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

14 minutes ago, sjsbuff said:

Since you've got it all figured out, I'll leave you be.  Your righteous indignation is clouding what might have happened, which is what I've been suggesting all long (not what did actually happen).   Continue running with your own storyline.  It fits your needs best...

Cool. GFY.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, quickdraw said:

This thread typifies what it must be like dealing with BSU on about every level. I’m not surprised that the bloom is off of the rose. Now it smells just like what it is and always has been.

Apologies that our fans on this thread are not as logical and level headed as UNLV fans. You guys are the best.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Mike Prater, who isn’t a Boise State honk but rather a Utah alum and fan, puts most of the blame on Hair in this OpEd:

https://www.idahopress.com/blueturfsports/mike-prater-mw-a-mess-and-questions-start-with-the/

I read the article and it does a good job summarizing Boise's stated perspective relatively succinctly and jives with many Boise-fans views here.  It reads as one-sided and not very objective but that doesn't downplay what's being said.  It would seem that this author-and several fans here are equating Thompson not acting in the best interest of Boise to not doing his job.  His responsibility is to the conference and its members as a whole, not acquiescing to a single member.  If things played out as stated in the article then it would be easy for Thompson to argue that after consulting with the other teams in the conference at a later time it was determined that Boise's plan/discussion in December/etc does not reflect the best step forward for the conference.  There is no liability there.  Regardless of what was agreed to in 2012 it is the prerogative of the conference and its members to revisit what's best for them at any time, especially at times of revenue negotiations such as now with tv contracts.  I hope everyone gets as much as they can, Boise included.  I just don't like the optics of this from Boise.  I'm just an outsider to these parts so I understand my opinion is null to the argument; I just know that unequal sharing will be the death of the conference so it needs to end.  Boise is effectively pooping where they sleep, they just have zero leverage and are choosing a polarizing pathway at best.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I read the article and it does a good job summarizing Boise's stated perspective relatively succinctly and jives with many Boise-fans views here.  It reads as one-sided and not very objective but that doesn't downplay what's being said.  It would seem that this author-and several fans here are equating Thompson not acting in the best interest of Boise to not doing his job.  His responsibility is to the conference and its members as a whole, not acquiescing to a single member.  If things played out as stated in the article then it would be easy for Thompson to argue that after consulting with the other teams in the conference at a later time it was determined that Boise's plan/discussion in December/etc does not reflect the best step forward for the conference.  There is no liability there.  Regardless of what was agreed to in 2012 it is the prerogative of the conference and its members to revisit what's best for them at any time, especially at times of revenue negotiations such as now with tv contracts.  I hope everyone gets as much as they can, Boise included.  I just don't like the optics of this from Boise.  I'm just an outsider to these parts so I understand my opinion is null to the argument; I just know that unequal sharing will be the death of the conference so it needs to end.  Boise is effectively pooping where they sleep, they just have zero leverage and are choosing a polarizing pathway at best.  

The point being, there are ways to settle a disagreement or misalignment between parties effectively. What transpired was not effective. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I read the article and it does a good job summarizing Boise's stated perspective relatively succinctly and jives with many Boise-fans views here.  It reads as one-sided and not very objective but that doesn't downplay what's being said.  It would seem that this author-and several fans here are equating Thompson not acting in the best interest of Boise to not doing his job.  His responsibility is to the conference and its members as a whole, not acquiescing to a single member.  If things played out as stated in the article then it would be easy for Thompson to argue that after consulting with the other teams in the conference at a later time it was determined that Boise's plan/discussion in December/etc does not reflect the best step forward for the conference.  There is no liability there.  Regardless of what was agreed to in 2012 it is the prerogative of the conference and its members to revisit what's best for them at any time, especially at times of revenue negotiations such as now with tv contracts.  I hope everyone gets as much as they can, Boise included.  I just don't like the optics of this from Boise.  I'm just an outsider to these parts so I understand my opinion is null to the argument; I just know that unequal sharing will be the death of the conference so it needs to end.  Boise is effectively pooping where they sleep, they just have zero leverage and are choosing a polarizing pathway at best.  

One sided and not very objective is putting it lightly.  According to the author it's Thompson's job to keep the other 10 presidents in line for Boise.  The cheek of 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sjsbuff said:

Well, since you ended things in such a classy way...

I never claimed to be classy. And you started tossing shit my way by talking about my righteousness and having everything figured out. So please climb down from your cross. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

I read the article and it does a good job summarizing Boise's stated perspective relatively succinctly and jives with many Boise-fans views here.  It reads as one-sided and not very objective but that doesn't downplay what's being said.  It would seem that this author-and several fans here are equating Thompson not acting in the best interest of Boise to not doing his job.  His responsibility is to the conference and its members as a whole, not acquiescing to a single member.  If things played out as stated in the article then it would be easy for Thompson to argue that after consulting with the other teams in the conference at a later time it was determined that Boise's plan/discussion in December/etc does not reflect the best step forward for the conference.  There is no liability there.  Regardless of what was agreed to in 2012 it is the prerogative of the conference and its members to revisit what's best for them at any time, especially at times of revenue negotiations such as now with tv contracts.  I hope everyone gets as much as they can, Boise included.  I just don't like the optics of this from Boise.  I'm just an outsider to these parts so I understand my opinion is null to the argument; I just know that unequal sharing will be the death of the conference so it needs to end.  Boise is effectively pooping where they sleep, they just have zero leverage and are choosing a polarizing pathway at best.  

You make a lot of assumptions.

It doesn't change the fact that the conference breached the agreement and did a TV deal without our approval.

You say we have 0 leverage?

Let's see what Fox offers without BSU. I can tell you, it will be a decrease of a lot more than 1/12. That's the leverage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, k5james said:

One sided and not very objective is putting it lightly.  According to the author it's Thompson's job to keep the other 10 presidents in line for Boise.  The cheek of 'em.

No, what Prater was saying is that Thompson didn’t adequately prepare the parties on what to expect. He did a piss poor job of setting the course for compromise. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobbyBoSox said:

You make a lot of assumptions.

It doesn't change the fact that the conference breached the agreement and did a TV deal without our approval.

You say we have 0 leverage?

Let's see what Fox offers without BSU. I can tell you, it will be a decrease of a lot more than 1/12. That's the leverage!

My understanding is that Boise signed a letter agreeing to the terms of the deal in lieu of placing a vote in a teleconference, at least that's what was established early in the thread.  The deal would not have passed without Boise's proxy/vote in the first place.  What the real fact you are trying to state is that Boise agreed to terms without fully understanding the terms.  That is not an assumption.  That is Boise dropping the ball.  

Yeah, Boise has zero leverage.  What Fox is willing to offer the MWC sans Boise is irrelevant to Boise.  We are talking about Boise's lack of leverage, not the amount of leverage the MWC has.  The assumption I will make is that based off of the way things unfolding the way they have that enough presidents are willing to separate themselves from Boise at this time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BSUFan said:

If it goes to court, every fine point will come into play from both sides.

It's already "in court" so I assume you mean if it's litigated rather than settled prior to litigation. I only attended one year of law school but that first year always includes contracts and since there's been so much dispute about the merits of Boise's suit, I checked around this morning and found my old contracts outline, which lists these as the elements of anticipatory repudiation under the common law:

1. The repudiation was received under a bilateral contract in which there were executory duties remaining at the time of the repudiation;

2. The repudiated duty would result in a material breach if it were not performed when due; and

3. The repudiation was definite and unequivocal.

I'll defer to Joe or the Akron guy but agree with them that suggests the MWC probably isn't going to get the lawsuit dismissed on a summary judgment motion.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BobbyBoSox said:

You may very well be right.

But it's not just me. The BSU leadership believes we have a much higher value.

And the entire MWC is underestimating our value.

Hence, the predicament that we are in.

I love the MWC. But do we really want to find out the answer to this question?

To truely answer this question involves blowing up a bunch of shit!

No, the entire sports broadcasting industry would be who is underestimating your value. Otherwise you're making the case that Boise State deserves more than it's conference mates, A claim not made by any other program in the FBS. Like byu*, Boise State is arguing for special treatment.

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Did I hear a WOOSH? said:

My understanding is that Boise signed a letter agreeing to the terms of the deal in lieu of placing a vote in a teleconference, at least that's what was established early in the thread.  The deal would not have passed without Boise's approval.  What the real fact you are trying to state is that Boise agreed to terms without fully understanding the terms.  That is not an assumption.  That is Boise dropping the ball.  

Yeah, Boise has zero leverage.  What Fox is willing to offer the MWC sans Boise is irrelevant to Boise.  The assumption I will make is that based off of the way things unfolding the way they have that enough presidents are willing to separate themselves from Boise at this time.  

Your understanding is that Boise State signed ink to paper on a deal that explicitly said the $1.8M was going away and that the conference was no longer going to negotiate the tv contract separately? 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

No, what Prater was saying is that Thompson didn’t adequately prepare the parties on what to expect. He did a piss poor job of setting the course for compromise. 

Maybe.  We don't know that for sure.  All we have is Boise's side of the story at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, k5james said:

Maybe.  We don't know that for sure.  All we have is Boise's side of the story at this point.

So maybe the parties should go back to the table to work things out then? Like they should have done in the first place. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

Had no idea that an extra $1.8M is such a huge sum of money in Boise and the other MWC locales...

Really?

 

Doesn't like 1 potato combine harvester cost that much now? 

Doesn't like a 700 sq feet home in San Diego cost that much?

Doesn't Fresno confiscate that sum in illegal drug busts or stolen cars every weekend?

Doesn't Wyoming mine that sum in minerals every day?

 

Seems odd, almost embarrassing, that the conference is fighting, and almost blowing up over a pittance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...