(11-03-2013 11:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

I am supposed to cite cases of law for you now? Get out of here.

Believe what you will but I have grown bored of you constantly twisting my words out of context, telling me my words meant something that they did not.

What a clown. I ask you for some kind of substantive basis, like a court precedent, for your speculation that a judge would void the GoR, and you come back with .... this?

I haven't twisted any of your words, and you can't show where I have. I've just held your feet to the fire on the meaning of the words you have chosen to use.

(11-03-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

Perhaps. But then again, what if the judge is a A&M, Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, TT, or TCU grad? Texas isn't the only school in Texas. So it's not a foregone conclusion that a Texas judge would favor the Longhorns like you suppose.

And what if the judge was a Louisville Law School grad? They sure would probably not be a sure thing for Texas!

(11-03-2013 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

I am supposed to cite cases of law for you now? Get out of here.

Believe what you will but I have grown bored of you constantly twisting my words out of context, telling me my words meant something that they did not.

What a clown. I ask you for some kind of substantive basis, like a court precedent, for your speculation that a judge would void the GoR, and you come back with .... this?

I haven't twisted any of your words, and you can't show where I have. I've just held your feet to the fire on the meaning of the words you have chosen to use.

Seriously? You are saying that contracts like these are always held to the the exact details within when they are taken to and disputed within a court of law? I am a clown for saying such and for not feeling like scouring the internet in order to provide you with examples of such? Keeping in mind that after providing such you still wont accept them as evidence of anything and will just continue with your pedantic arguing against my personal opinion?

Why the F would I bother? I have stated quite concisely and quite clearly my opinion on the matter and I have shown enough to show why I believe what I believe. You are not keeping notes on my entire case, you are simply attacking each and every post individually. You are not holding a true conversation with me such as HeartofDixie did. You are merely being argumentative and when I say I am not going to go scouring the internet for you, you have the nerve to call ME the clown?

It is clownish to think that contracts such as these are always upheld to the exact agreements within and even more so to insult someone who realizes that such is the REALITY of these situations.

(11-03-2013 12:21 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...s.htmlThat last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

Perhaps. But then again, what if the judge is a A&M, Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, TT, or TCU grad? Texas isn't the only school in Texas. So it's not a foregone conclusion that a Texas judge would favor the Longhorns like you suppose.

And what if the judge was a Louisville Law School grad? They sure would probably not be a sure thing for Texas!

We are talking about a judge that got put into power in the State of Texas. Seriously folks....can we display some complex thought here on occasion?

The f'n simple minded nature of this forum is so sad.

I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

Why must every UConn thread devolve into this? It happens over and over again.

Let's just ban any mention of UConn on this board.

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.

(11-03-2013 12:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

It's worth a lot Terry. I feel like I am fighting off a Tidal Wave of crazy here.

I think you are dead on with your simply put analysis. I have put forward similar sentiments and honestly it doesn't have to go any further or any more complicated than how you have presented it.

(11-03-2013 12:33 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why must every UConn thread devolve into this? It happens over and over again.

Let's just ban any mention of UConn on this board.

I know and I'm sorry. I don't know why some folks have such a hard on for attacking my personal opinions. I know I do the same sometimes but I still acknowledge that my opinion is just my opinion and others should hold to their opinion unless provided with what they see as compelling evidence to the contrary.

(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.

Ain't that the truth? Although LA gives Chicago a run for the money at times.

(11-03-2013 12:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

For what it is worth, I agree with you.

I do not see a scenario wherein a school leaves a conference with a GOR and the school does not get paid its TV revenues by the old conference/network.

The new conference/network would not benefit, but the school would be paid for its TV rights, even if it left a GOR bound conference/network arrangement, in my opinion.

I believe that is an overstatement.

I do not necessarily disagree with your analysis, but I believe the exiting school's road games in the new conference would be worth a ton to the new conference if they have a successful network.

For example, if Texas joined the B1G, and played at Michigan and Nebraska on the BTN then the B1G benefits, immensely, even if UT and the Big 12 share in UT's media payout. How many Texans would pay for the BTN under that scenario?

(11-03-2013 01:03 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  How many Texans would pay for the BTN under that scenario?

I've been quietly wondering if having the BTN up and running (and profitable) would give Texas reason to consider combining forces with BTN (or another network for that matter) for the purpose of adding more leverage in their carriage effort. On the other hand, they already have a strong partner and that didn't work out so well.

(11-03-2013 01:30 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 01:03 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  How many Texans would pay for the BTN under that scenario?

I've been quietly wondering if having the BTN up and running (and profitable) would give Texas reason to consider combining forces with BTN (or another network for that matter) for the purpose of adding more leverage in their carriage effort. On the other hand, they already have a strong partner and that didn't work out so well.

Two things: First, the BTN is a FOX entity and the LHN is an ESPN one.
Second, I do not believe ESPN really wants the LHN to succeed now much more than it is currently. The LHN was created to prevent Texas from going to the PAC when ESPN did not have much of a presence in that conference and the PAC Network was going to be 100% PAC 12 owned, which then posed a little more of a threat than it does now, even though it is still there to a certain extent. UT was able to negotiate the LHN, and ESPN gave it a go, but it never was in ESPN's interest to have the biggest schools have their own network because that would give such schools too much power and would destabilize college football. The LHN was a test balloon for something ESPN never really wanted.

(11-03-2013 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

The cost to leave the ACC is your part/value of the GOR, and the exit which is 3 X. 3 X is roughly $60 million. Your GOR value is your "share" or value in a roughly $300 million annual contract. If everyone was worth the same it would be about $21 million each. There are not worth the same. FSU and UNC might be worth $40-45 million a year, while WF just worth $5 million. Indeed, under GOR value theories, the league might have to pay WF to leave.

Buffalo

You mean Woodland Bison or Buffalo roam in Wisconsin right?

(11-03-2013 08:24 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You mean Woodland Bison or Buffalo roam in Wisconsin right?

'New York Bulls'...has a nice ring to it

(11-03-2013 09:22 PM)Badger Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 08:24 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You mean Woodland Bison or Buffalo roam in Wisconsin right?

'New York Bulls'...has a nice ring to it

(11-03-2013 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think the fact that you're certain a judge would make a decision based on the political fallout kind of simple minded as well. IMO any judge worth his salt makes his decisions based solely on his interpretation of the law. Any other thinking shows no respect for the law, or those whose decisions depend upon his unbiased opinion of the law.

Texas isn't Chicago, even though you seem to think so.

I wish you were right Bit and I wish I was wrong, god how I wish I was wrong. My judgement isn't based upon Chicago although you are correct about it being the worst.

I have appeared before many elected state court judges in my 26 1/2 years of litigation practice.

Ya'll have a much different opinion of them than I do. I have seen and heard a lot.......

They are political animals with law degrees and black robes..but politicians they are.