TodgeRodge: You may be unimpressed with ADCorbett's credentials. Frank The Tank, a real-live lawyer as well as realignment expert, wrote about he Big 12 Grant of Rights back in the summer of 2013, when someone got a hold of the document.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

His closing paragraph begins:

Quote:So, the GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been.

(01-19-2016 09:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'll be a tie breaker on one point: Todge was the one saying that the Big 12's GOR was the same as the other conferences GOR's originally. Adcorbet, you were saying that the Big 12's was different. Now you are reversering that argument, and accusing him of it saying it....

In what way did I possible reverse it? I said it was different because it is. And no ou can't be a "tie breaker" since you already tried to challenge and say that this was BS, and that the Big 12's agreement included all rights, which was shown blatantly false.

(01-19-2016 10:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:50 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  That's why some people think there is a 'backdoor' way to get out of the Big 12 GOR. ESPN/Fox almost certainly built in rights to terminate their agreements if certain things occur - like, maybe, for example, Texas leaving the Big 12. ESPN/Fox would probably not want to keep paying the Big 12 $200 million per year if Texas was not in the Big 12. Likewise, they would not want to allow the Big 12 to just replace Texas with, for example, BYU, and have to keep paying $200 million per year. BYU may be fine school but it will not draw the huge TV audience that Texas will.

But note that if there is a look-in built into the contract, even a radical change in the payment under the existing contract after the look-in would still leave the contract intact ... and negotiation of rights to departed members being aired in a different way would at least arguably be claimed to be a response to the reduced market value of the games when they are not games for the conference championship race for which the network has bought the broadcast rights.

It depends on the terms of the contract. If it just gives the right to renegotiate price then that's not a termination. Likewise, if there is such a provision, no one has a claim for breach or to terminate just because a party to the contract exercised the right.

(01-19-2016 11:38 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:50 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  That's why some people think there is a 'backdoor' way to get out of the Big 12 GOR. ESPN/Fox almost certainly built in rights to terminate their agreements if certain things occur - like, maybe, for example, Texas leaving the Big 12. ESPN/Fox would probably not want to keep paying the Big 12 $200 million per year if Texas was not in the Big 12. Likewise, they would not want to allow the Big 12 to just replace Texas with, for example, BYU, and have to keep paying $200 million per year. BYU may be fine school but it will not draw the huge TV audience that Texas will.

But note that if there is a look-in built into the contract, even a radical change in the payment under the existing contract after the look-in would still leave the contract intact ... and negotiation of rights to departed members being aired in a different way would at least arguably be claimed to be a response to the reduced market value of the games when they are not games for the conference championship race for which the network has bought the broadcast rights.

It depends on the terms of the contract. If it just gives the right to renegotiate price then that's not a termination. Likewise, if there is such a provision, no one has a claim for breach or to terminate just because a party to the contract exercised the right.

We know that many of these contracts have look-ins, but obviously without the contract, we don't know what the terms of any look-ins in the Big12 contracts are, nor whether they are event triggered or look-ins on date(s) certain.

Look-ins are sort of a misnomer. They are designated times where the parties get together to see if they can expand their relationship. They are not designed for the network to give the conference free money for nothing, nor for the network to take back money for no reason. They are just scheduled meetings to see if either side can bring something new that would be beneficial to the other, without waiting for the entire contract to expire. For example, the SEC and ESPN came to an agreement to start an SEC Network during their last lookin.

(01-19-2016 10:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  TodgeRodge: You may be unimpressed with ADCorbett's credentials. Frank The Tank, a real-live lawyer as well as realignment expert, wrote about he Big 12 Grant of Rights back in the summer of 2013, when someone got a hold of the document.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

His closing paragraph begins:

Quote:So, the GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been.

lets be very clear here

all the way back on page #4 of this thread in post #32 of this thread I made this post

http://csnbbs.com/thread-767012-page-4.html

(01-18-2016 02:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 01:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 11:54 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  that is not how the GOR works for the Big 12

teams do not get compensated for their media rights they are compensated for being a member of the conference under a contract that is separate from the GOR or from any media rights contract

That is how ALL Grants of Rights work. Without question. Some people think Grants of Rights were invented in the last 5 years. The Big 12's wishes do no exceed the rules of contract law. Media grants of rights have been around for over a century, dating back to the 1800's, and in every single case, without question, when they have been challenged in court, if the entity retaining the rights did not continue to pay the grantor the consideration for those rights, the agreement was terminated, often with the plaintiff receiving damages. The only way to retain those media rights, is to pay their share of the money generated, and the Big 12 agreement dictates equal revenue sharing.

The mere fact that the Big 12 tried to put language in their grant of rights in opposition to this, is the biggest indicator that it is true.

In normal GOR cases the only questions that can be debated are who owns the content, and how much money is directly attributed to said content. In every other genre those items have the ability to get murky, as multiple people/.organizations can claim ownership to a movie or a song, or you can debate how much money was made by this track on an album, or using the infamous Hollywood accounting how much money a movie actually made, to determine the value of the rights. But in the case of conference membership and media rights, the ownership and value of the content are cut and dry.

There is nothing incorrect about my assumption. This is basic contract law, and basic media law. This isn't even something new. When I was in college, in my media law class, we went over multiple case studies of this exact situation. And there were thousands of them. I know it pretty well. Your comments suggest you don't. I'd advise doing some research on this further before continuing.

the Big 12 grant of rights has no provision for compensation

you can believe it does all you wish, but it does not and it does not on purpose

Big 12 teams are compensated for being a member of the conference only you can pretend that is not the case, but that is the case

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf

The Grant of
Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing
Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant
of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of
Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing
Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising
under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

but of course with the above being stated some will try and say "see the GOR provides compensation"

but of course we can see here in the actual document it does not

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756116/Grant-of-Rights-pdf

there is nothing in the GOR that provides for ANY financial compensation no matter what your college media class tells you is in there

there is no provision for compensation in there and that is on purpose as legal counsel explains here

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...nt-frenzy/

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2012/dec/0...t-and-why/

here is another opinion as well, but the opinion below misses out on a key fact.....that fact is the Big 12 still under the contract for membership has a damages clause just like it has a compensation clause and that damages clause is 2 years payments withheld and further damages if there is an attempt to pull the media rights

so while the below opinion explains again why a GOR makes a difference it leaves out/misses out on the fact that the Big 12 still has an exit fee.....it is just that the exit fee is not tied to the GOR directly it is tied to conference membership just like compensation for being a member

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


now that we have all the information in front of us and we can see the Big 12 GOR specifically offers no compensation for the exchange of media rights and we have legal opinion on why that is important I have now provided YOU with the information YOU need to do YOUR homework

so again the Big 12 pays members for membership not for the media rights, the Big 12 does in fact have an exit fee equal to two years of membership payments (which the last article is incorrect about) and while SOME GORs might be like what you were told in your media rights class the Big 12 is not and that is for a specific reason as told by the Mit Winter link

you will see in post #32 from page #4 of this thread I provided this linkk

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...nt-frenzy/

that is a link for a real to life lawyer with one of those fancy legal degrees and everything

in that link here is what I base my opinion on

So, what is the solution to the problems with exit fees? Grants of television broadcast rights. In these agreements, all of the conference members grant their television broadcast rights to their athletic contests to the conference for a certain period of time. If a member leaves the conference during that time, the conference retains the member’s television rights. Because the value of a school to a conference is the television revenue it can help generate, a grant of rights agreement makes the members essentially worthless to another conference that is looking for new members.

While grant of rights agreements do have potential issues (sovereign immunity issues being the biggest), they are not subject to a subjective test like liquidated damages provisions. Thus, they are much more likely to hold up in court as valid contracts.

so lets be very clear here in spite of the attempts by abcorbet, rutgersguy and now you to try and falsely frame my opinion as the opinion of "GORs are unbreakable" I have never made that statement in this thread, I have never made that statement on this forum in any thread and I have never made that statement to anyone anywhere ever

I have stated that I understood that the Big East and the ACC and the Big 12 prior to having a grant of rights had lawyers that drew up contracts and those contracts were broken in court

I have never denied that contracts get broken in court and I have never denied that the GOR might be taken to court and I have never denied the GOR might not stand up in court (which would be a claim it is unbreakable that you are falsely trying to frame as a statement I have made when I have not)

what I have repeatedly stated for those that are able to follow along and that can read is that I agree with Mit Winter, I agree with the supporting information that you provided from Frank The Tank and I believe that a large number (probably many dozen) of in house and outside legal counsel, legal counsel that is alumni of universities, legal faculty of universities, high powered business alumni of universities and even their legal counsel all feel that a GOR is a much stronger than the types of contracts that the Big East, ACC and Big 12 had that were broken when teams left those conferences

again THAT IS STILL NOT A CLAIM THAT THE GOR IS UNBREAKABLE no matter how many times you or anyone else tries to frame it as that

it is simply a statement that the GOR represents a very very poor legal position for a team attempting to leave the conference to be in and it has no ceiling for damages and no real way for a team to feel as though they can calculate how the case might go for or against them

I understand that abcorbet has had 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes, I understand he stays at holiday inn and I understand he has WEE case law that he is intimately familiar with, but he needs to understand that I am taking an opinion opposed to that overwhelming and powerfully persuasive amount of information and legal education

I am taking the opinion of Mit Winter, now Frank the Tank as you have provided IN SUPPORT OF MY POSITION FROM ALL THE WAY BACK ON PAGE 4 POST 32 and in my opinion the concept that all of the legal counsel from teams wanting the big 12 and ACC to stay together and be harder to leave that the GOR does not simply fall apart based on "you either pay them or give them their media rights back"

because if Mit Winter, Frank The Tank or any of the legal counsel for the vast majority of the members of the Big 12 and ACC thought that was the case I believe they all would have discussed that and there would not be consensus between then, Mit Winter and Frank the Tank that a GOR is more difficult and stronger than a simple contract with specified damages

I am of the opinion that at some point the guy in the mail room, the guy filling the vending machine or the guy that runs the coffee route saw groups of lawyers talking about this and said "hey I had 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes and I know WWE case law and I do not think the GOR will stand up based on the fact that the Big 12 either compensates teams or they give their media rights back and I have been thinking about this a lot at night in my hotel room at Holiday Inn"

and I think those lawyers all stopped, immediately offered him a position as a clerk in the firm or firms and then told him why they disagree with that opinion and it was for the same reasons that I and Frank the Tank and Mit Winter disagree with it

and perhaps some of them told that guy the GOR was "unbreakable" but I know I never have told anyone that in this thread or anywhere else

so my position should be very clear now and my reasons for having that opinion have now been shown all the way back on page 4 post #32 of this thread and now reconfirmed by you with a link to Frank the Tank

I will never and have never said the GOR is "unbreakable" but I will go with Mit Winter, Frank the Tank and in my opinion dozens and dozens of legal minds from many of the Big 12 and ACC schools that the GOR is difficult to break and will be expensive to do so and could have a large amount of damages for doing so or trying to do so

no amount of WWE case law, Flintstones and Jettsons reruns syndication case law from 1988, Houston Championship Rassling case law, Arena II Ball case law or anything of the sort will change my position on that and I am not going to go dig up Bee Gees case law from 1977 or CHiPs rerun case law from 2001 or anything else to support my position further because I have done so already and explained why I have that opinion

I would tell abcorbet to book mark this thread (after he figures out what actual position he is taking in this thread) and if there ever comes a time when the GOR is taken to court and it is easily broken or broken based on WWE case law or it is broken with a very low amount of damages that are easily recovered by a team shifting conferences I would encourage him to go to the nearest Cstore, get the best bottle of André Champagne (it is not just for the holidays although it is equally bad for the holidays as any other time) and take it back to Holiday Inn, open up the connecting door to the room that hen1ousone nest in and they can jump up and down on the bed in their fruit of the looms and spray each other with champagne and they can celebrate another historic interwebtubes win for the ages and they can notch each others head boards and drink André all night long and cheer win win WIN!

but I would discourage him from trying to flip his position in the middle of a thread, I would discourage him from trying to mischaracterize my statements and I will let him know that I will not be going to Pacer or LexisNexis to look up any Hee Haw supporting case law for my position I will go with the reasons I have already stated even if it cost me a webtubes victory in the long run

(01-19-2016 09:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'll be a tie breaker on one point: Todge was the one saying that the Big 12's GOR was the same as the other conferences GOR's originally. Adcorbet, you were saying that the Big 12's was different. Now you are reversering that argument, and accusing him of it saying it....

thank you BillyBobby777

(01-20-2016 11:59 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  TodgeRodge: You may be unimpressed with ADCorbett's credentials. Frank The Tank, a real-live lawyer as well as realignment expert, wrote about he Big 12 Grant of Rights back in the summer of 2013, when someone got a hold of the document.

http://frankthetank.me/2013/08/08/summer...agreement/

His closing paragraph begins:

Quote:So, the GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been.

lets be very clear here

all the way back on page #4 of this thread in post #32 of this thread I made this post

http://csnbbs.com/thread-767012-page-4.html

(01-18-2016 02:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 01:30 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 11:54 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  that is not how the GOR works for the Big 12

teams do not get compensated for their media rights they are compensated for being a member of the conference under a contract that is separate from the GOR or from any media rights contract

That is how ALL Grants of Rights work. Without question. Some people think Grants of Rights were invented in the last 5 years. The Big 12's wishes do no exceed the rules of contract law. Media grants of rights have been around for over a century, dating back to the 1800's, and in every single case, without question, when they have been challenged in court, if the entity retaining the rights did not continue to pay the grantor the consideration for those rights, the agreement was terminated, often with the plaintiff receiving damages. The only way to retain those media rights, is to pay their share of the money generated, and the Big 12 agreement dictates equal revenue sharing.

The mere fact that the Big 12 tried to put language in their grant of rights in opposition to this, is the biggest indicator that it is true.

In normal GOR cases the only questions that can be debated are who owns the content, and how much money is directly attributed to said content. In every other genre those items have the ability to get murky, as multiple people/.organizations can claim ownership to a movie or a song, or you can debate how much money was made by this track on an album, or using the infamous Hollywood accounting how much money a movie actually made, to determine the value of the rights. But in the case of conference membership and media rights, the ownership and value of the content are cut and dry.

There is nothing incorrect about my assumption. This is basic contract law, and basic media law. This isn't even something new. When I was in college, in my media law class, we went over multiple case studies of this exact situation. And there were thousands of them. I know it pretty well. Your comments suggest you don't. I'd advise doing some research on this further before continuing.

the Big 12 grant of rights has no provision for compensation

you can believe it does all you wish, but it does not and it does not on purpose

Big 12 teams are compensated for being a member of the conference only you can pretend that is not the case, but that is the case

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf

The Grant of
Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing
Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant
of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of
Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing
Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising
under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

but of course with the above being stated some will try and say "see the GOR provides compensation"

but of course we can see here in the actual document it does not

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116756116/Grant-of-Rights-pdf

there is nothing in the GOR that provides for ANY financial compensation no matter what your college media class tells you is in there

there is no provision for compensation in there and that is on purpose as legal counsel explains here

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...nt-frenzy/

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2012/dec/0...t-and-why/

here is another opinion as well, but the opinion below misses out on a key fact.....that fact is the Big 12 still under the contract for membership has a damages clause just like it has a compensation clause and that damages clause is 2 years payments withheld and further damages if there is an attempt to pull the media rights

so while the below opinion explains again why a GOR makes a difference it leaves out/misses out on the fact that the Big 12 still has an exit fee.....it is just that the exit fee is not tied to the GOR directly it is tied to conference membership just like compensation for being a member

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


now that we have all the information in front of us and we can see the Big 12 GOR specifically offers no compensation for the exchange of media rights and we have legal opinion on why that is important I have now provided YOU with the information YOU need to do YOUR homework

so again the Big 12 pays members for membership not for the media rights, the Big 12 does in fact have an exit fee equal to two years of membership payments (which the last article is incorrect about) and while SOME GORs might be like what you were told in your media rights class the Big 12 is not and that is for a specific reason as told by the Mit Winter link

you will see in post #32 from page #4 of this thread I provided this linkk

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...nt-frenzy/

that is a link for a real to life lawyer with one of those fancy legal degrees and everything

in that link here is what I base my opinion on

So, what is the solution to the problems with exit fees? Grants of television broadcast rights. In these agreements, all of the conference members grant their television broadcast rights to their athletic contests to the conference for a certain period of time. If a member leaves the conference during that time, the conference retains the member’s television rights. Because the value of a school to a conference is the television revenue it can help generate, a grant of rights agreement makes the members essentially worthless to another conference that is looking for new members.

While grant of rights agreements do have potential issues (sovereign immunity issues being the biggest), they are not subject to a subjective test like liquidated damages provisions. Thus, they are much more likely to hold up in court as valid contracts.

so lets be very clear here in spite of the attempts by abcorbet, rutgersguy and now you to try and falsely frame my opinion as the opinion of "GORs are unbreakable" I have never made that statement in this thread, I have never made that statement on this forum in any thread and I have never made that statement to anyone anywhere ever

I have stated that I understood that the Big East and the ACC and the Big 12 prior to having a grant of rights had lawyers that drew up contracts and those contracts were broken in court

I have never denied that contracts get broken in court and I have never denied that the GOR might be taken to court and I have never denied the GOR might not stand up in court (which would be a claim it is unbreakable that you are falsely trying to frame as a statement I have made when I have not)

what I have repeatedly stated for those that are able to follow along and that can read is that I agree with Mit Winter, I agree with the supporting information that you provided from Frank The Tank and I believe that a large number (probably many dozen) of in house and outside legal counsel, legal counsel that is alumni of universities, legal faculty of universities, high powered business alumni of universities and even their legal counsel all feel that a GOR is a much stronger than the types of contracts that the Big East, ACC and Big 12 had that were broken when teams left those conferences

again THAT IS STILL NOT A CLAIM THAT THE GOR IS UNBREAKABLE no matter how many times you or anyone else tries to frame it as that

it is simply a statement that the GOR represents a very very poor legal position for a team attempting to leave the conference to be in and it has no ceiling for damages and no real way for a team to feel as though they can calculate how the case might go for or against them

I understand that abcorbet has had 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes, I understand he stays at holiday inn and I understand he has WEE case law that he is intimately familiar with, but he needs to understand that I am taking an opinion opposed to that overwhelming and powerfully persuasive amount of information and legal education

I am taking the opinion of Mit Winter, now Frank the Tank as you have provided IN SUPPORT OF MY POSITION FROM ALL THE WAY BACK ON PAGE 4 POST 32 and in my opinion the concept that all of the legal counsel from teams wanting the big 12 and ACC to stay together and be harder to leave that the GOR does not simply fall apart based on "you either pay them or give them their media rights back"

because if Mit Winter, Frank The Tank or any of the legal counsel for the vast majority of the members of the Big 12 and ACC thought that was the case I believe they all would have discussed that and there would not be consensus between then, Mit Winter and Frank the Tank that a GOR is more difficult and stronger than a simple contract with specified damages

I am of the opinion that at some point the guy in the mail room, the guy filling the vending machine or the guy that runs the coffee route saw groups of lawyers talking about this and said "hey I had 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes and I know WWE case law and I do not think the GOR will stand up based on the fact that the Big 12 either compensates teams or they give their media rights back and I have been thinking about this a lot at night in my hotel room at Holiday Inn"

and I think those lawyers all stopped, immediately offered him a position as a clerk in the firm or firms and then told him why they disagree with that opinion and it was for the same reasons that I and Frank the Tank and Mit Winter disagree with it

and perhaps some of them told that guy the GOR was "unbreakable" but I know I never have told anyone that in this thread or anywhere else

so my position should be very clear now and my reasons for having that opinion have now been shown all the way back on page 4 post #32 of this thread and now reconfirmed by you with a link to Frank the Tank

I will never and have never said the GOR is "unbreakable" but I will go with Mit Winter, Frank the Tank and in my opinion dozens and dozens of legal minds from many of the Big 12 and ACC schools that the GOR is difficult to break and will be expensive to do so and could have a large amount of damages for doing so or trying to do so

no amount of WWE case law, Flintstones and Jettsons reruns syndication case law from 1988, Houston Championship Rassling case law, Arena II Ball case law or anything of the sort will change my position on that and I am not going to go dig up Bee Gees case law from 1977 or CHiPs rerun case law from 2001 or anything else to support my position further because I have done so already and explained why I have that opinion

I would tell abcorbet to book mark this thread (after he figures out what actual position he is taking in this thread) and if there ever comes a time when the GOR is taken to court and it is easily broken or broken based on WWE case law or it is broken with a very low amount of damages that are easily recovered by a team shifting conferences I would encourage him to go to the nearest Cstore, get the best bottle of André Champagne (it is not just for the holidays although it is equally bad for the holidays as any other time) and take it back to Holiday Inn, open up the connecting door to the room that hen1ousone nest in and they can jump up and down on the bed in their fruit of the looms and spray each other with champagne and they can celebrate another historic interwebtubes win for the ages and they can notch each others head boards and drink André all night long and cheer win win WIN!

but I would discourage him from trying to flip his position in the middle of a thread, I would discourage him from trying to mischaracterize my statements and I will let him know that I will not be going to Pacer or LexisNexis to look up any Hee Haw supporting case law for my position I will go with the reasons I have already stated even if it cost me a webtubes victory in the long run

(01-19-2016 09:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'll be a tie breaker on one point: Todge was the one saying that the Big 12's GOR was the same as the other conferences GOR's originally. Adcorbet, you were saying that the Big 12's was different. Now you are reversering that argument, and accusing him of it saying it....

thank you BillyBobby777

I call it as I see it. Cheers!

You need glasses

(01-21-2016 07:59 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You need glasses

I do, so I wear them. Cheers!