(05-05-2016 01:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: and again just ike in the past here is the part where you become upset that I will not bow down to your legal expertise because you had a 3 hour undergrad media rights class and you start trying to claim that I said the GOR was "not breakable"
this is ofi course something that I have never claimed this is you clutching at straws and trying to re-frame the discussion so that you can get into a position to attempt to claim some type of "web victory"
Jesus shut the hell up. My goodness I get headache every time I see the block of text under your name. Since you like to call out resumes, I have a degree in Mass media. For the uninformed (you), that is the "business" of television. Not a three hour class, like you repeat as though that means anything. I actually spent time studying said business for years. Then I followed it up with an MBA in the same field, followed by and concurrent with working for a major sports network and a professional sports team. An expert it does not make me, but it means I have at least basis of knowledge for what I am talking about. Meaning, unlike the other person in the conversation, I am not talking out of my ass. Staying at a Holiday Inn Express for an evening makes one more qualified than you to speak on the subject, as evidence by your posts, yet you speak as though you know what you are talking about. You don't, and you prove it with every post.
For example, here your entire argument is literally that lawyers drew up the agreement, and agreed upon it, therefore it will work perfectly as intended. Sigh! This may be the single dumbest line of logic ever placed on these boards. And that is saying something. That "logic" would literally be laughed out of court if anyone ever tried to present it as an argument. Even worse you are so proud of the logic, you literally think just because you said it is true. Even worse than using this logic, is not even realizing that the logic you repeated, that they agreed upon it therefore they believe it is fullproof, completely ignores the fact that it may not have EVER been intended to be fullproof, hence several members looking around at other conferences (therefore intending to break it) less than a year later. It is quite plausible that one reason it was signed, was specifically BECAUSE of how easily it could be circumvented, which is a tactic attorneys use quite often. I don't even care to discuss it further, because this isn't even logic: this is just yelling as loud as you can, for no reason, and expecting someone to take your novels seriously.
.
You can write a book to response - and I know you will - which no one will read or respond to, and likely will be full more more gibberish and logic holes, but one this is very clear. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
We may never know how this would play out specifically, but these agreements (grants of rights) are not new, and are primarily used in the music industry. It is no secret to anyone how they play out, except for some people here. But since teams don't voluntarily sign such an agreement, only to try and get out a few years later, these specific ones will never see the light of day of a court
but make no mistake about it, the idea that because lawyers wrote it and agreed with i, does not in any way affect how enforceable all provisions are. That is just absurd.