http://sportspolitico.com/2015/02/16/wil...ure-raids/

" The Big 12 Grant of Rights is a little over four pages long. (1) It is an incredibly short contract for an agreement involving millions of dollars. The Grant of Rights further does itself no favors by having text that is filled with ambiguity. But the absolute killer for the GOR as a contract is the omission of a termination procedure as well as a damages clause."

I suggest clicking the link and reading more.

I am not a lawyer - so you are saying it is not a slam dunk contract that would keep a school from defecting?

(07-07-2015 03:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I am not a lawyer - so you are saying it is not a slam dunk contract that would keep a school from defecting?

That's how it reads

Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

(07-07-2015 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

Many contracts have specified length of time (think a lease) and have out/termination clauses.

(07-07-2015 03:24 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

Many contracts have specified length of time (think a lease) and have out/termination clauses.

The point of a GOR is to avoid being terminated. Not having such a clause doesn't harm its viability.

(07-07-2015 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 03:24 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

Many contracts have specified length of time (think a lease) and have out/termination clauses.

The point of a GOR is to avoid being terminated. Not having such a clause doesn't harm its viability.

Does when you're the most fragile P5 conference.

Here's the twist that everyone has missed.

In the Big 12's Media Contract, they can add a new member (Any School) and get paid the same money. That in and of it's self nullifies the GOR, as their is no justification for loss/damages when their contract states all teams are viewed equally as suggested by the wording of the pay outs.

Game, Set and Match.

A GOR may in fact be solid but, it's based off of the initial Media Contract. The wording of that contract must enhance it's position not degrade it.

I'm not even a lawyer and I saw this.

(07-07-2015 03:08 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  http://sportspolitico.com/2015/02/16/wil...ure-raids/

" The Big 12 Grant of Rights is a little over four pages long. (1) It is an incredibly short contract for an agreement involving millions of dollars. The Grant of Rights further does itself no favors by having text that is filled with ambiguity. But the absolute killer for the GOR as a contract is the omission of a termination procedure as well as a damages clause."

I suggest clicking the link and reading more.

I don't really care enough about conferences and GOR's to review them but I believe that Big 12 GOR is tied to the conference bylaws as well.

(07-07-2015 05:59 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Here's the twist that everyone has missed.

In the Big 12's Media Contract, they can add a new member (Any School) and get paid the same money. That in and of it's self nullifies the GOR, as their is no justification for loss/damages when their contract states all teams are viewed equally as suggested by the wording of the pay outs.

Game, Set and Match.

A GOR may in fact be solid but, it's based off of the initial Media Contract. The wording of that contract must enhance it's position not degrade it.

I'm not even a lawyer and I saw this.

This has been the fundamental argument against GORs.

(07-07-2015 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

The thing is, in a court of law, damages are nearly always a suitable replacement for specific performance. In other words, it's really hard to get a court to actually enforce a specific performance clause. That would especially be true in the GOR context - where you have specific TV contracts and payouts that can easily help you ascertain a damages calculation.

So, a lawsuit regarding a violation of the GOR would essentially come down to a battle of "what are the damages." The closer you get to the end of the GOR period, the less the damages will be. So, the GOR has some strength at the very beginning of the contract, but the strength lessens with each passing year.

Now, bring into the conversation the claim that the existing TV contract basically says that you can add a new member (any school) and get paid the same money....it may prove difficult to claim any sort of significant damages if an institution leaves - they can be replaced and the other members still get paid the same.

I haven't seen the contract, so I have no idea whether this claim is valid. But, it makes for any interesting line of thought to consider whether the Big 12 GOR is as strong as everyone thinks it is. May be Oklahoma is willing to test it. (especially if you consider that they might be able to make the same money as the status quo from a $40 million B1G or SEC contract - even after paying damages to the Big 12)...

(07-09-2015 07:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its for a specified length of time. That's the termination clause. It wants specific performance, not damages. That's the whole point of the GOR.

The thing is, in a court of law, damages are nearly always a suitable replacement for specific performance. In other words, it's really hard to get a court to actually enforce a specific performance clause. That would especially be true in the GOR context - where you have specific TV contracts and payouts that can easily help you ascertain a damages calculation.

So, a lawsuit regarding a violation of the GOR would essentially come down to a battle of "what are the damages." The closer you get to the end of the GOR period, the less the damages will be. So, the GOR has some strength at the very beginning of the contract, but the strength lessens with each passing year.

Now, bring into the conversation the claim that the existing TV contract basically says that you can add a new member (any school) and get paid the same money....it may prove difficult to claim any sort of significant damages if an institution leaves - they can be replaced and the other members still get paid the same.

I haven't seen the contract, so I have no idea whether this claim is valid. But, it makes for any interesting line of thought to consider whether the Big 12 GOR is as strong as everyone thinks it is. May be Oklahoma is willing to test it. (especially if you consider that they might be able to make the same money as the status quo from a $40 million B1G or SEC contract - even after paying damages to the Big 12)...

Actually, the GOR gives the rights to the conference. So specific performance would mean forcing the conference to give up the rights. And if OU went to the SEC, Alabama at OU could be owned by the Big 12. That's not a risk most conferences would take when they could just wait a few years.

(07-07-2015 05:59 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Here's the twist that everyone has missed.

In the Big 12's Media Contract, they can add a new member (Any School) and get paid the same money. That in and of it's self nullifies the GOR, as their is no justification for loss/damages when their contract states all teams are viewed equally as suggested by the wording of the pay outs.

Game, Set and Match.

A GOR may in fact be solid but, it's based off of the initial Media Contract. The wording of that contract must enhance it's position not degrade it.

I'm not even a lawyer and I saw this.

Just because the Big 12 adds 2 schools and everyone's share remains the same does not mean that if the Big 12 loses 2 schools that everyone's share remains the same.

No one is testing the GOR whether it's the ACC or Big 12 unless there is an escape clause for non-performance by the conference.

(07-09-2015 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  T hat's not a risk most conferences would take when they could just wait a few years.

Waiting a few years is obviously the right play even if anyone did want to leave. If someone starts the process of leaving a "GOR conference" with a few years left on the clock, then by the time they actually move there would only be a couple years' worth of the moving team's home games in limbo. And if the time is really right for a move, a couple years of home games in limbo would only be a minor concern.

It's just conjecture anyway. Given that ESPN and Fox put a lot of money on the table to keep the Big 12 going a few years ago, they have reasons for wanting 5 major conferences rather than 4, and won't do anything that would encourage consolidation into 3 or 4 top conferences.

(07-10-2015 01:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  T hat's not a risk most conferences would take when they could just wait a few years.

Waiting a few years is obviously the right play even if anyone did want to leave. If someone starts the process of leaving a "GOR conference" with a few years left on the clock, then by the time they actually move there would only be a couple years' worth of the moving team's home games in limbo. And if the time is really right for a move, a couple years of home games in limbo would only be a minor concern.

It's just conjecture anyway. Given that ESPN and Fox put a lot of money on the table to keep the Big 12 going a few years ago, they have reasons for wanting 5 major conferences rather than 4, and won't do anything that would encourage consolidation into 3 or 4 top conferences.

ESPN wants 5, if not, they want 6. If you take a look at who they want in the P5 conferences from G5? They are usually the top performers in G5. Most of Boise State's home games are on ESPN. I think ESPN have the rights to their home games. The Away games are MWC tv contract with CBS. ESPN would really want Boise State in their product of tv games. ESPN knows who can move the needle, but are being bulked by some conferences in not adding the teams that ESPN wants. I do see U. Conn could be added to ACC for content. Could ESPN push for NAVY to take away the contract with CBS Sports? That could mean if the ACC gets their Network? ESPN would love to steal Notre Dame away from NBC. Navy could be the ticket to draw ND into the ACC as a full time member.

Since it seems that ESPN is stirring the pot with the Big 12 by saying the SEC will take Oklahoma. I think it is just a smoke screen to tell Texas to change the failed Longhorns Network in the Big 12 Network.