Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
Author Message
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #41
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.

Tell you what, Find me one instance, just one, in the thousands of cases that have gone to court in regards to grants of rights, where the retaining party was able to do so without compensation. Just one. I can give you many the other way, but just find one where the rights were awarded to the assigned party for no compensation. When these go to court now, that is not even brought up, because they all already KNOW the answer. The only questions that arise are who actually owns the rights that were assigned, the inherent value of the rights, how much money can be directly attributed to the rights (And thus how much is owed), if the duration of the contract has been fulfilled, and if the assignor can still retain the rights if they purposely devalue them (i.e. someone who owns movie or music rights, but rejects any attempts to allow the original owner to make money off it).

That is it. There is no longer any question of if you retain the rights, do you have to pay on them. So if you can find an example of one, then your point can be valid. But you won't, and that is specifically why the Big 12 even tried to amend their conference by laws, to try to compensate for the fact that the GOR does not allow them to do so, but even then, no one believes that would hold up in court either.

Your point isn't really relevant. The fact that you may have your distribution held is an enormous risk. Way too much for any college president to take.

Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

Maryland was not under the ACC GOR

Maryland was only under a "liquidated damages" contract with an exit fee that the ACC had to prove was valid

thus the Maryland case has no precedents to the GOR
01-18-2016 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #42
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 11:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 11:06 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  6. what on earth makes the ACC GOR any different in your mind Vs the Big 12 (other than you seem to have some misunderstanding of the Big 12 GOR and what it does and what is and is not tied to)

You were right until you got to this part. The ACC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 all have GOR's that are all-encompassing when it comes to media rights. The Big 12's not. It only includes national TV rights. That is a HUGE difference.

Now to be clear, I don't think anyone voluntarily signs a GOR is they are planning to leave, so there is little reason the power brokers who lead to these, are ready to bail. But, if they did, this little loophole creates a BIG problem. For example, let's say an ACC team for the Big Ten, with ten years left on the GOR. Then so long as the ACC continues to pay them their share of the rights, the conference will retain them. If they want to punish them, they can bury the TV rights on the syndicated networks to keep ACC coverage in those areas, or they could outright bury them and not air them (that would be vindictive and cost inefficient, but they could in theory).

If a team left the Big 12 for the Big Ten, the Big 12 would have two equally awful choices to decide from. One, in order to keep the rights, again they must still pay the team. That is how GOR's work. Then they must choose between allowing the team who left to have their games take up Big 12 TV slots, while they advertise the new conference on their platforms, or they can have their media partners not air the games. Except since the Big 12 teams all own their own Tier 3 rights, that means the rights then go back to the team, who can then resell them themselves to their new conference's network, meaning the Big 12 would be paying them money to retain nothing. Which of course would be the impedes for negotiation to release from the GOR.

Again I don't see anyone in power actively trying to leave, but that is a BIG difference between the Big 12's GOR, and the other three conferences that do have one. Which is what I believe Ken was trying to hint at.

"Big 12's GOR has a huge difference"--I call B.S. I don't think you are correct that the GOR for the Big 12 is any different than the GOR for the ACC. I think you are simply assuming that based on the fact that ESPN owns all 3 tiers of the ACC tv contract and the Big 12 retains their 3rd tier rights. The PAC and Big 10 schools also own their 3rd tier rights but they choose to pool them into their conference tv networks. A GOR is a GOR. Can you prove that the Big 12's is any different? Not speculation. Definitive proof. Cheers!
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2016 03:55 PM by billybobby777.)
01-18-2016 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #43
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  what I am telling you is that 10 universities, most of which have law schools, all of which have legal counsel working for the university, all of which have access to outside legal counsel and all of which have high powered legal alumni and alumni with access to high power legal counsel have looked over these GORs and only a couple out of the 10 in the Big 12 or the 14 in the ACC were even remotely looking at them from a "how can this be written so we can get out of it" standpoint and most of them were looking at it from a "how will others try and get out of it" stand point


What does that matter? No one signs such a deal and then public looks to try to get out of it.

As stated, none of what you showed supports your position. so again, since this is a 100 plus year old procedure, surely you can find just one case to support your position. Just one, that is all it takes.

Every thing you have described is about how enforceable the GOR is if someone leaves. Nothing, and I mean nothing, you ahev posted shows one speck of opinion of evidence of if the GOR would be in effect if a team left, AND the terms of the contract were not held up by the assignee. I didn't have a 3 hour media course: I have a degree in Mass Media and worked in television, and despite your claim, am not a random screen name, but post under my own name. Adcorbett - Aaron D Corbett. Unless your real name is Todgerodge, I'd suggest you leave that point out homey. So again, what proof do you have, other than a ten page long post that actually does not even address the question at hand? Like I said, thousands of cases prove otherwise, I just asked you for one. And you can't even do that.

Next!
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2016 04:06 PM by adcorbett.)
01-18-2016 03:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #44
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:51 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  "Big 12's GOR has a huge difference"--I call B.S. I don't think you are correct that the GOR for the Big 12 is any different than the GOR for the ACC. I think you are simply assuming that based on the fact that ESPN owns all 3 tiers of the ACC tv contract and the Big 12 retains their 3rd tier rights. The PAC and Big 10 schools also own their 3rd tier rights but they choose to pool them into their conference tv networks. A GOR is a GOR. Can you prove that the Big 12's is any different? Not speculation. Definitive proof. Cheers!

You can call BS all you want. Unless you prove it, it means nothing. The Big 12's GOR is public. You can read it. I have. Further, you are not even making any sense whatsoever. Why the hell would the Big 12 sign a GOR to assign rights to the conference, that the conference does not even own, as you suggest? If the conference signed a GOR for their third tier rights, then Texas, for example, would not be able to sell their rights to ESPN for the LHN. The Big 12 would have to do it for them, because the Big 12 would own the rights. Same for Kansas and their network. Same for Oklahoma. This is not that hard.

By the way, without even going further, that IS definitive proof.
01-18-2016 04:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #45
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

Note that Maryland's risk was not about a GOR, nor about TV rights being withheld, nor really their distributions being withheld. The withholding of the distributions was only preemptive to ensure collection of the exit fee, not an actual withholding of their due distributions. MD got credit for the distributions, then the exit fee was withheld.
(01-18-2016 03:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Maryland was not under the ACC GOR

Maryland was only under a "liquidated damages" contract with an exit fee that the ACC had to prove was valid

thus the Maryland case has no precedents to the GOR

The relevant point in Maryland's case is not the GOR or an exit fee or whatever -- what's relevant is that Maryland was willing to take the risk of going without the conference money for a few years because the Big Ten helped them out.

For any school thinking of leaving a conference with a GOR, as far as that risk goes, if their new conference helps them out with an "advance", and if the new conference's media revenue is significantly higher than their previous conference, then another school might take that same risk once their GOR has only a few years remaining.
01-18-2016 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #46
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  what I am telling you is that 10 universities, most of which have law schools, all of which have legal counsel working for the university, all of which have access to outside legal counsel and all of which have high powered legal alumni and alumni with access to high power legal counsel have looked over these GORs and only a couple out of the 10 in the Big 12 or the 14 in the ACC were even remotely looking at them from a "how can this be written so we can get out of it" standpoint and most of them were looking at it from a "how will others try and get out of it" stand point


What does that matter? No one signs such a deal and then public looks to try to get out of it.

As stated, none of what you showed supports your position. so again, since this is a 100 plus year old procedure, surely you can find just one case to support your position. Just one, that is all it takes.

I did find one

I provided it already you are just not intelligent enough to understand that

I provided a link right to the Big 12 GOR that clearly shows it provides no financial compensation and you have already admitted that it provides no mention of financial compensation, but you insist that it is thus not valid which is your right after your 3 hour media rights class, but some of the top legal minds in the country disagree with you

there is a CHANCE that sometime in the future it COULD be broken, but there is a chance it will also stand up to a legal challenge and that any team trying to challenge it will be hit with massive damages and still not retain their media rights

so once again I provided you proof of a GOR that does not provide financial compensation you just refuse to believe that it has legal standing and that is on you

and back to what I was responding to at first there is nothing that makes the Big 12 easier to break because of some imaginary (and now proven false) notion that it can be broken because it is tied to a media rights contract and a team could pull their media content and break that media rights agreement and thus invalidate the GOR

the GOR is a document that pledges the media rights of teams to the Big 12 for no compensation and without regard to a media contract and the media contract would only be broken after the GOR is broken

so challenge accepted and challenge already proven fully by me
01-18-2016 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #47
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 04:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I did find one

No you didn't.

(01-18-2016 04:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I provided it already you are just not intelligent enough to understand that

Serriously, you do not want to have a meeting of the mind here. You are not properly equipped.

(01-18-2016 04:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I provided a link right to the Big 12 GOR that clearly shows it provides no financial compensation and you have already admitted that it provides no mention of financial compensation, but you insist that it is thus not valid which is your right after your 3 hour media rights class, but some of the top legal minds in the country disagree with you

Let's see. not one of what you posted addresses anything other than if a GOR is enforceable, and the top JUDGES - ne ALL of the JUDGES - agree with me.

Like I said, find one case where someone retained assigned rights, but did not continue to pay to keep the rights, and you will have something. Just one.

The fact that you keep siting the Big 12 contract shows how little you understand this. I mean if it was all about purely how the contract was written, there would be no need for court, right? Yet each state has dedicated court systems specifically to address contract law. And a federal one on top of that. Wonder why that is? I said this to you several times, but I guess it went over your head. Unless the Big 12 is exempt from contract law, it doesn't matter. And let's not even get started with what happens when a contract is deemed one sided, and ambiguous, who gets the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is you keep citing opinions from people who are addressing how secure the GOR is, and in most cases they are talking about GOR's as a whole, NOT the Big 12's in particular. Secondly, you have to remember, what I described is not breaking the GOR, so none of what you listed is addressing it. SMH
01-18-2016 04:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #48
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 04:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

Note that Maryland's risk was not about a GOR, nor about TV rights being withheld, nor really their distributions being withheld. The withholding of the distributions was only preemptive to ensure collection of the exit fee, not an actual withholding of their due distributions. MD got credit for the distributions, then the exit fee was withheld.
(01-18-2016 03:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Maryland was not under the ACC GOR

Maryland was only under a "liquidated damages" contract with an exit fee that the ACC had to prove was valid

thus the Maryland case has no precedents to the GOR

The relevant point in Maryland's case is not the GOR or an exit fee or whatever -- what's relevant is that Maryland was willing to take the risk of going without the conference money for a few years because the Big Ten helped them out.

For any school thinking of leaving a conference with a GOR, as far as that risk goes, if their new conference helps them out with an "advance", and if the new conference's media revenue is significantly higher than their previous conference, then another school might take that same risk once their GOR has only a few years remaining.

incorrect

the relevant point to the Maryland case VS a GOR case is again with a contract that specifically has an exit clause with damages to be paid for the exit there are key differences between it and a GOR

1. there was never a question that Maryland owned their media rights

2. there was a set ceiling for Maryland that would not be exceeded for leaving the ACC unless there were some extreme circumstances.....so when lawyers all sit down and university officials all sit down and the university officials ask "well what is the worst it could be" there is an answer to give because that answer starts with the exit fee (plus legal fees) and goes down from there

in the case of a GOR if you ask your legal team "what is the worst it could be" the answer is WTFKnows......it could be as bad as damages to all the other conference members owed + their legal fees + your legal fees and you still do not get your media rights to go with you or it could be nothing

3. but the worst part about the GOR Vs the exit clause is this

with the exit clause it is up to the CONFERENCE to prove damages

with the GOR it is up to YOU to prove you are being damaged and again that is YOU BREAKING A CONTRACT and then trying to say you were damaged by that.....while at the same time taking the equally ridiculous position that the conference is not damaged

and once you start to set an amount on damages that opens the conference and individual members up to start to claim AT LEAST that amount on damages if not more

it is a much much worse legal position to be in with a great deal of downside for you potentially and little upside because any "upside" you can try and claim like damages can of course immediately set the damages for the conference

4. and of course the big 12 still has an exit fee in their conference membership contract as well and that is an entirely different legal case and as you pointed out that would be like Maryland only with much higher conference distribution sin play

so leaving the Big 12 with a GOR involves at least two if not more legal cases and only one of them has a set ceiling for damages you would owe while the other has an unlimited potential downside for damages you might owe and no guarantee you would keep the media rights
01-18-2016 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #49
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
Old Dominion to the Big 10

you heard it here first!
01-18-2016 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #50
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 04:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Old Dominion to the Big 10

you heard it here first!

I think ODU has a tremendous upside. Unfortunately they aren't far enough along that curve to get into the Majors but I have them ranked highly to get a strong look from the AAC when they are ready to move to 20.
01-18-2016 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,292
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.

Tell you what, Find me one instance, just one, in the thousands of cases that have gone to court in regards to grants of rights, where the retaining party was able to do so without compensation. Just one. I can give you many the other way, but just find one where the rights were awarded to the assigned party for no compensation. When these go to court now, that is not even brought up, because they all already KNOW the answer. The only questions that arise are who actually owns the rights that were assigned, the inherent value of the rights, how much money can be directly attributed to the rights (And thus how much is owed), if the duration of the contract has been fulfilled, and if the assignor can still retain the rights if they purposely devalue them (i.e. someone who owns movie or music rights, but rejects any attempts to allow the original owner to make money off it).

That is it. There is no longer any question of if you retain the rights, do you have to pay on them. So if you can find an example of one, then your point can be valid. But you won't, and that is specifically why the Big 12 even tried to amend their conference by laws, to try to compensate for the fact that the GOR does not allow them to do so, but even then, no one believes that would hold up in court either.

Your point isn't really relevant. The fact that you may have your distribution held is an enormous risk. Way too much for any college president to take.

Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

But there was a cap. They knew it wouldn't be more than the $52 million.
01-18-2016 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,292
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Your point isn't really relevant. The fact that you may have your distribution held is an enormous risk. Way too much for any college president to take.

To be frank, this statement is what is irrelevant. If you look at what you quoted, I specifically stated that no team who signed a GOR is likely to want to leave. I did not suggest that a team is planning to leave the Big 12 or the ACC. The difference is what would happen "if" a team left the Big 12, versus one of the other conferences with a GOR, and what the GOR would entail at that point. That is absolutely, without question, relevant to the OP, which was the "differences" between the two in that exact situation. It does not get more relevant than that.

(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

Note that Maryland's risk was not about a GOR, nor about TV rights being withheld, nor really their distributions being withheld. The withholding of the distributions was only preemptive to ensure collection of the exit fee, not an actual withholding of their due distributions. MD got credit for the distributions, then the exit fee was withheld.
Your argument was about whether the school would actually get the money if they left and you asked TD for an example where an artist didn't. As I said, that is irrelevant. Its the risk that they might get it held that is relevant.
01-18-2016 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #53
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
Two things. One, that is not relevant because he is saying there is proof the money would be owed. Two, you are sort of validating Wedge's argument, that you railed against.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2016 10:47 AM by adcorbett.)
01-18-2016 07:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #54
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.

Tell you what, Find me one instance, just one, in the thousands of cases that have gone to court in regards to grants of rights, where the retaining party was able to do so without compensation. Just one. I can give you many the other way, but just find one where the rights were awarded to the assigned party for no compensation. When these go to court now, that is not even brought up, because they all already KNOW the answer. The only questions that arise are who actually owns the rights that were assigned, the inherent value of the rights, how much money can be directly attributed to the rights (And thus how much is owed), if the duration of the contract has been fulfilled, and if the assignor can still retain the rights if they purposely devalue them (i.e. someone who owns movie or music rights, but rejects any attempts to allow the original owner to make money off it).

That is it. There is no longer any question of if you retain the rights, do you have to pay on them. So if you can find an example of one, then your point can be valid. But you won't, and that is specifically why the Big 12 even tried to amend their conference by laws, to try to compensate for the fact that the GOR does not allow them to do so, but even then, no one believes that would hold up in court either.

Your point isn't really relevant. The fact that you may have your distribution held is an enormous risk. Way too much for any college president to take.

Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

But there was a cap. They knew it wouldn't be more than the $52 million.

The cap is the worst-case scenario for the departing school.

Just to use round numbers, if a school is currently getting $25 million/year in media revenue from its conference, then if they bail out on a GOR, the worst-case scenario (i.e., conference succeeds in keeping both your TV rights and all the money they owe you) for the last 2 years of a GOR is $50 million, if it's the last 3 years, it's $75 million, etc.

The GOR amounts to a very large exit fee that diminishes year by year, with legal uncertainty as to whether the conference could actually keep all of the departing school's money.

Which is why the next genuine rumblings will probably happen, if at all, as some of the current GORs get into the last 5 years of their lifespan. Schools with wandering eyes, and conferences that want to poach, will calculate the potential cost. If a conference with a GOR that is winding down starts to talk about extending it for another 10 or 20 years, and there are schools that stall for time or say outright they're not interested in extending it, that will really be news.
01-18-2016 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
BruceMcF Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,099
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #55
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.
But whether or not the school gets consideration from the Big Twelve, the Big Ten or SEC does not get to include the rights to that school's games in the rights that the Big Ten or SEC sells or has sold to their primary broadcast partner.

The whole point of the agreement is to impair the value of the school to another P5 conference in the event another P5 conference extends an invitation to a member school. It's not targeting the decision of the school to accept an invitation, it's targeting the decision of the conference to extend one ... since the former only requires one University to accept whatever financial risks there may be in exit fees or other transaction costs, while the latter requires a supermajority to agree to the risk.

Gaming it out, the ACC GOR would seem to be more effective in that regard than the Big12 GOR, since the Big12 does not include residual broadcast rights, so the games that the Big12 broadcaster does not pick up could be carried by the BTN or SECN during the impaired value period.

As the GOR period comes toward an end, there will indeed be a reduction in the period of risk of impaired rights, and the larger the perceived value of the school to the conference doing the inviting, the longer a period it might consider risking impaired rights.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2016 07:43 PM by BruceMcF.)
01-18-2016 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,292
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #56
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 07:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.

Tell you what, Find me one instance, just one, in the thousands of cases that have gone to court in regards to grants of rights, where the retaining party was able to do so without compensation. Just one. I can give you many the other way, but just find one where the rights were awarded to the assigned party for no compensation. When these go to court now, that is not even brought up, because they all already KNOW the answer. The only questions that arise are who actually owns the rights that were assigned, the inherent value of the rights, how much money can be directly attributed to the rights (And thus how much is owed), if the duration of the contract has been fulfilled, and if the assignor can still retain the rights if they purposely devalue them (i.e. someone who owns movie or music rights, but rejects any attempts to allow the original owner to make money off it).

That is it. There is no longer any question of if you retain the rights, do you have to pay on them. So if you can find an example of one, then your point can be valid. But you won't, and that is specifically why the Big 12 even tried to amend their conference by laws, to try to compensate for the fact that the GOR does not allow them to do so, but even then, no one believes that would hold up in court either.

Your point isn't really relevant. The fact that you may have your distribution held is an enormous risk. Way too much for any college president to take.

Too much of a risk for some. But not for Maryland. IIRC the ACC withheld Maryland's distributions for two years, and the Big Ten gave Maryland an "advance" on future revenues.

But there was a cap. They knew it wouldn't be more than the $52 million.

The cap is the worst-case scenario for the departing school.

Just to use round numbers, if a school is currently getting $25 million/year in media revenue from its conference, then if they bail out on a GOR, the worst-case scenario (i.e., conference succeeds in keeping both your TV rights and all the money they owe you) for the last 2 years of a GOR is $50 million, if it's the last 3 years, it's $75 million, etc.

The GOR amounts to a very large exit fee that diminishes year by year, with legal uncertainty as to whether the conference could actually keep all of the departing school's money.

Which is why the next genuine rumblings will probably happen, if at all, as some of the current GORs get into the last 5 years of their lifespan. Schools with wandering eyes, and conferences that want to poach, will calculate the potential cost. If a conference with a GOR that is winding down starts to talk about extending it for another 10 or 20 years, and there are schools that stall for time or say outright they're not interested in extending it, that will really be news.

There's another risk which probably makes it unacceptable before the end of the GOR. Conference home games are owned by the other conference. So the Big 10 could add OU and find that Ohio St./OU matchup was owned by the Big 12. The Big 10 and ESPN are not going to want to have to deal with that.
01-18-2016 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #57
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
So......why wouldn't the Big 10 go after Missouri?

they could add Kansas and Missouri, move Purdue to the East

DONE

conferences need to hire my ass 01-ncaabbs04-bow05-stirthepot

....so who should the SEC get to replace Mizzou??? (O..K..L..A..H..O..M..A..) 03-shhhh
01-19-2016 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #58
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(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.

Pardon the intrusion in your conversation. I don't mean to get off the track here.

I take it from your post that you are an attorney (or at least went to Law School). Am I reading you right in concluding that, if the goal of a GoR is to tie member schools to their current conference by the threat of withholding payment for their media content, that it won't work? If a GoR isn't an effective poison pill, then why have one?
01-19-2016 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user
johnbragg Online
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #59
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-19-2016 02:31 PM)ken d 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.

Pardon the intrusion in your conversation. I don't mean to get off the track here.

I take it from your post that you are an attorney (or at least went to Law School). Am I reading you right in concluding that, if the goal of a GoR is to tie member schools to their current conference by the threat of withholding payment for their media content, that it won't work? If a GoR isn't an effective poison pill, then why have one?

Nobody knows if they will hold up. I learned my law from Judge Judy (and from following conference realignment), there's a principle that a one-way contract is not valid. There's also a principle that exit fees cannot be punitive, they can only be sized to cover the damages to the left-behinds. As the Big EAst found out with the West Virginia case, what it says on the paper may or may not hold up in court.

Let's say Oklahoma and Texas go to the Big Ten. The judge might say that the Grant of Rights is valid, and the Red River Rivalry etc stays a Big 12 media property, sold to ESPN/Fox under the 2012 contracts; and Texas and Oklahoma get nothing for in media revenues for that game, hard cheese to them.

The judge might also say that, if the Big 12 is not paying Texas and Oklahoma their shares of the Big 12 media contract, then UT and OU are gaining no value from the GoR and so the GoR is voided, and OU and UT can enjoy their Big Ten-ness unimpaired.

The just might also say that UT and OU can go to the Big Ten, but the GoR stands as long as the Big 12 pays UT and OU their share of the media rights contracts. So the OU-UT game would be a Big Ten conference game, but a Big 12 media property for which OU and UT cash a Big 12 check.

Until there is a court precedent, it is very difficult to say what a court will do.
01-19-2016 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,127
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 152
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #60
RE: What's the skinny on the Big 10 tv contract negotiations?
(01-18-2016 03:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(01-18-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Todge, are you suggesting the Big 12 has the ability to supercede all rules of contract law, and all legal precedents that currently exist? Because aside from that, none of that is relevant. It does not matter. The very first rule of any contract in consideration. With no consideration, the contract is not valid. That is the core that holds those contracts together. The GOR is a contract that assigns media rights to the conference in exchange for being paid for the value they bring in. That the contract does not list the compensation is irrelevant.

Tell you what, Find me one instance, just one, in the thousands of cases that have gone to court in regards to grants of rights, where the retaining party was able to do so without compensation. Just one. I can give you many the other way, but just find one where the rights were awarded to the assigned party for no compensation. When these go to court now, that is not even brought up, because they all already KNOW the answer. The only questions that arise are who actually owns the rights that were assigned, the inherent value of the rights, how much money can be directly attributed to the rights (And thus how much is owed), if the duration of the contract has been fulfilled, and if the assignor can still retain the rights if they purposely devalue them (i.e. someone who owns movie or music rights, but rejects any attempts to allow the original owner to make money off it).

That is it. There is no longer any question of if you retain the rights, do you have to pay on them. So if you can find an example of one, then your point can be valid. But you won't, and that is specifically why the Big 12 even tried to amend their conference by laws, to try to compensate for the fact that the GOR does not allow them to do so, but even then, no one believes that would hold up in court either.

what I am telling you is that 10 universities, most of which have law schools, all of which have legal counsel working for the university, all of which have access to outside legal counsel and all of which have high powered legal alumni and alumni with access to high power legal counsel have looked over these GORs and only a couple out of the 10 in the Big 12 or the 14 in the ACC were even remotely looking at them from a "how can this be written so we can get out of it" standpoint and most of them were looking at it from a "how will others try and get out of it" stand point

and I am telling you that all of that combined legal counsel has had WAY WAY WAY MORE than a cute 3 hour media rights class in come undergrad degree program and all of them have had legal training and years (more like decades) of legal experience in the real world including some of the biggest and best known legal minds in the country

so if they are looking at it from the standpoint that this is extremely risky for someone to try and break out of I will take that over the opinion of random screen name on the intertubes that had a 3 hour media rights class and thus thinks that all contracts work the same

and as for the idea that a media partner could just keep showing the games because they "own them"

they are not buying the rights to individual teams and games with individual teams they are buying the rights to a package of conference content and thus they have the obligation under that conference contract to show the content that belongs to CONFERENCE MEMBERS under that agreement and once a team leaves the conference they are not a member and the media partners would not be showing those games under the agreement with that particular conference and if they tried to say "well we own that content we will show it under the agreement of another conference" well again the Big 12 actually OWNS that content they have licensed it to be broadcast as a package of CONFERENCE content and more so if a media partner tried to pull that they would be in court for collusion and damages so fast their head would spin because they are specifically acting to harm a conference they have a contract with for the benefit of another and they are providing enticement for the former conference member to break a contract and that gets you more than simple damages in most cases that often gets you punitive damages

and back to the original and false claim I first replied to

we now know for an absolute fact that the Big 12 GOR is not specifically tied to a media contract and we know there is no silly "well we took our media rights and thus the media contract is void and thus the GOR is void

because as I correctly pointed out the GOR is an assignment of rights to the conference exclusive of any actual media contract and to try and pull media rights you would have to try and break the GOR it is precisely NOT the other way around

so again there is nothing that makes the Big 12 GOR something as stupid and simple to break as "well lets just take our media rights and thus break the media contract and then the GOR just goes away"

and the Big 12 compensates based on conference membership not based on the grant of rights and that has been shown as well

and the media contract calls for the showing of conference games.....not former conference members games so under the Big 12 contract a media partner could not just keep showing games

and as the links show they probably would not even need to put it on MidCo in Souix Falls to keep it off third tier because it states "any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal"

again it is not like a law clerk put this together or the Big 12 just hired some guy with a 3 hour undergrad media rights class under his belt to write it up

some of the top legal minds in the country looked this over guaranteed and it is specifically written so that any team that wants to leave has no idea what the potential damages are and there is no ceiling on that and it is up to the member trying to leave to even attempt to set damages which then allows the conference to claim AT LEAST that amount and possible even each conference member to claim that amount individually and even then you might pay those damages AND NOT GET YOUR MEDIA RIGHTS BACK

with the liquidated damages as stated it is the complete opposite....the school goes in knowing the max damages and tries to work down from there and the CONFERENCE has to prove the amount

while with the GOR it is a horribly risky position to take especially when you know there is still a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT conference membership contract that also has liquidated damages

with the GOR you cannot make the claim that "well the conference still gets paid thus they are not damaged" while at the same time claiming that if you do not keep your media rights you are damaged

it is a stupid proposition to say "well we were damaged by a contract WE WILLINGLY BROKE, but the other party was not"

and if you have a deal with another conference and you are getting paid....well again what are YOUR DAMAGES....and as you try and prove those damages you are in effect proving the damages for the conference you are leaving from being damaged as well

all the more so another conference (or their media partners) offering you compensation to break a contract is again opening you and them up to more than simple damages it is enticement and that can have punitive damages as well

so schools, conferences and media partners could be on the hook for huge money and at the end possibly still not get the media rights back

it is a matter of "do you really want to try it or not" and "what are you willing to risk"

How did Georgetowns law school help the big easts old 3 years notice to leave clause in the by laws?

I highly doubt most of the law schools were involved with these GOR.
01-19-2016 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.