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

2 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

"26. Under the proposed CBS/Fox agreement and the increased television rights revenue

resulting therefrom, and assuming the bonus structure remaioed the same, Boise State would

receive in excess of 55 million annually under the contract. Overall, the value of the proposed

CBS/Fox agreement to the MWC and all of its members was more than double that of the prior

CBS/ESPN agreement."

"29. Consistent with the Re-Entry Agreement as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement

Amendment, the spirit of that agreement, Boise State's importance to Fox and the increase in

revenue its football games generated for the MWC, Dr. Tromp notified Mr. Thompson during their

December 2019 meeting that not only did Boise State expect to retain the $1.8 million guaranteed

bonus set forth in the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment, but to also gain an additional,

proportionate share of the increased revenue from the new television deal with Fox"

30. Based on Mr. Thompson's representations, Boise State, including Dr. Tromp and Mr. Apsey, reasonably believed that at the upcoming Board of Directors meeting to be held on December 15 and 16,2019, the MWC would support the following: (1) the continued payment of the $l.8 million bonus to Boise State as it expressly agreed and was obligated to do under the Re-Entry Agreement as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment; and (2) increasing that bonus amount in proportion to the amount the revenue generated from the CBS/Fox agreement increased in comparison to the prior CBS/ESPN agreement.

I am not an Attorney, so please correct me if I am wrong.   I read this statement as not only does Boise want maintain 1.8m payment but increase the payment by 3.5 x as the value of the contract increased by roughly that much on a per school basis.  Thus their increasing their payment to 6.3M from 1.8M.    If that is the case that is ridiculous to think that MW schools would agree to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

In all honesty, SDSU doesn't get much from Boise.  We are perpetually on CBSSN, we aren't an annual game in football, and they don't move the needle in the other sports.  The difference without them would be maybe 300k/year per team.  Not that much for SDSU.  

The Mountain schools would probably not like it though.

Agreed. And with UNLV's new $$ from the stadium deal, they probably have no patience for Boise's demands too. SDSU due to get more bank with a new stadium as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 4UNLV said:

Chump change, lol. 

 

Yeah, that contract works both ways.. 

But if Thompson told Boise State they would get more money and then didn't follow through.....  

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aztec Since 88 said:

30. Based on Mr. Thompson's representations, Boise State, including Dr. Tromp and Mr. Apsey, reasonably believed that at the upcoming Board of Directors meeting to be held on December 15 and 16,2019, the MWC would support the following: (1) the continued payment of the $l.8 million bonus to Boise State as it expressly agreed and was obligated to do under the Re-Entry Agreement as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment; and (2) increasing that bonus amount in proportion to the amount the revenue generated from the CBS/Fox agreement increased in comparison to the prior CBS/ESPN agreement.

I am not an Attorney, so please correct me if I am wrong.   I read this statement as not only does Boise want maintain 1.8m payment but increase the payment by 3.5 x as the value of the contract increased by roughly that much on a per school basis.  Thus their increasing their payment to 6.3M from 1.8M.    If that is the case that is ridiculous to think that MW schools would agree to that.

Yeah that’s phucking ridiculous if true.  

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

3 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

In all honesty, SDSU doesn't get much from Boise.  We are perpetually on CBSSN, we aren't an annual game in football, and they don't move the needle in the other sports.  The difference without them would be maybe 300k/year per team.  Not that much for SDSU.  

The Mountain schools would probably not like it though.

You're probably right for the time being.  However, when the next go around with television rights comes around, the value of the rights for the conference will most likely be less, a lot less.  Who's going to take our place, should we leave the conference?  UTEP?  New Mexico State?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spazdog said:

You're probably right for the time being.  However, when the next go around with television rights comes around, the value of the rights for the conference will most likely be less, a lot less.  Who's going to take our place, should we leave the conference?  UTEP?  New Mexico State?  

How bout no one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Spazdog said:

The Mountain West needs Boise State more than Boise State needs the Mountain West.  If BSU leaves, who's going to take west coast time slots on any network?  My bet is that the PAC12 will be the beneficiaries.  

Completely disagree.  The landscape has changed substantially since the re-entry agreement took place.  At the time, the MWC was trying to position itself as the best G5 conference and hopefully have an annual (or close to it) trip to a BCS bowl game (with its huge payout).  In 2014 the BCS system was dismantled somewhat in favor of the CFP (for which we are essentially cut out -- with or without Boise).

If MWC votes to kick Boise now because they won't share equally going forward, I have to think the remaining MWC teams (who already get smaller shares compared to Boise) have already evaluated and calculated that they would not be losing significant revenue or prestige from the standing they currently have.  The MWC may not be bluffing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

See page 2 of the thread :P 

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

2 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

Completely disagree.  The landscape has changed substantially since the re-entry agreement took place.  At the time, the MWC was trying to position itself as the best G5 conference and hopefully have an annual (or close to it) trip to a BCS bowl game (with its huge payout).  In 2014 the BCS system was dismantled somewhat in favor of the CFP (for which we are essentially cut out -- with or without Boise).

If MWC votes to kick Boise now because they won't share equally going forward, I have to think the remaining MWC teams (who already get smaller shares compared to Boise) have already evaluated and calculated that they would not be losing significant revenue or prestige from the standing they currently have.  The MWC may not be bluffing here.

 

Perhaps.  But there's a reason why kicking out a full member is so difficult.  As I said in a previous post, EVERYONE has to be on board.  I don't think the other 10 members are unified on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

 

Perhaps.  But there's a reason why kicking out a full member is so difficult.  As I said in a previous post, EVERYONE has to be on board.  I don't think the other 10 members are unified on this.

Depending on BSU's actions, they might be. If it is true that BSU want to maintain 3.5x the payout of every MWC school, in perpetuity, regardless of the amount and with no basis on performance... I can totally see every school getting on board with kicking them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

Completely disagree.  The landscape has changed substantially since the re-entry agreement took place.  At the time, the MWC was trying to position itself as the best G5 conference and hopefully have an annual (or close to it) trip to a BCS bowl game (with its huge payout).  In 2014 the BCS system was dismantled somewhat in favor of the CFP (for which we are essentially cut out -- with or without Boise).

If MWC votes to kick Boise now because they won't share equally going forward, I have to think the remaining MWC teams (who already get smaller shares compared to Boise) have already evaluated and calculated that they would not be losing significant revenue or prestige from the standing they currently have.  The MWC may not be bluffing here.

You don't think CBS/Fox have language in the contract to renegotiate if Boise State football is no longer part of the package?

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jdgaucho said:

 

Perhaps.  But there's a reason why kicking out a full member is so difficult.  As I said in a previous post, EVERYONE has to be on board.  I don't think the other 10 members are unified on this.

I'm thinking Thompson may have known exactly how many votes he had (i.e. leverage) when he made the statement that Boise will not be getting the $1.8m in future agreements.  I don't understand why the other members would agree to hold onto Boise if Boise is going to continuously position itself for larger shares of the revenue. I don't fault Boise for acting in its own self-interest, but at some point it needs to be recognized for what it is -- not in the MWC's best interests.  That point may be now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

ESPN lost the MWC deal.

Does ESPN step in here and offer Boise an Indy TV contract?  (effectively keeping BYU and Boise in house, to fill its programming needs).

If Boise doesn't have a backup plan, they might end up screwing themselves over.

Not even BYU ever demanded unequal TV payout shares.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

How bout no one?

No disrespect intended, but who will be flag bearer for the conference?  San Diego State is the most consistent over the past 6 or 8 years, in my opinion.  But does it bring in the national audience?  Viewership is the driving force for television.  Las Vegas's success on the field is not ideal and they  can't even bring in a decent number of fans to their home games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
4 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

Depending on BSU's actions, they might be. If it is true that BSU want to maintain 3.5x the payout of every MWC school, in perpetuity, regardless of the amount and with no basis on performance... I can totally see every school getting on board with kicking them out.

Wow.  Boise has a massively huge @Jeffkills set of balls, if true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...