(03-07-2018 07:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 08:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 07:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 03:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obviously, that hasn't been Miami's intent, as they offered to play ARK-ST in either 2024 or 2025 as per the terms of the contract.

They say they filed this suit after ARK-ST threatened to sue if Miami didn't give them either $650k or a date in 2020/2021.

So you have first hand knowledge that Miami wasn't contemplating getting the contract moved to 2024 so they could buy it out in 2023? I mean you say obviously that is not their intent.

The other guy said Miami's intent has been to avoid playing the game and paying the buyout. The fact that Miami offered to do one of those things, play the game, shows that's not true.

FWIW, if FM clause is found to apply, such that Miami was justified in canceling, and the game is moved to 2024, then IMO the buyout should be upped to reflect the time value of money.

That would mean boosting it to about $725k.

Arkansas State's position is that 2024-25 is not a good faith offer--it's a way to delay performance indefinitely. What Miami is not offering to do is play on the first mutually available date--9/12/2020. Or, if there is some unknown problem with 9/12/2020, then in 2022 or 2023, when Miami only has one OOC game scheduled each year.

Miami is suggesting dates in 2024 and 2025, when Arky State already has a P5 game vs Iowa State and may not want to play 2 P5s in one year. Did Miami pick 2024-25 hoping that Arkansas STate would not accept? That would fit with a pattern (complaining about locker room, making a judgement call to cancel the 2017 game, refusing to reschedule on available dates in 2020, 2022, 2023) of Miami doing everything they can to avoid playing at Arkansas State.

Text of Miami's lawsuit

No question, Miami would prefer to play later, they've said so. And the reasons why seem clear. Playing later means they don't have to give up a chance to play a home game, and it makes the buyout less costly if they choose to buy out.

For their own reasons, ARK would prefer to play sooner, and they have been unable to work it out themselves.

Since the contract doesn't specify when a reschedule should occur, the issue has to be settled in court. But it doesn't mean one side or the other is being unreasonable.

Every other P5 has already played the makeup or paid their buyout.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk