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

1 hour ago, nvspuds said:

Hey Boise folks..Would you still want to be in the MWC if you didn't get the bonus or the separate negotiation for your home games?

No.  Why would I want my school associating with a group of schools who trashed a contract they signed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sactowndog said:

If you believe people should stick by their word does that include Boise holding the league TV contract hostage to increase their duty above $1.8M

I keep hearing this as a legal reason to breach the deal.  Even if Boise was using the terms of the deal as leverage to get a bigger bonus--So what?  That was perfectly within their rights to do and did not violate the terms.  Besides, if you game plan that strategy out to the end game--it kinda goes nowhere.  Think about it---Boise only has veto power over its 6 home football games---nothing else.  So Boise can not stop the MW from selling the the vast majority of their inventory.  Furthermore, the Boise can only sell their home football games if BOTH the MW and Boise consent.  

So---Boise says we dont consent to the sale of our games until we get a bigger bonus.  MW says "no".  Boise says we wont sign off on the deal.  MW says "cool".  MW then completes the deal with FOXX/CBS without the 6 Boise home games.  Boise then waits....and waits...and waits---and summer hits.  Now Boise is facing a season where every single home games is NOT on TV.....and they have very little time to do a deal. If Boise home games aren't on TV, it hurts Boise a hell of a lot more than the other schools---so suddenly the negotiating advantage is now with the MW.

So, honestly, somewhere between getting that first "no" from the MW on their increased bonus demand---and the first football game in late August----a deal is going get worked out.  The whole "holding the league TV deal hostage" is a bit overblown.  Boise only has veto power over a very tiny portion of the MW TV inventory and the contract is constructed where both parties have sufficient leverage to take care of their own interests.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Why yes I do.

Enjoy the doublewide, Clem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No.  Why would I want my school associating with a group of schools who trashed a contract they signed?

Speaking of contracts, under the MWCBoard bylaws, Chad Sexington clause, we need a BSU representative to start flooding threads with this...

6d3342149d891f2aa3b3bc46760d2fd4--burnin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Don't forget to mention it is on a corner lot, Jed.

At the end of the day you still live in a trailer park. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BSUFan said:

When Boise State returned to the Mountain West and negotiated the re-entry argeement there was a bonus of $300,000 to $500,000 per team, per game for the games played depending on the night of the week.  I posted the reference to this in an earlier post.  Long story short, MWC approached Boise State and asked if they would be willing to renegotiate the terms in 2016.  Boise and the conferece came to a mutual agreement and modified the original contract.  That is where the $1.8m figure came from.

Boise State hasn't held anyone "hostage". It is not unreasonable to think if the Mountain West Conference approached Boise State to renegotiate the re-entry agreement once before that when the terms changed and both sides earned more money for Boise to think they could approach the Mountain West to renegotiate. 

I just don't see Boise State taking hostages anywhere.

My understanding, and happy to be proven incorrect, is Boise held up approving the deal because they wanted to increase the amount above $1.8M since the total amount was greater.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

That was never in the contract that I’m aware of. Thus, if we are talking about contract matters then Boise State is not entitled to an increased amount. 

I believe that the original agreement call for payments of 500 and 300.   When the bonus system was scrapped, they changed it to 1.8M which was they average of what Boise had earned under the bonus system.  To make that adjustment they would have had to modify the agreement or the conference would have had to pay both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CaffeinatedCoog said:

I keep hearing this as a legal reason to breach the deal.  Even if Boise was using the terms of the deal as leverage to get a bigger bonus--So what?  That was perfectly within their rights to do and did not violate the terms.  Besides, if you game plan that strategy out to the end game--it kinda goes nowhere.  Think about it---Boise only has veto power over its 6 home football games---nothing else.  So Boise can not stop the MW from selling the the vast majority of their inventory.  Furthermore, the Boise can only sell their home football games if BOTH the MW and Boise consent.  

So---Boise says we dont consent to the sale of our games until we get a bigger bonus.  MW says "no".  Boise says we wont sign off on the deal.  MW says "cool".  MW then completes the deal with FOXX/CBS without the 6 Boise home games.  Boise then waits....and waits...and waits---and summer hits.  Now Boise is facing a season where every single home games is NOT on TV.....and they have very little time to do a deal. If Boise home games aren't on TV, it hurts Boise a hell of a lot more than the other schools---so suddenly the negotiating advantage is now with the MW.

So, honestly, somewhere between getting that first "no" from the MW on their increased bonus demand---and the first football game in late August----a deal is going get worked out.  The whole "holding the league TV deal hostage" is a bit overblown.  Boise only has veto power over a very tiny portion of the MW TV inventory and the contract is constructed where both parties have sufficient leverage to take care of their own interests.    

I’m not a lawyer who can decide whether it breaches it or not.  I have heard comments from both sides.   As the Trump impeachment has shown lawyers can disagree over the most obvious points.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Going to be fun watching the MWC deal get cut in half when Boise leaves.  

If that's the case, just go independent and collect your $20M+ per year. What's the delay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nvspuds said:

Hey Boise folks..Would you still want to be in the MWC if you didn't get the bonus or the separate negotiation for your home games?

Yes... depending on what other options are available, but I love being in the MW, personally 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kingpotato said:

Yes... depending on what other options are available, but I love being in the MW, personally 

I love being in the MWC as well but not at the expense of our "peers" trashing a contract they signed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Wyovanian said:

If that's the case, just go independent and collect your $20M+ per year. What's the delay?

The loss of value from Boise leaving will not be directly correlated to Boise's worth.  It will come from pissed off media partners forced to going back to the negotiating table.  Fox may not even want to bid again.  If Fox declines to bid on MWC properties that no longer include Boise State football games you will be left with what CBS wants to give.  

The MWC and all parties can save face here.  Pay Boise their 1.8 mil and add a very small performance based incentive, like an additional 500k-750k to the conference champ, and everybody wins.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VandalPride97 said:

You'll immediately be competing for the championship every year in the AAC much the way Idaho was a shoe-in to dominate the Big Sky.

You thought you would dominate the Big Sky? That's hilarious. :Clapping:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ibanez said:

You thought you would dominate the Big Sky? That's hilarious. :Clapping:

Little did we know that our coach was going to start his woefully inadequate son at QB.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdgaucho said:

 

I'll admit I was hoping you'd give a "damn the Big West, I NEVER want to go back there!" response.  But that post of yours was nicely stated.  As long as there has not been a formal split, Boise and the MWC can still work things out and I hope you both do so. 

 

I don't have a problem with the Big West. I do think Boise State's basketball would have a drop off if that was where we went. I don't feel like kids wanna play in front of 2000-4000 people a night. But baseball and Olympic sports? Big West would be a great conference for those. But the MWC would be better. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VandalPride97 said:

Little did we know that our coach was going to start his woefully inadequate son at QB.  

What's the excuse for basketball? Actually you know what? I don't care. I don't dislike Idaho. I've never had a problem with Idaho. I've never cared either way. I know you have hundreds of reasons to hate Boise State. So if coming here to vent is your thing then so be it. 

Go Broncos...

College Life Football GIF by Boise State University

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jdgaucho said:

Here's one for @VandalPride97 .

Willie Alderson caught a TD pass in the 4th quarter vs Boise in 1998, a 36-35 overtime win for the Vandals that propelled them into the Humanitarian Bowl.  It is Idaho's most recent win over their blue turf bros

97630938_1998IdahoWillieAldersonatBoiseMakeeshBrooks.LewistonMorningTribuneNov221998.png.8f9842a999997c5e0cc9d09e1c003be0.png

Fun fact: Willie Alderson used to train the dogs that retrieve the tee after Boise State kickoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I love being in the MWC as well but not at the expense of our "peers" trashing a contract they signed.

If saying it now has an ending date is "trashing" it...okay 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...