No specific examples, but I can tell you from following his twitter feed he is usually not the first to report anything. He regurgitates news that's already out on the wire. So if this is accurate he has a well placed source that is only speaking to him and that would be unusual if not the first time he actually broke news.

(02-12-2013 12:59 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:57 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So did Fox and the C7 breach the Big East contract when they started trying to get the C7 to leave the Big East? Was that during the exclusive negotiation window with ESPN? Also since the C7 is claiming this is a "divorce" and that assets will be split shouldn't they also be held to the terms of the ESPN TV deal, meaning they can't change around the number of games being offered and that ESPN has the right of first refusal? I don't see how you can legally claim you aren't leaving the league and try to say you have a right to the name and assets but then say you are not attached to the ESPN TV deal.

When did the exclusive negotiation window expire? October or November?

The contract stated that it was the end of October, but recall that they extended the window by a few days because of Hurricane Sandy. Assuming that Fox didn't approach the C7 until after Rutgers and Louisville defected (which is almost certainly the case), then it would have been after the window expired.

(02-12-2013 01:04 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  Can someone tell me an example of what McMurphy said that was blatantly wrong? It seems the problem people have had with him, is he has reported low (well, what you all think is low) TV contract deals from his "sources." Did I miss something?

He published an article on June 30 saying Boise had decided to stay in the MWC. Not ten minutes after he published it, Boise withdrew formally from the MWC and that article was taken down. That seems to be the pattern with Brett. If he's wrong, the article goes away. There aren't many other examples. And like most reporters, he has a slant, but he typically only reports things he hears from his sources. He has been fed bad info at one time or another, but he probably has the best track record of anyone in the business at the moment.

(02-12-2013 01:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 12:57 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So did Fox and the C7 breach the Big East contract when they started trying to get the C7 to leave the Big East? Was that during the exclusive negotiation window with ESPN? Also since the C7 is claiming this is a "divorce" and that assets will be split shouldn't they also be held to the terms of the ESPN TV deal, meaning they can't change around the number of games being offered and that ESPN has the right of first refusal? I don't see how you can legally claim you aren't leaving the league and try to say you have a right to the name and assets but then say you are not attached to the ESPN TV deal.

If Fox approached the C7 after Rutgers and Louisville defected (which is very likely the case, as the value of the split for any party wasn't there until those 2 schools left), then no, it wouldn't have been during the exclusive negotiation window.

I understand what you're trying to argue about the "splitting of assets", but it's likely not applicable here. At the end of the day, the C7 is going to form a separate league from a legal standpoint. It would be an interesting tactic if ESPN tried to argue that it had a right of first refusal for the C7 (I wouldn't put anything past that group). At face value, I would say no because the C7 will be a new league even if it does end up being called the "Big East". That would be trying to claim form over substance, which is typically a losing argument. For instance, if Disney were to sell just the brand name "Pixar, Inc." (and not any of the Pixar legal entity) to Fox, that doesn't mean that all contracts that were signed by Pixar, Inc. prior that sale would be held by Fox. Those contracts are with the legal entity (NOT the same). (By the same token, if you legally change your own name, that doesn't suddenly invalidate all of the contracts like your mortgage that were signed under your old name. The law generally gives more weight to substance as opposed to the form, not the other way around.)

That's a long-winded way of saying that these are separate issues. Just because the C7 claiming that they have rights in Big East intellectual property doesn't mean that they're beholden to Big East contracts as long as the C7 establishes a separate legal entity (even if the C7 ends up with the Big East name). The Fox offer won't be "official" until the C7 officially establishes a new league, so even if ESPN were to argue that there's a right of first refusal today (since the C7 haven't officially withdrawn yet), there's no "official" offer on the table to exercise that right.

How can the C7 establish themselves a separate legal entity any more than the all-sports side if this is just a divorce? Why would the all-sports side not have the same ability?

(02-12-2013 08:58 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 05:31 AM)jam2112 Wrote:  Now would be a good time for Aresco to come out with a statement refuting the McMurphy story.
Mr. Aresco, are you out there?!

Maybe Aresco does not consider their propaganda crap worth dignifying with a response.

If he's in negotiations he shouldn't be saying anything right now.

(02-12-2013 01:56 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 08:58 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 05:31 AM)jam2112 Wrote:  Now would be a good time for Aresco to come out with a statement refuting the McMurphy story.
Mr. Aresco, are you out there?!

Maybe Aresco does not consider their propaganda crap worth dignifying with a response.

If he's in negotiations he shouldn't be saying anything right now.

You're right he shouldn't, but if this deal ends up being accepted he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

(02-12-2013 01:04 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  Can someone tell me an example of what McMurphy said that was blatantly wrong? It seems the problem people have had with him, is he has reported low (well, what you all think is low) TV contract deals from his "sources." Did I miss something?

Do your research, boy, and use the search feature on this board. Type in McMurphy and sift through..

Search is your friend.

Who has time for retrospectives?

(02-12-2013 01:31 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  How can the C7 establish themselves a separate legal entity any more than the all-sports side if this is just a divorce? Why would the all-sports side not have the same ability?

In theory, that could happen. In practically, that won't happen because, as of today, the C7 can split off and form a league that has enough members and can immediately garner an NCAA auto-bid via waiver (this is a foregone conclusion). That isn't the case for the football members until after June 30th (when Houston, SMU, et. al officially join) and the entire point of the C7 splitting off now is to ensure all of this is completed prior to that date.

At the same time, this entire exercise was anticipated by everyone in the Big East 2003. That's why a "pre-nup" exists in the first place. This is what makes the situation completely unique compared to any other conference defection - all of the members tried to address the fact that there would be a future split with a written agreement, which means that all normal considerations about "who's leaving and who isn't" are effectively thrown out the window. UConn, Cincinnati and USF can't argue that they didn't know that the Catholic 7 could place a claim on the Big East name - it was very clear and established by written agreement that the Catholic 7 leaving as a group would be treated in an entirely different manner than any normal defections. Once again, that doesn't mean that the C7 will end up with the name, but everyone that is trying to apply a "they left and we're here, so we get to keep it" line of thinking is completely off-base. It doesn't apply here.

(02-12-2013 02:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:31 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  How can the C7 establish themselves a separate legal entity any more than the all-sports side if this is just a divorce? Why would the all-sports side not have the same ability?

In theory, that could happen. In practically, that won't happen because, as of today, the C7 can split off and form a league that has enough members and can immediately garner an NCAA auto-bid via waiver (this is a foregone conclusion). That isn't the case for the football members until after June 30th (when Houston, SMU, et. al officially join) and the entire point of the C7 splitting off now is to ensure all of this is completed prior to that date.

At the same time, this entire exercise was anticipated by everyone in the Big East 2003. That's why a "pre-nup" exists in the first place. This is what makes the situation completely unique compared to any other conference defection - all of the members tried to address the fact that there would be a future split with a written agreement, which means that all normal considerations about "who's leaving and who isn't" are effectively thrown out the window. UConn, Cincinnati and USF can't argue that they didn't know that the Catholic 7 could place a claim on the Big East name - it was very clear and established by written agreement that the Catholic 7 leaving as a group would be treated in an entirely different manner than any normal defections. Once again, that doesn't mean that the C7 will end up with the name, but everyone that is trying to apply a "they left and we're here, so we get to keep it" line of thinking is completely off-base. It doesn't apply here.

But then it gets back to my point of how can you claim you are exercising a "pre-nup" and splitting assets but then not be liable on any of the provisions in the TV deal that supposedly are harming the FB schools? They are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal, they believe they have a rightful claim to the branding, but then have no liability?

(02-12-2013 02:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:31 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  How can the C7 establish themselves a separate legal entity any more than the all-sports side if this is just a divorce? Why would the all-sports side not have the same ability?

In theory, that could happen. In practically, that won't happen because, as of today, the C7 can split off and form a league that has enough members and can immediately garner an NCAA auto-bid via waiver (this is a foregone conclusion). That isn't the case for the football members until after June 30th (when Houston, SMU, et. al officially join) and the entire point of the C7 splitting off now is to ensure all of this is completed prior to that date.

At the same time, this entire exercise was anticipated by everyone in the Big East 2003. That's why a "pre-nup" exists in the first place. This is what makes the situation completely unique compared to any other conference defection - all of the members tried to address the fact that there would be a future split with a written agreement, which means that all normal considerations about "who's leaving and who isn't" are effectively thrown out the window. UConn, Cincinnati and USF can't argue that they didn't know that the Catholic 7 could place a claim on the Big East name - it was very clear and established by written agreement that the Catholic 7 leaving as a group would be treated in an entirely different manner than any normal defections. Once again, that doesn't mean that the C7 will end up with the name, but everyone that is trying to apply a "they left and we're here, so we get to keep it" line of thinking is completely off-base. It doesn't apply here.

LMAO! The name isn't covered in the "pre-nup"... that is the whole point.
Why do you keep posting that there is a "pre nup" (like you're breaking a story or something)? That's common knowledge.

(02-12-2013 02:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 02:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:31 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  How can the C7 establish themselves a separate legal entity any more than the all-sports side if this is just a divorce? Why would the all-sports side not have the same ability?

In theory, that could happen. In practically, that won't happen because, as of today, the C7 can split off and form a league that has enough members and can immediately garner an NCAA auto-bid via waiver (this is a foregone conclusion). That isn't the case for the football members until after June 30th (when Houston, SMU, et. al officially join) and the entire point of the C7 splitting off now is to ensure all of this is completed prior to that date.

At the same time, this entire exercise was anticipated by everyone in the Big East 2003. That's why a "pre-nup" exists in the first place. This is what makes the situation completely unique compared to any other conference defection - all of the members tried to address the fact that there would be a future split with a written agreement, which means that all normal considerations about "who's leaving and who isn't" are effectively thrown out the window. UConn, Cincinnati and USF can't argue that they didn't know that the Catholic 7 could place a claim on the Big East name - it was very clear and established by written agreement that the Catholic 7 leaving as a group would be treated in an entirely different manner than any normal defections. Once again, that doesn't mean that the C7 will end up with the name, but everyone that is trying to apply a "they left and we're here, so we get to keep it" line of thinking is completely off-base. It doesn't apply here.

But then it gets back to my point of how can you claim you are exercising a "pre-nup" and splitting assets but then not be liable on any of the provisions in the TV deal that supposedly are harming the FB schools? They are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal, they believe they have a rightful claim to the branding, but then have no liability?

+2

Exactly. And these are the issues that would be strongly weighed by an arbiter.

(02-12-2013 02:23 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  LMAO! The name isn't covered in the "pre-nup"... that is the whole point.

1. How do you know that?

2. Why wouldn't it be? It was known when the pre-nup was written that "Who gets the name" would be an issue. So why wouldn't the agreement designed to address issues relating to a split address that issue relating to a split?

Now, it's very possible that "addressing the issue" means "we agree to work it out amicably", if you can't agree on a formula in 2003. But to say that it's "not covered" is a strong claim.

(02-12-2013 02:23 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  LMAO! The name isn't covered in the "pre-nup"... that is the whole point.

Actually it is. It is not covered as in making it clear who gets the name, but it is most definitely listed that the splitting party retains a claim to the right to the name. You have to remember it was wildly assumed that if there was a split, if anyone initiated it then it would have been the football schools who wanted further expansion, not the other way around. That was the assumption. And they wanted to make sure if they did leave, they did not just outright forfeit the name, and retained a stake to claim it.

(02-12-2013 02:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  But then it gets back to my point of how can you claim you are exercising a "pre-nup" and splitting assets but then not be liable on any of the provisions in the TV deal that supposedly are harming the FB schools? They are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal, they believe they have a rightful claim to the branding, but then have no liability?

If it was a debt or a liability, you would have a point. But it's not a true liability. Technically its an asset, even if it is not a favorable asset. Also the defense of "they are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal" does not help the nBE in the claim to the rights to the name.

(02-12-2013 02:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 02:23 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  LMAO! The name isn't covered in the "pre-nup"... that is the whole point.

Actually it is. It is not covered as in making it clear who gets the name, but it is most definitely listed that the splitting party retains a claim to the right to the name. You have to remember it was wildly assumed that if there was a split, if anyone initiated it then it would have been the football schools who wanted further expansion, not the other way around. That was the assumption. And they wanted to make sure if they did leave, they did not just outright forfeit the name, and retained a stake to claim it.

(02-12-2013 02:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  But then it gets back to my point of how can you claim you are exercising a "pre-nup" and splitting assets but then not be liable on any of the provisions in the TV deal that supposedly are harming the FB schools? They are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal, they believe they have a rightful claim to the branding, but then have no liability?

If it was a debt or a liability, you would have a point. But it's not a true liability. Technically its an asset, even if it is not a favorable asset. Also the defense of "they are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal" does not help the nBE in the claim to the rights to the name.

Even if it's an asset we are still splitting assets and I doubt our side would want to get stuck with that bad asset without a larger share of good assets to offset it. Also I'm not arguing for the nBE keeping the name with that argument. I'm arguing in favor of the C7 having more claim to the name because of that, which would also not allow them to be free of ESPN's contract stipulations if they truly are the Big East and not the rest of us.

(02-12-2013 01:59 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 01:04 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  Can someone tell me an example of what McMurphy said that was blatantly wrong? It seems the problem people have had with him, is he has reported low (well, what you all think is low) TV contract deals from his "sources." Did I miss something?

Do your research, boy, and use the search feature on this board. Type in McMurphy and sift through..

Search is your friend.

Who has time for retrospectives?

So it is basically what I suspected, nothing of note he said has been incorrect. He stated Boise State was remaining in the MWC, which they are. Appears, people tried to attack his credibility because they didn't like what he had to say...

(02-12-2013 01:56 PM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 08:58 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 05:31 AM)jam2112 Wrote:  Now would be a good time for Aresco to come out with a statement refuting the McMurphy story.
Mr. Aresco, are you out there?!

Maybe Aresco does not consider their propaganda crap worth dignifying with a response.

If he's in negotiations he shouldn't be saying anything right now.

Neither should any parties that may be involved in these or subsequent negotiations (ie, ESPN), or sources that either have access to this information under an NDA or have received leaked confidential information -- regardless it is confidential info -- for a Party to pass this information along, is both an ethical & legal violation {but somehow the WorldWide Leader seems to play by a different set of rules}.

(02-12-2013 02:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 02:23 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  LMAO! The name isn't covered in the "pre-nup"... that is the whole point.

Actually it is. It is not covered as in making it clear who gets the name, but it is most definitely listed that the splitting party retains a claim to the right to the name. You have to remember it was wildly assumed that if there was a split, if anyone initiated it then it would have been the football schools who wanted further expansion, not the other way around. That was the assumption. And they wanted to make sure if they did leave, they did not just outright forfeit the name, and retained a stake to claim it.

(02-12-2013 02:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  But then it gets back to my point of how can you claim you are exercising a "pre-nup" and splitting assets but then not be liable on any of the provisions in the TV deal that supposedly are harming the FB schools? They are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal, they believe they have a rightful claim to the branding, but then have no liability?

If it was a debt or a liability, you would have a point. But it's not a true liability. Technically its an asset, even if it is not a favorable asset. Also the defense of "they are a majority of the schools left that signed the deal" does not help the nBE in the claim to the rights to the name.

Thats just it. If they were leaving they would not be bound by the agreement---but as we have been told, they are not leaving. They are splitting the assets. Well, if you want the name, guess what comes with it.

(02-12-2013 02:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Even if it's an asset we are still splitting assets and I doubt our side would want to get stuck with that bad asset without a larger share of good assets to offset it.

I get what you are saying, but it doesn;t work in this case. The prenup, was put in so that if one entity (football vs, non-football) was not happy with the direction of the conference, they could leave and start their own conference. As a brand new conference, they would not have gotten to share in the TV contract if it contained favorable terms to the remining schools (say an automatic rollover feature that doubled the value), thus they are obligated to infavorable terms. The remaining group is the one the keeps the Big East infrastructure, contracts, etc (another example is that if the MSG contract were iron clad and did not give MSG an out due to membership changed, the C7 would not get to share in that either once they left). However the financial assets, which include NCAA tournament credits, back owed TV money, and in this case the name, are split up.

It sucks this is happening due to the timing, but what you suggest, that the leaving parties also be parties to and keep parts of contracts, would harm the remaining parties 9 out of 10 times. Especially in terms of things that were probably more important at the time than they are now, such as the BE tournament, headquarters, licenign agreements, employee rentention, etc, things that your suggestion would mean they would retain rigths to all of those things, woudl generally have been bad for the remaining football teams (no one predicted over half of the football conference would leave)This just so happens to be the tenth time.

(02-12-2013 03:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats just it. If they were leaving they would not be bound by the agreement---but as we have been told, they are not leaving. They are splitting the assets. Well, if you want the name, guess what comes with it.

That was addressed earlier (see above, I think last page). I am not an attorney, but the expaliantion given (from an attorney) makes sense to me, and refutes what you suggest. Don't shoot the messenger on that, just that it makes sense to me, and comes from someone who that is their expertise.

(02-12-2013 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Quote:
(a) Negotiating Period. Conference shall negotiate exclusively with ESPN·for a
period of 30 days (the "Negotiating Period") commencing on a date selected by ESPN
(but not later than Aprill, 2010) with respect to the acquisition by ESPN for one or more
years of rights to the package of Events set forth herein. It is of the essence of this
Agreement that Conference offer ESPN the same package of rights set forth in this
Agreement, and, should the parties not reach agreement, that the Conference make the
exact same package of rights available to third paties.

(b) Offer/Reoffer Procedure. If ESPN and Conference have not reached an
agreement by the end of the Negotiating Period, Conference shall make a written offer
(the "Offer") within three days thereafter to ESPN of the monetary consideration on.
which it is willing to license such rights to ESPN. With the exception of monetary
consideration, Conference's Offer shall not contain any terms or conditions which are
different from those contained in this Agreement("Nonconfonning Terms") other than as
permitted by section (d), below. If ESPN does not accept the Offer within fourteen days
of its receipt by ESPN, Conference may then enter into an agreement with a third party
with respect to the same package of events set forth herein, but not for monetary
consideration less than that contained in the offer without first offering to ESPN the
same monetary terms as offered to the third party ("the Reoffer"). ESPN shall accept or
reject a Reoffer by Conference no later than seven days from its receipt.
--------------------------

The way I read section "d" that once the exclusive period is over the BE can offer different packages, but ESPN has to get the right to match the price on the different packages. In other words, if the package is changes at all, ESPN gets an opportunity to match. It doesnt prevent the nBE from dividing the rights package as some are claiming.

Wanted to provide an update b/c I had a few free minutes to look over ESPN's complaint against C-USA.

C-USA was outside of exclusive negotiations with ESPN and had to provide a First Offer, similar to what the Big East did with their $300 million/year offer. They provided a response to an ESPN email agreeing to several key points and had one request as part of the points.

The key part is what C-USA requested: relief from exclusivity in their ESPN time slots on Saturday & Thursday for football, plus time slot exclusivity in their men's basketball games. C-USA wanted ESPN and CBS Sports Network to be able to air games concurrently if necessary, particularly with ESPN taking on some ESPN3 games in football. ESPN's contract specifically states that no secondary distributor could televise a game while ESPN is televising one.

(Side note: I looked over C-USA from '05-'10. I think I found a handful of instances where CBSSN & ESPN had overlap. Per the contract, ESPN could have modified its game selections. Most times these overlaps were for games that ESPN really wanted like a Texas-UCF game, and my guess is they were willing to accept the overlap).

Anyways, ESPN considered the request for relief from time slot exclusivity for their games a Nonconforming Term and ESPN did not consider the email a valid First Offer.

With that said, I don't think its a stretch at all to say that if the conference were negotiating with any third party, ESPN would expect an offer that has the same terms their existing agreement has. And if it doesn't, they'll likely push back to protect their contractual rights. That would probably include whatever rights, regional and national, are covered in the existing deal.

The complaint is in the previously linked post in the zip file, labeled 1-main.pdf, points 27-29.
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=617...pid8948685