Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CsquaredCC

Boise State Has Filed Suit Against the MWC

Recommended Posts

Guys, for those of you who have not read through the lawsuit, let me clear something up. BSU is not asking for 3.5x the payout over and above the $1.8 million that was originally agreed upon in this lawsuit. While the lawsuit does mention that CT discussed bring a vote to the conference regarding an increase to that $1.8 mil amount proportionally based on the new TV contract, the damages being sought by Boise State are only for the $1.8 mil that was actually agreed upon. They aren't trying to sue the MWC for the extra that CT said they could potentially get, as that was never a contractual agreement. It was based on a conversation that took place at the MW championship in Boise between CT, Marlene Tromp, and Curt Apsey.

So Boise State is suing to maintain the $1.8 mil that was contractually agreed to annually in perpetuity, since CT just tried to drop that with an improper vote that nullified that arrangement after 6 years.

I'm sure Boise State would love to get a larger portion of the payout, given that FOX said the increase in the TV deal had a lot to do with Boise State. But Boise State isn't stupid enough to sue for something that was never under contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

It is difficult to see the relationship as salvageable right now.  IMO, the MWC has drawn its line in the sand, with the lawsuit Boise St has stepped over it.  Hard to think Boise St will be a trusted conference member going forward.

If the MWC doesn't show some unity on this, you might as well be asking for this shit to happen whenever a school gets their panties in a wad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

I was thinking the same.  We might lose our spot as prime MWC villain!

 

11 minutes ago, JuwanHWolv said:

I doubt Boise will voluntarily remove themselves from the NY6 bowl chase.

Indys are technically at-large candidates with all of FBS. BYU has sucked hind tit as an Indy.

I was worried for nothing.  Our spot is secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boise4Life said:

Guys, for those of you who have not read through the lawsuit, let me clear something up. BSU is not asking for 3.5x the payout over and above the $1.8 million that was originally agreed upon in this lawsuit. While the lawsuit does mention that CT discussed bring a vote to the conference regarding an increase to that $1.8 mil amount proportionally based on the new TV contract, the damages being sought by Boise State are only for the $1.8 mil that was actually agreed upon. They aren't trying to sue the MWC for the extra that CT said they could potentially get, as that was never a contractual agreement. It was based on a conversation that took place at the MW championship in Boise between CT, Marlene Tromp, and Curt Apsey.

So Boise State is suing to maintain the $1.8 mil that was contractually agreed to annually in perpetuity, since CT just tried to drop that with an improper vote that nullified that arrangement after 6 years.

I'm sure Boise State would love to get a larger portion of the payout, given that FOX said the increase in the TV deal had a lot to do with Boise State. But Boise State isn't stupid enough to sue for something that was never under contract.

So, Boise is prematurely filing a lawsuit since they’re going to continue to receive the $1.8 million for the next 6 years. I suspect this lawsuit gets tossed then as Boise hasn’t suffered any damages. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wyoming Tight End said:

Sounds like bOISE is a little worried other schools in the conference are becoming competitive....

Pretty much the opposite. Time to get out of this conference. Can’t wait to hear the crying when the mw is earning sunbelt money. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boise4Life said:

Guys, for those of you who have not read through the lawsuit, let me clear something up. BSU is not asking for 3.5x the payout over and above the $1.8 million that was originally agreed upon in this lawsuit. While the lawsuit does mention that CT discussed bring a vote to the conference regarding an increase to that $1.8 mil amount proportionally based on the new TV contract, the damages being sought by Boise State are only for the $1.8 mil that was actually agreed upon. They aren't trying to sue the MWC for the extra that CT said they could potentially get, as that was never a contractual agreement. It was based on a conversation that took place at the MW championship in Boise between CT, Marlene Tromp, and Curt Apsey.

So Boise State is suing to maintain the $1.8 mil that was contractually agreed to annually in perpetuity, since CT just tried to drop that with an improper vote that nullified that arrangement after 6 years.

I'm sure Boise State would love to get a larger portion of the payout, given that FOX said the increase in the TV deal had a lot to do with Boise State. But Boise State isn't stupid enough to sue for something that was never under contract.

Was that in the agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

Tromp just became Boise's president.  Can't fault her on this.  

*unless it's the presidents and chancellors who vote on new tv contracts, and not ADs.

Tromp may be the President but you better believe Robert “Kraft” Kustra is helping orchestrate every move. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the original re-entry agreement: "Television Rights - Boise State shall provide the MWC the exclusive television broadcast rights to its intercollegiate athletic events, including but not limited to home football games, each season. In return, MWC will ensure such Boise State home football games are not part of, nor granted under, any current or future MWC conference-wide television rights contract including the MWC television rights currently under contract with CBS/CSTV or as such may be amended in the future."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VandalPride97 said:

Was that in the agreement?

The lawsuit alleges there was no termination date.  So if one party wants out of the agreement going forward, it is possible a "reasonable" termination date could be read into the agreement by a court (or possibly by what was stated in an earlier post, one party providing reasonable notice to the other party that they are terminating the agreement).  One other very clear way to terminate the agreement is to make the agreement moot.  In other words, if you remove Boise from the conference membership the agreement is no longer applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mugtang said:

So, Boise is prematurely filing a lawsuit since they’re going to continue to receive the $1.8 million for the next 6 years. I suspect this lawsuit gets tossed then as Boise hasn’t suffered any damages. 

I think another part of it, if I read correctly, is that Boise State did not agree to the terms of their home football games, as stated in the terms sheet.

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

They either have an AAC invite lined up or want to test Indy is my guess. Seems like both are trying to poison the relationship enough to finally sever it,

Either way, seems like it will be best for all involved for them to walk. This is Texas and the old Big 12 all over again. The special treatment for an individual member of a conference undermines its stability. If the requirement for BSU to remain is to be treated differently in perpetuity, they should chart their new course. If Boise gets special treatment and stays, it only serves to undermine other conference member commitment to the MWC....Air Force, CSU, SDSU...others will want special treatment or walk when the grass is greener. Front Range schools in particular profile as possible fits in the AAC....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

The lawsuit alleges there was no termination date.  So if one party wants out of the agreement going forward, it is possible a "reasonable" termination date could be read into the agreement by a court (or possibly by what was stated in an earlier post, one party providing reasonable notice to the other party that they are terminating the agreement).  One other very clear way to terminate the agreement is to make the agreement moot.  In other words, if you remove Boise from the conference membership the agreement is no longer applicable.

I see what you are saying, but voting out Boise is not a smart move by any stretch of the imagination.  Especially for a marginal gain per year per team.  Since the beginning, I felt the agreement was bad, and would only breed some sense of superiority or discontent (depending on what color your field is).  The chickens are merely coming home to roost.  

I hope this, and Texas (seperate issue), are learning lessons to conferences.  Don't pay one more than the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rambouche said:

 MWC....Air Force, CSU, SDSU...others will want special treatment or walk when the grass is greener. Front Range schools in particular profile as possible fits in the AAC....

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any program in the mw other than Boise being good on a regular basis. It hasn’t ever happened and even with bsu earning them the most tv money they have ever received nothing has changed. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Boise4Life said:

Guys, for those of you who have not read through the lawsuit, let me clear something up. BSU is not asking for 3.5x the payout over and above the $1.8 million that was originally agreed upon in this lawsuit. While the lawsuit does mention that CT discussed bring a vote to the conference regarding an increase to that $1.8 mil amount proportionally based on the new TV contract, the damages being sought by Boise State are only for the $1.8 mil that was actually agreed upon. They aren't trying to sue the MWC for the extra that CT said they could potentially get, as that was never a contractual agreement. It was based on a conversation that took place at the MW championship in Boise between CT, Marlene Tromp, and Curt Apsey.

So Boise State is suing to maintain the $1.8 mil that was contractually agreed to annually in perpetuity, since CT just tried to drop that with an improper vote that nullified that arrangement after 6 years.

I'm sure Boise State would love to get a larger portion of the payout, given that FOX said the increase in the TV deal had a lot to do with Boise State. But Boise State isn't stupid enough to sue for something that was never under contract.

i just re-read the suit because of what you wrote and boise is definitely seeking more than the 1.8mil... it flat says the mwc intends to pay Boise the 1.8mil for the next 6 years but is breaching contract by trying to terminate it then

"Although the MWC is still paying the $1.8 million bonus explicitly required by this contract, it inexplicably and improperly elected to cease such payments in six years."

and nowhere does it state they are only after 1.8mil...everywhere they write they are suing for an amount that boise will decide

" Boise State will establish the precise amount of damages according to proof at trial."

boise is also suing them for "good faith and fair dealing" which is trying to deprive a member of their deserved rights and amounts in a contract..a separate count from the breach of contract of the 1.8mil...which is why the majority of their suit is talking about the proportional increase ..and that count also says boise decides the amount 

they are definitely suing for more than the 1.8m

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

I see what you are saying, but voting out Boise is not a smart move by any stretch of the imagination.  Especially for a marginal gain per year per team.  Since the beginning, I felt the agreement was bad, and would only breed some sense of superiority or discontent (depending on what color your field is).  The chickens are merely coming home to roost.  

I hope this, and Texas (seperate issue), are learning lessons to conferences.  Don't pay one more than the others.

It may not be a smart move in the short run, but in the long run it could be what is best for the other conference membership.  This is not Big12/P5 dollars we are talking about.  If the MWC votes out Boise, it doesn't drop from P5 to G5 status as the Big 12 very well may if Texas and Oklahoma are gone.  It may just be that the MWC goes from the #2 G5 conference to the #3 G5 conference -- which really doesn't mean a heck of a lot if you aren't #1 anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, boisewitha-s said:

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any program in the mw other than Boise being good on a regular basis. It hasn’t ever happened and even with bsu earning them the most tv money they have ever received nothing has changed. 

Look at the membership for the AAC. The best marker for an invite was being the best available school from CUSA. Being good on a regular basis has not been a requirement. If being good at football were the only factor, BSU Community College would be rubbing elbows with Stanford and Cal in the PAC...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...