklahoma went to the PAC. Every other possibility is bad for them.


How that pertains to the ACC's issue? We have seen enough internal smoke at UNC thanks to some FOIA requests about emails. The ACC is ESPN's basketball Gem. The threat was that some of these schools might want to move to the Big Ten in a significantly large group. That would have been curtains for the ACC as ESPN knows it. The East Coast is basketball crazy and ESPN helped the ACC form itself into the brand of choice. Just look at how much ACC basketball ESPN broadcasts during the season. Departures would have been a huge hit to ESPN advertising revenue during basketball season.

So what ESPN did was counter the lure of Big Ten Network money and the ability of the Big Ten to negotiate one network versus the other. They told the ACC that they would either start them an ACC Network if it was found to be viable or they would give the ACC a 28 million dollar boost to their contract, which comes down to 2 million more a school.

There are some of us that are of the belief that ESPN already knew internally that there wasn't ever going to be an ACC Network but they told the ACC that as a way to give those schools something to tell people who were pushing them to move.

So, the ACC school's signed a GoR for this. They did a grant of rights. What is questionable though is whether or not that GoR has wording in it about it's viability should there never be an ACC Network. I have seen no FOIA copies of this GoR, the ACC has done a wonderful job of keeping wraps on it.

(11-02-2013 07:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, the ACC school's signed a GoR for this. They did a grant of rights. What is questionable though is whether or not that GoR has wording in it about it's viability should there never be an ACC Network. I have seen no FOIA copies of this GoR, the ACC has done a wonderful job of keeping wraps on it.

Grants of Rights are significant barriers to exit for a school that has signed one because they involve signing over rights. Contrary to your contention, these rights are not inalienable. A school can freely sign away the right to televise its games, and that is what a GoR entails: The teams that sign have signed over to their conference the right to televise their games. In return, they receive a slice of that revenue for as long as they remain in the conference.

For example, if Virginia were to try and leave the ACC for the B1G next year, the ACC would remain the owner of Virginia's home game TV rights through 2026-2027. That's because a school only owns its home game rights. Thus, Virginia would be able to take one set of rights with them to the B1G free and clear, namely their road game rights against B1G opponents, since those rights would be controlled by the B1G. But of course not their road game rights against OOC opponents, because those opponents would own those rights. So imagine if Virginia's 2015 football schedule as a member of the B1G looked like this (and yes I know I'm ignoring B1G division structure but that's irrelevant):

vs East Carolina
vs the Citadel
vs Maryland Eastern-Shore
@ Auburn
@Indiana
vs Michigan
@ Penn State
vs Nebraska
@ Michigan State
vs Ohio State
@ Iowa
vs Purdue

... the B1G would control, free and clear, the rights to those 4 Virginia road games versus B1G opponents. But the rights to the 7 home games would be retained by the ACC (and the SEC would own the rights to the road game at Auburn).

And since the ACC signed over its rights to a TV network, that TV network (or any networks it sub-licenses to) would have the right to air those 7 Virginia home games, and they would pay the ACC for those games. Virginia, since it was no longer a member of the ACC, would no longer get its conference share of that TV revenue. In effect, it would play those games for free, from a TV revenue point of view, through 2026-2027.

The only recourse for Virginia and/or the B1G would be to try and negotiate a settlement with the ACC for those rights, but since the ACC stands to make about $15 million per year for 13 years on that GoR, that settlement would be massive, much more than the $50 million exit fee Maryland and the ACC are currently wrangling over.

That would make a move to the B1G very unprofitable for Virginia.

Also, make no mistake: The Big 12 and ACC "grant of rights" agreements were made precisely with the goal of binding schools to the conference for the stated period of time, in order to extract more money from media partners who are willing to pay more in order to guarantee knowing what they are buying. This was absolutely no secret to anybody. The ACC was threatened with dissolution due to further raids by the B1G and maybe the SEC or Big 12, and the purpose of the GoR was to stop the threat of membership loss by both tying teams to the conference financially in return for their making more money as a result of signing the GoR. THAT is the "consideration" that you keep mentioning as being absent should a team try to leave. Virginia signed over its rights because it realized that without a GOR, the ACC (and hence Virginia) would get significantly less media money than with one. Of course the downside of signing is that you tie yourself financially to that conference for the duration of the GoR.

Everybody understood this at the time the GoR was signed, so it will be extremely hard for Virginia lawyers to argue their way out of the deal they signed.

You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

Is it possible to read a GoR (any conference) on the interwebs? How much of the Big 12's was obtained via a FOIA request?

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not going to sit here and argue it with a couple of idiots that care not to have a conversation and are only interested in contradicting.

If you want to believe that Universities are selling off their ability to decide their own fates for a couple of million dollars then feel free to believe that as well as believing that your non-evidenced argument wins over my non-evidenced argument.

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not going to sit here and argue it with a couple of idiots that care not to have a conversation and are only interested in contradicting.

If you want to believe that Universities are selling off their ability to decide their own fates for a couple of million dollars then feel free to believe that as well as believing that your non-evidenced argument wins over my non-evidenced argument.

(11-02-2013 11:50 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not going to sit here and argue it with a couple of idiots that care not to have a conversation and are only interested in contradicting.

If you want to believe that Universities are selling off their ability to decide their own fates for a couple of million dollars then feel free to believe that as well as believing that your non-evidenced argument wins over my non-evidenced argument.

And once again, Wilkie descends into his troll routine.

(11-02-2013 11:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:50 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not going to sit here and argue it with a couple of idiots that care not to have a conversation and are only interested in contradicting.

If you want to believe that Universities are selling off their ability to decide their own fates for a couple of million dollars then feel free to believe that as well as believing that your non-evidenced argument wins over my non-evidenced argument.

And once again, Wilkie descends into his troll routine.

No, because you keeping asking why, and I told you my opinion. Besides a picture is worth a thousand words!

(11-03-2013 12:06 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:50 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this. You are free to believe whatever you want. I am not going to sit here and argue it with a couple of idiots that care not to have a conversation and are only interested in contradicting.

If you want to believe that Universities are selling off their ability to decide their own fates for a couple of million dollars then feel free to believe that as well as believing that your non-evidenced argument wins over my non-evidenced argument.

And once again, Wilkie descends into his troll routine.

No, because you keeping asking why, and I told you my opinion. Besides a picture is worth a thousand words!

And I already explained why your reasoning of such is pure hypocritical troll drivel. Feel free to continue though, it really is the only thing you got on these boards.

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You can stick to your story all you like but it's just a story.

Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this.

You answered nothing of what I said.

Let me ask you something: If a GoR is basically an insignificant barrier to exit, and if the purpose of the GoR was to mollify the networks and had little to do with discouraging exit, why did the ACC replace its $50 million exit fee with the GoR?

It's pretty clear that the ACC thinks the GoR has the extremely prohibitive effect on defection that I think it does, at least $50 million worth and probably a whole lot more, and since it's literally their business to know that they surely had the idea vetted by top lawyers. And yet I'm supposed to believe your story to the contrary?

From the Big 12 Bylaws:


SECTION 3 WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

(11-03-2013 05:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nope, it's the truth. Which is why you can't refute it.

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this.

You answered nothing of what I said.

Let me ask you something: If a GoR is basically an insignificant barrier to exit, and if the purpose of the GoR was to mollify the networks and had little to do with discouraging exit, why did the ACC replace its $50 million exit fee with the GoR?

It's pretty clear that the ACC thinks the GoR has the extremely prohibitive effect on defection that I think it does, at least $50 million worth and probably a whole lot more, and since it's literally their business to know that they surely had the idea vetted by top lawyers. And yet I'm supposed to believe your story to the contrary?

The ACC didn't replace the exit fee.

(11-03-2013 08:59 AM)lew240z Wrote:  From the Big 12 Bylaws:


SECTION 3 WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

Thank you, been waiting for someone to pull out this bylaw. It is the actual one decent argument that the Big 12 COULD do this. That doesn't mean that in a court of law it will be upheld should it be challenged.

What that line really is, is a great starting point for a negotiated payment but the conference would never get away with having a departed school's games be broadcasted and not paying them for that. They can put anything in a contract and the school's can sign it knowing that in the future they can challenge the legality of it. That is how contracts get voided.

(11-03-2013 09:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 08:59 AM)lew240z Wrote:  From the Big 12 Bylaws:


SECTION 3 WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

Thank you, been waiting for someone to pull out this bylaw. It is the actual one decent argument that the Big 12 COULD do this. That doesn't mean that in a court of law it will be upheld should it be challenged.

What that line really is, is a great starting point for a negotiated payment but the conference would never get away with having a departed school's games be broadcasted and not paying them for that. They can put anything in a contract and the school's can sign it knowing that in the future they can challenge the legality of it. That is how contracts get voided.

I agree He1nousOne, but it would be awful messy and expensive.

It would be much easier, cheaper and quicker if eight schools voted in unison to dissolve the Big 12. Swift and effective and would be over before the politicians could do anything about it, even if they wanted to act.

How do you get eight schools to agree to disband the Bi12 and find new homes all at once? It would take a meeting(s) of schools and conferences all across the nation meeting at the same time for the purpose of discussing major change in NCAA governance, conference rules, and how such change could maximize revenue.

Now, when would the next such meeting take place?

This coming January.

(11-03-2013 09:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 08:59 AM)lew240z Wrote:  From the Big 12 Bylaws:


SECTION 3 WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

Thank you, been waiting for someone to pull out this bylaw. It is the actual one decent argument that the Big 12 COULD do this. That doesn't mean that in a court of law it will be upheld should it be challenged.

What that line really is, is a great starting point for a negotiated payment but the conference would never get away with having a departed school's games be broadcasted and not paying them for that. They can put anything in a contract and the school's can sign it knowing that in the future they can challenge the legality of it. That is how contracts get voided.

You says this is actually "one decent argument" that the Big 12 could withhold payment from a departing school? Sorry Charlie, Lew has posted actual contract language that Big 12 schools themselves signed on to acknowledging that it in fact the conference can do just that. In contrast, you have no facts at all to support your claim that such a term would "never be upheld in court. "

So as of now, your position is not just one equally plausible story, it stands out as the one least based in facts and truth and most reliant on (your) personal speculative beliefs. So please couch it in those terms in the future.

(11-03-2013 09:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 05:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

I cant refute your made up story. Good one.

Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this.

You answered nothing of what I said.

Let me ask you something: If a GoR is basically an insignificant barrier to exit, and if the purpose of the GoR was to mollify the networks and had little to do with discouraging exit, why did the ACC replace its $50 million exit fee with the GoR?

It's pretty clear that the ACC thinks the GoR has the extremely prohibitive effect on defection that I think it does, at least $50 million worth and probably a whole lot more, and since it's literally their business to know that they surely had the idea vetted by top lawyers. And yet I'm supposed to believe your story to the contrary?

The ACC didn't replace the exit fee.

Interesting, thanks for the correction.

That acknowledged, do you deny that the ACC had, as a primary purpose of creating a GoR, the goal of raising barriers to exit well above that provided by the $50m exit fee? Do you doubt that the ACC GoR has the same punitive language (no payments if a school leaves) that we now know the Big 12 GoR has?

Here are some statements by important ACC personages at the time of the GoR announcement:

UNC's Athletic Director: “These are strong and definitive moves by the ACC and its member schools to further announce our desire to stay together and position ourselves among the top conferences in the country. ....Today’s announcement should put (conference) realignment on the shelf.”

NC State's AD: "The assignment of media rights to the ACC by each member guarantees stability in the league, of course."

We can go on, but I think the point is clear.