Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,338
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-06-2018 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that clause looks great for Miami. There was a Federal and State of Emergency in their area at the time. If I'm a judge, that's all i need to know to not second-guess decisions made by school officials, really it should take about 10 seconds for the judge to find in Miami's favor on that.

As I said before, there's no reason for a "clause" of any kind to handle truly impossible situations, because it goes without saying that no party can be held in breach of contract for failing to do something that is impossible to do. The existence of the clause is meant to explain what should happen in the event an emergency makes playing onerous, unwise, etc.

This is why the venue matters.

Who is going to be more sympathetic regarding the application of a force majeure clause regarding a hurricane in Florida: a Florida judge or an Arkansas judge? My guess is that a Florida judge is going to take a “you need to do what you need to do in a hurricane” stance on a force majeure clause, whereas an Arkansas judge is going to pry more into why other schools like FIU were able to fulfill their own contracts. More importantly, a Florida judge isn’t likely going to want a set a precedent of having school administrators worrying about force majeure clauses not applying in hurricane situations.

Frankly, force majeure clauses are considered “boilerplate” - they’re so standard and non-controversial that few people even bother negotiating them. When I speak about force majeure clauses as an attorney, a hurricane is probably the #1 or #2 example of an event where they would apply. Essentially, if a force majeure clause doesn’t apply in a hurricane situation, then it pretty much defeats the entire purpose of such clause.

Assuming that this was a fairly standard force majeure clause, my 10,000-foot view is that Miami was perfectly justified from a contractual perspective in not playing the game in 2017 due to Hurricane Irma being a force majeure event. I have a really hard time believing that a Florida judge is going to dispute that item.

Now, whether this absolves Miami from having to pay liquidated damages and/or reschedule the game is really where the dispute lies. I haven’t seen the exact contract language about how the resolution of rescheduling the game should go or what needs to occur after a force majeure event occurs. Generally speaking, judges would much rather see a financial resolution as opposed having to issue an injunction (e.g. forcing someone to play a game at all, much less on a specific date). Once again, from a 10,000-foot view, it seems as though Arkansas State’s claim is better rooted in arguing for the liquidated damages to be paid. On the other hand, I don’t think a judge wants any part of trying to figure out whether it’s reasonable for a game to be played in 2021 versus 2024/25 or some other date. That doesn’t seem to be relevant (especially since it’s customary in the college football industry to have scheduling arrangements many years in advance). It seems like the case is going to come down to whether liquidated damages will need to be paid or not (and there won’t ever be a rescheduled game played unless the parties come to a separate settlement).

I guess what I find interesting is that this is even an issue. Miami can simply pay the $650K liquidated damages and walk away with a very cheap one-and-done buy game. From a business prospective, thats a screaming bargain on the FBS "one and done" market. So, whats this court fight really about? Is Miami trying to use the force majeure clause to walk away with no cost what so ever?

YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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.
03-06-2018 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,847
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 432
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #42
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-06-2018 03:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is why the venue matters.

Who is going to be more sympathetic regarding the application of a force majeure clause regarding a hurricane in Florida: a Florida judge or an Arkansas judge? My guess is that a Florida judge is going to take a “you need to do what you need to do in a hurricane” stance on a force majeure clause, whereas an Arkansas judge is going to pry more into why other schools like FIU were able to fulfill their own contracts. More importantly, a Florida judge isn’t likely going to want a set a precedent of having school administrators worrying about force majeure clauses not applying in hurricane situations.

Frankly, force majeure clauses are considered “boilerplate” - they’re so standard and non-controversial that few people even bother negotiating them. When I speak about force majeure clauses as an attorney, a hurricane is probably the #1 or #2 example of an event where they would apply. Essentially, if a force majeure clause doesn’t apply in a hurricane situation, then it pretty much defeats the entire purpose of such clause.

Assuming that this was a fairly standard force majeure clause, my 10,000-foot view is that Miami was perfectly justified from a contractual perspective in not playing the game in 2017 due to Hurricane Irma being a force majeure event. I have a really hard time believing that a Florida judge is going to dispute that item.

Now, whether this absolves Miami from having to pay liquidated damages and/or reschedule the game is really where the dispute lies. I haven’t seen the exact contract language about how the resolution of rescheduling the game should go or what needs to occur after a force majeure event occurs. Generally speaking, judges would much rather see a financial resolution as opposed having to issue an injunction (e.g. forcing someone to play a game at all, much less on a specific date). Once again, from a 10,000-foot view, it seems as though Arkansas State’s claim is better rooted in arguing for the liquidated damages to be paid. On the other hand, I don’t think a judge wants any part of trying to figure out whether it’s reasonable for a game to be played in 2021 versus 2024/25 or some other date. That doesn’t seem to be relevant (especially since it’s customary in the college football industry to have scheduling arrangements many years in advance). It seems like the case is going to come down to whether liquidated damages will need to be paid or not (and there won’t ever be a rescheduled game played unless the parties come to a separate settlement).

I guess what I find interesting is that this is even an issue. Miami can simply pay the $650K liquidated damages and walk away with a very cheap one-and-done buy game. From a business prospective, thats a screaming bargain on the FBS "one and done" market. So, whats this court fight really about? Is Miami trying to use the force majeure clause to walk away with no cost what so ever?

YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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.

They're not buying out the contract in 2023. They'll simply cancel the game, citing any excuse, be it some unrelated crime in Jonesboro, a hurricane off the coast of Africa, etc...some desire to play Edward Waters at home, etc
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018 03:30 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-06-2018 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-06-2018 02:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 12:51 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 01:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think that clause looks great for Miami. There was a Federal and State of Emergency in their area at the time. If I'm a judge, that's all i need to know to not second-guess decisions made by school officials, really it should take about 10 seconds for the judge to find in Miami's favor on that.

As I said before, there's no reason for a "clause" of any kind to handle truly impossible situations, because it goes without saying that no party can be held in breach of contract for failing to do something that is impossible to do. The existence of the clause is meant to explain what should happen in the event an emergency makes playing onerous, unwise, etc.

You seem to be under the impression the game was to be in Miami. There were evacuation orders for low lying and coastal areas. The government recommendation was to leave, not to stay.

I'll be shocked if any judge is impressed by arguments made by ARK lawyers - from months removed from the hurricane and from the comfort of a court room - about how Miami officials responded in real time in an emergency situation. Any good judge will be loathe to second guess.

But we'll see ... 07-coffee3
Judges generally don't go on emotion or where you are from as a practice.

Any ruling will serve as precedent in Florida regarding Force Majeure...and in Florida thats sort of important.

If a plumber says he can't do the work because a hurricane might hit right after and travel might be difficult....and then refuses to return the deposit...and tells you he can maybe reschedule in 9 months because he might have more profitable work come up and wants to keep his schedule open...

Does a Florida judge want to set the precedent that this is what Force Majeure is for everyone and every business in Florida from now on?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I think you're projecting your own emotions on the case here. I could very easily see the Florida judge go the other direction because the precedent isn't about the big Power Five school University of Miami. Rather, it's about whether every educational institution in the state needs to worry about a force majeure clause being enforced when they are making what they believe is a safety decision with respect to their students and employees. It's easy to tell a school with the resources of Miami that they should just pay up, but imagine if a Florida-based high school was in the same situation. I find that to be much more likely than the plumber-type hypothetical that you presented.

Also, in your plumber hypothetical, the main difference here is that Miami hasn't paid a "deposit" on anything. I guess you're arguing that Arkansas State playing a road game at Miami is the equivalent of a "deposit", but in looking at the clauses in the complaint, I don't believe that's the case. The liquidated damages clause does seem to lean toward it not applying along as there wasn't a cancellation for breach of contract (and a force majeure cancellation is inherently NOT a breach of contract).

They got a cheap home game as part of a home and home deal. The difference between what they paid for the game and our normal price for buy games is the "deposit".

Now you are right, they may be able to wiggle out on some technicality by getting the judge to see them as two separate contracts. But it would still be them "stealing the deposit" from us in moral terms. Unfortunately people get screwed by technicalities sometimes and its just part of it. Still an injustice when it happens, and in this case, in bad faith.

As for the rest, who knows what logic the judge will apply. My point was really in response to the post that a Florida judge would be more sympathetic...and my example was to highlight that the judge will be more concerned about precedent and legal points than about poor UM's hurricane trauma and people from Arkansas being meanies. Probably.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-06-2018 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,432
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #44
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-06-2018 03:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 02:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is why the venue matters.

Who is going to be more sympathetic regarding the application of a force majeure clause regarding a hurricane in Florida: a Florida judge or an Arkansas judge? My guess is that a Florida judge is going to take a “you need to do what you need to do in a hurricane” stance on a force majeure clause, whereas an Arkansas judge is going to pry more into why other schools like FIU were able to fulfill their own contracts. More importantly, a Florida judge isn’t likely going to want a set a precedent of having school administrators worrying about force majeure clauses not applying in hurricane situations.

Frankly, force majeure clauses are considered “boilerplate” - they’re so standard and non-controversial that few people even bother negotiating them. When I speak about force majeure clauses as an attorney, a hurricane is probably the #1 or #2 example of an event where they would apply. Essentially, if a force majeure clause doesn’t apply in a hurricane situation, then it pretty much defeats the entire purpose of such clause.

Assuming that this was a fairly standard force majeure clause, my 10,000-foot view is that Miami was perfectly justified from a contractual perspective in not playing the game in 2017 due to Hurricane Irma being a force majeure event. I have a really hard time believing that a Florida judge is going to dispute that item.

Now, whether this absolves Miami from having to pay liquidated damages and/or reschedule the game is really where the dispute lies. I haven’t seen the exact contract language about how the resolution of rescheduling the game should go or what needs to occur after a force majeure event occurs. Generally speaking, judges would much rather see a financial resolution as opposed having to issue an injunction (e.g. forcing someone to play a game at all, much less on a specific date). Once again, from a 10,000-foot view, it seems as though Arkansas State’s claim is better rooted in arguing for the liquidated damages to be paid. On the other hand, I don’t think a judge wants any part of trying to figure out whether it’s reasonable for a game to be played in 2021 versus 2024/25 or some other date. That doesn’t seem to be relevant (especially since it’s customary in the college football industry to have scheduling arrangements many years in advance). It seems like the case is going to come down to whether liquidated damages will need to be paid or not (and there won’t ever be a rescheduled game played unless the parties come to a separate settlement).

I guess what I find interesting is that this is even an issue. Miami can simply pay the $650K liquidated damages and walk away with a very cheap one-and-done buy game. From a business prospective, thats a screaming bargain on the FBS "one and done" market. So, whats this court fight really about? Is Miami trying to use the force majeure clause to walk away with no cost what so ever?

YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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.
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018 07:32 PM by quo vadis.)
03-06-2018 07:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I guess what I find interesting is that this is even an issue. Miami can simply pay the $650K liquidated damages and walk away with a very cheap one-and-done buy game. From a business prospective, thats a screaming bargain on the FBS "one and done" market. So, whats this court fight really about? Is Miami trying to use the force majeure clause to walk away with no cost what so ever?

YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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.
They don't want to come to Jonesboro, I don't want them in Jonesboro. On that one thing we can agree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-06-2018 07:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,888
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-05-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The force majeure clause doesn't look good for Miami. If it said "impractical" or "inconvenient" they would have an argument. It was absolutely inconvenient, there is a straight face argument that can be made that it was impractical to play. Impossible is very tough hurdle.

No, I think Frank the Tank has it right here--cancelling was a reasonable decision based on the weather, and Force Majeure applies here. Otherwise you're removing that discretion from future decision makers.

Quote:What is interesting is that one of Miami's arguments is that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment because Arkansas State is being unreasonable in asking Miami to play on a date Miami has open but does not want to make available.

I think what Arkansas State is going to do if it ever goes to trial is to tie a bunch of things together into a package that proves that Miami just doesn't want to go to Jonesboro.

--Rumors of Miami demanding the home locker room, disapproving of the facilities
--Miami cancelling their trip, while FIU (or whoever) played
--Refusing to schedule the return game in the near future (9/12/2020), for no clear reason (Wanting a 7th home game doesn't count--looking through wikipedia, Miami played 6 home games in 2015 and 2016)

That establishes a pattern that Miami's offer of a game in 2024-25 is not a good-faith offer.

"Any games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as such exigencies may permit or dictate."

Miami is asking the court for
Quote:WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Universityof Miami, requests that this Court declare the following:
(i)Game 2 properly was cancelled due to a force majeure event;
(ii)ASU has acted unreasonably in refusing to agree to the Available Game 2 Dates; and
(iii)UM is relieved of any further rescheduling obligation with respect to Game 2 because of ASU’s unreasonable conduct in breach of the Game Contract.

I think UM has a pretty good chance on (i). There was, in fact, a hurricane, a state and federal state of emergency, the campus was under water, etc.

(ii) is a much tougher road for Miami. That's going to turn on how Miami justifies saying that 9/12/2020 is unavailable--fbschedules.com doesn't show anything on that date for UM or for ASU. Yes, UM will want to play an FCS home game in September of 2020--but 9/19 is open. So unless UM has some game contracts that have been signed but not announced, I don't see how ASU is unreasonable in demanding 9/12/2020 while UM is reasonable in demanding 2024 or 25. (FBSchedules.com also shows openings in 2022 and 2023)

(iii) is going to be very hard to justify. Arkansas State is demanding that the game be played on the first date available for both teams, rather than being delayed another 4-5 years for no obvious reason. (Except maybe to push the game date off to a point where neither Miami's current coach nor the current AD will be the ones who have to fulfill the contract or buy it out. Known as the "Future Ted and Marshall Gambit")

So I figure, if this ever gets to a judge, the first thing that happens is that Miami's claim of Force Majeure is upheld in cancelling the game in the first place. But Miami's claims on scheduling are a lot shakier (unless Miami has signed game contracts that aren't public knowledge.)

Force majeure strikes the liquidated damages clause, but if the court rules that Arkansas State is justified in their scheduling demands, does it mean anything that the parties previously agreed on a buyout number? [/quote]
03-06-2018 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,234
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 773
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-05-2018 03:24 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  LOL at Quo, always taking the extreme TPC side (that would be Traditional Power Conference for those scoring at home).

Damn! That's what that means? Back home TPC is "toilet paper conservation" or "total political correctness". In either case someone is trying to mind your business for you.
03-06-2018 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,888
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-06-2018 10:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I guess what I find interesting is that this is even an issue. Miami can simply pay the $650K liquidated damages and walk away with a very cheap one-and-done buy game. From a business prospective, thats a screaming bargain on the FBS "one and done" market. So, whats this court fight really about? Is Miami trying to use the force majeure clause to walk away with no cost what so ever?

YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018 08:35 PM by johnbragg.)
03-06-2018 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,432
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #49
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2018 07:25 AM by quo vadis.)
03-07-2018 07:24 AM
Find all posts by this user
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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
03-07-2018 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,432
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #51
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 08:06 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Just curious: What games were made up, and what games were bought out?
03-07-2018 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,888
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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,

A 7th home game, not something they regularly do. Flipping through wikipedia, they've done it 3 times in the last 11 years. I don't think a court is going to consider that a good enough reason to delay fulfilling the Arkansas State contract.

Quote:and it makes the buyout less costly if they choose to buy out.

On the one hand, the contract does say that force majeure is not a breach. On the other hand, it doesn't say anything about Arkansas State having to wait 8 years to get the buyout money for a game that was supposed to be played in 2017.

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

I think Arkansas State's reasons are going to be better recieved by a court than Miami's.
1) Sooner is better and
2) We don't trust Miami's current coach or AD to ever play in Jonesboro, reflected by their refusal to schedule in 2020 or 2022 or 2023.

Quote: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.

Miami is being unreasonable--desire to play a 7th home game is a "reach", shouldn't take precedence over fulfilling an existing contract. And even if it did, there are mutually open dates in 2022 and 2023. (Correction--those dates are mutually open, but would prevent Miami from playing a 7th home game.)

Bottom line, the game will never be played. Most likely, the judge will award Arkansas State the $650,000 buyout. Calculating damages for Miami's inflexibility in scheduling would be a waste of the court's time when the parties have already agreed on a liquidated damages number. Lawyers will get paid.

Your settlement idea is reasonable (schedule game in 2024 or 25, with an increased buyout to reflect the time-value of moeny), Quo. But I think Miami is butthurt, and Arkansas State doesn't trust Miami to ever come to Jonesboro.
03-07-2018 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,888
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 290
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 08:06 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Just curious: What games were made up, and what games were bought out?

As far as I can tell, UCF cancelled GT @ UCF, so no buyout there. UCF is going to GT in 2020.

FIU @ Indiana looks like it was rescheduled to...2024. Point for Miami. (Indiana played at FIU in 2016 and returns in 2018.)
03-07-2018 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user
SC-KNIGHT Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 120
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: USC-RUTGERS
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
Just take the dates Miami is offering since and move on if they can't get there earlier and save on all of those exorbitant legal fees. 03-shhhh 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 04-cheers
03-07-2018 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 09:11 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  Just take the dates Miami is offering since and move on if they can't get there earlier and save on all of those exorbitant legal fees. 03-shhhh 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 04-cheers

I'm personally no longer interested in rescheduling. We either get the contracted buyout, or we eat all the losses. Either is better than having any further interaction with them or their fans on the calendar.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-07-2018 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user
TrueBlueDrew Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,596
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 81
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
Honestly I don't see how Miami has a leg to stand on when Every. Single. Other. School. in Florida and even Georgia Southern moved their game location or date without hassle. It's painfully obvious that Miami just doesn't want to play Arkansas State and saw Hurricane Irma as their out. Hopefully the court will rule that they should just pay the buyout and stop whining.
03-07-2018 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 09:40 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Honestly I don't see how Miami has a leg to stand on when Every. Single. Other. School. in Florida and even Georgia Southern moved their game location or date without hassle. It's painfully obvious that Miami just doesn't want to play Arkansas State and saw Hurricane Irma as their out. Hopefully the court will rule that they should just pay the buyout and stop whining.
I've spent 50 years being nice to opposing fans at our home games. I'm afraid that if they ever did show up in Jonesboro I'd get kicked out and banned.

I don't want that, so I hope it never gets rescheduled.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-07-2018 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,338
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(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:  
(03-06-2018 11:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  YES. That's exactly what Miami appears to want to do. They want to use a hurricane, that didn't impact their travel to the game (the hurricane hit on a MONDAY and teams routinely travel on away games on Thursday or earlier, well in advance of any declared emergency), in order to stiff Arkansas State for the return game AND any payment for failure to perform.

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
Arkansas State is contending that Miami refuses to schedule in either of the first two seasons with a mutual open date, not the first open date.
03-07-2018 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,338
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 610
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 09:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(03-07-2018 09:11 AM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote:  Just take the dates Miami is offering since and move on if they can't get there earlier and save on all of those exorbitant legal fees. 03-shhhh 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 04-cheers

I'm personally no longer interested in rescheduling. We either get the contracted buyout, or we eat all the losses. Either is better than having any further interaction with them or their fans on the calendar.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Agreed.
I don't want Miami football on the schedule. Send money or send less money and we can work something out in another sport.
03-07-2018 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,432
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 575
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: Miami sued Arkansas State BEFORE AState sued them
(03-07-2018 09:05 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  As far as I can tell, UCF cancelled GT @ UCF, so no buyout there. UCF is going to GT in 2020.

FIU @ Indiana looks like it was rescheduled to...2024. Point for Miami. (Indiana played at FIU in 2016 and returns in 2018.)

Also, LA-Monroe vs FSU was rescheduled and played last year, which FSU was initially not going to do but as their season went into the toilet they became desperate to get a win to make them bowl eligible. But that was again a case of the home team canceling to begin with.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2018 10:07 AM by quo vadis.)
03-07-2018 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.