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

11 minutes ago, JuwanHWolv said:

 

Why wouldn’t it? All you can really do is look at the Sagarin, Massey, etc, and compare. 

Because the true P5S conferences and the TV partners aren't going to allow it.  The AAC in that interation would maybe get $10 million per team.  Maybe.  They would still be way below the other conferences.  Those other conferences would still poach your coaches.  P5 status isn't just about on the field.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

As I recall correctly, I think the Big-12 at one time had unequal revenue sharing as well.

Edit: Confirmed.

https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/13032/unequal-revenue-sharing-will-remain

Technically, they still do.  Tier1/2 money is split equally.  Tier 3...not so much.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sjsbuff said:

You haven't been reading.  If I understand prior posters correctly, the suggestion is being made that, in asking for more money above the $1.8MM stipulated in the re-entry agreement, that your Prez may have repudiated said agreement, thereby resulting in some of the MWC's (and Thompson's) subsequent actions and/or statements...

I've seen this a few times and it still mystifies me.

Probably because I'm not a lawyer, but contracts are amended all the time...but to actually cancel one BSU would have to be in breach. I wasn't aware asking for amendments constituted an automatic breach of contract? Can someone explain to me how this piece works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BSUFan said:

The original re-entry agreement did not contain a $1.8m stipulation.  The number was renegotiated in 2017!

Most don't know the history so here is how in unfolded. Boise original ESPN deal began with the 2013 football season and ran for seven years. That deal brought $7 million per year to the conference, for Boise State’s home football games.

"The deal was structed with bonus incentives. Schools made a $500,000 bonus for appearing on ESPN or ESPN2 on Saturdays, or $300,000 for appearing on those channels during the week. In 2016, the Broncos netted $2.4 million in bonuses."

“We have institutions that get $500,000 in television revenue and some that get $1.5 million, just by the luck of the draw,” commissioner Craig Thompson told the Reno Gazette-Journal in July. “We have an institution that hasn’t had one of the top-five win-loss records in the league in football and they’ve made the third-most TV revenue just because of the luck of the draw: ESPN needs an ESPN2 game on Saturday night at 8:15 p.m. on Oct. 29 and the schedule works out, so you get the golden ticket.”

In 2017 the initial bonus structure was renegotiated.  Boise received $2.4 million in 2016 and agreed to drop to  the $1.8 million figure being referenced through this board.

"The conference determined the formula and bonus structure was not performing as it had been intended. Now, Boise State’s membership agreement and its ESPN deal were honored, meaning the school gets $1.8 million up front annually. That’s the average bonus payout Boise State got from 2013-15 under the contract it agreed to when deciding to stay in the Mountain West. The remaining revenue will be divided among the 11 football-playing schools outside Hawaii, worth approximately $1.1 million per year, meaning a total of $2.9 million for Boise State."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/college/mountain-west/boise-state-university/boise-state-football/article239533543.html

It is not unreasonable for Dr. Tromp to believe that this portion of the re-entry agreement could be renegotiated again because it had been done in the past at the request of the conference and Thompson.

With Boise's Fox Home Game portion of the proposed the media rights they bring in more revenue and that is where Dr. Tromp thought an increase may be warranted.  Boise and the MWC both have a say in this portion of the media rights.

The CBS Boise State Away Games and basketball and Olympic sports are all under the Mountain West. Boise has no say in this portion of the media rights and this portion was never in dispute. The only caveat is if Boise does leave the conference CBS may want to renegotiate because of the loss of Boise States away games.

 

Thank you for this post. It is helpful to have all of this in one place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RSF said:

No, its not flat.  Because a) all of these deals are adjusted for inflation (which is why these deals are said to average a given amt) and b) would make Don Aresco the dumbest person in sports to negotiate a deal where yearly revenue goes down thanks to inflation.  And Aresco may be a carnival barker, but he aint dumb.

 

And that they are renegotiating is not under dispute.  Less inventory means less value. 

Presumably the opposite is also true were they to add a backfill for UConn, particularly a valuable football property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Why would asking for more automatically void the contract? Contracts are amended all of the time. I'm pretty sure that both parties have to actually sign an amendment to the original re-entry agreement for it to be nullified.

Nor do I think asking for the amount to scale upward a bit under a new contract worth a lot more money shows bad faith. It's simply an extension of the original re-entry logic, which is that BSU's brand brings a premium and therefore if a new contract is negotiated that is worth more money, it's reentry amount would scale upward in some fashion accordingly. 

 

You should read some of the above posts by lawyers. It's called repudiation. Once you agree to something, put it in writing, and sign it, if you subsequently ask for something different, it can be considered a bad faith move indicating intent to default or breach. It basically opens the door for the other side to consider your word to not be valid.

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wyovanian said:

You should read some of the above posts by lawyers. It's called repudiation. Once you agree to something, put it in writing, and sign it, if you subsequently ask for something different, it can be considered a bad faith move indicating intent to default or breach. It basically opens the door for the other side to consider your word to not be valid.

You should read the quoted history two posts up. :) Three posts counting this one I guess.

But the point is that this is an agreement that has been reworked before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

You yourself seemed to imply it was a possibility. 

 

 

 

 

See above. I'm not going to go dig through 80+ pages to find other examples. 

 

I guess the BoSox guy said it but I don’t think the other guy was saying that Boise State is going to the WCC. It reads to me that he thinks it’s a long shot. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

You should read some of the above posts by lawyers. It's called repudiation. Once you agree to something, put it in writing, and sign it, if you subsequently ask for something different, it can be considered a bad faith move indicating intent to default or breach. It basically opens the door for the other side to consider your word to not be valid.

I’m no lawyer but wouldn’t the MWC have to prove that Boise State intended or implied that they would breach the contract for there to be repudiation? Asking for the possibility of an amendment doesn’t constitute an intent to breech in my opinion. Seems that the burden of proof would be on the MWC in that case.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I’m no lawyer but wouldn’t the MWC have to prove that Boise State intended or implied that they would breach the contract for there to be repudiation? Asking for the possibility of an amendment doesn’t constitute an intent to breech in my opinion. Seems that the burden of proof would be on the MWC in that case.

Especially since the last time the contract was amended, it was at the request of the MWC not us. We agreed to take less than what we had been getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Especially since the last time the contract was amended, it was at the request of the MWC not us. We agreed to take less than what we had been getting.

Actually, Boise agreed to take an amount roughly equal to the average that they had been getting.  Regarding the repudiation thing, you got me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Headbutt said:

Actually, Boise agreed to take an amount roughly equal to the average that they had been getting.  Regarding the repudiation thing, you got me.

Point being that it seems like maybe some of the posters talking about bad faith and repudiation seem to be on the wrong page given that the original agreement has been amended before. Simply asking for it to be amended again since a new TV deal was being negotiated seems to me to be highly unlikely to have put BSU into automatic breach of contract or bad faith territory to me. But I guess we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nocoolnamejim said:

Point being that it seems like maybe some of the posters talking about bad faith and repudiation seem to be on the wrong page given that the original agreement has been amended before. Simply asking for it to be amended again since a new TV deal was being negotiated seems to me to be highly unlikely to have put BSU into automatic breach of contract or bad faith territory to me. But I guess we'll see.

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.  I'd be really surprised if that fine of a point comes into play in all of this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RSF said:

As for Boise going to the AAC....

 

Based on how tv deals are structured, the 1st year of the AAC deal with ESPN (guessing on a 5% annual increase) will pay each school 5.3 million.  Thats before ESPN+ costs.

 

Based on what is publically known about the new MWC, and adding in Boise's bonus, their take next year would be about 4.9 million next year.  Not seeing a financial incentive to moving.

The financial incentive is the two figures are only close because of Boise's special deal---which the MW has made clear they no longer feel the need to honor.  Conventional wisdom says the AAC is the more lucrative financial opportunity for Boise over the long term if the special deal is phased out.   The question at this point is---how effective can settlement negotiations be if Boise cant trust that the league will honor its commitment for more than one tv contract.   If you are the MW, how do you prove your willing to leave the deal in place for as long as Boise is in the league?    On the other side of the ledger---how does Boise prove to the MW membership that they wont use the special deal to hold every future conference TV negotiation hostage in order to demand higher and higher bonus payouts?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

I think the drugs your taking are all you can handle.  

You're one to talk. Your posts drip with promethazine syrup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

You can’t force a party to abide by a contract forever.  Boise can sue, claim breach of contract, and leave without an exit fee which is essentially what they are doing.   I’m relatively certain they have some sort of understanding with the AAC as they are trying to force the issue now while the AAC has an opening.   
 

the question is will the remaining MWC members hold firm or will they pick off 3-5 to form a western division of the AAC. 

Thats only a viable strategy if ESPN is willing to pay for it.  I dont know if ESPN is willing to pay 21 to 35 million a year more for an expanded AAC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I've seen this a few times and it still mystifies me.

Probably because I'm not a lawyer, but contracts are amended all the time...but to actually cancel one BSU would have to be in breach. I wasn't aware asking for amendments constituted an automatic breach of contract? Can someone explain to me how this piece works?

Neither are the guys saying asking for more money is a breach.  Boise can ask for more money.  The MW can say no.  Neither action constitutes a breach.  The SEC asked for more money from CBS when they added A&M and Missouri.  CBS said no.  Neither side breached their deal.  Someone has to actually violate the terms of the deal before you have a breach.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I doubt that BSU could or would want to take this approach. Most of the time these things have some pretty severe financial penalties for cancellation.

I think BYU's is $1 million plus per game (helps with the power schools)...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Headbutt said:

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.  I'd be really surprised if that fine of a point comes into play in all of this though.

I think it would be really easy for Boise State to counter the repudiation claim in court. That’s totally grasping at straws given the contract had been modified before at the request of the MWC. I watch enough Law & Order to know!!!

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...