(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 04:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 02:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've actually had the chance to read some ESPN contracts.

Each had the following features.
- Look in periods. Nothing more than designated times where one party or the other can request that they look at the contract discuss extending it or it ending it early. If there is no agreement the existing contract rolls along. Mostly a pointless clause in that it restricts the times when a party can ask to deal but they can both waive that by agreement. But if one side doesn't like the terms proposed there is no obligation to do anything.
- Period of exclusive negotiation. As the contract nears expiration there is a time period where the party is only allowed to talk to ESPN.
- Period of open negotiation. If you don't like ESPN's offer at the end of the exclusive period you can talk to others but in doing so, you've rejected ESPN's offer and it is now off the table.
- ESPN then holds the right extend the agreement by simply accepting the exact terms of a bono fide offer the other party has received. As we saw with the AAC this can work to ESPN's advantage. NBC was looking to buy the whole banana and put games on some low household number channels. ESPN was easily able to address that by taking stuff to ESPN News and subbing content to CBS Sports Net.

The current MAC deal was produced during a look in period so those do matter.

Well, it sounds like we had to accept their offer. Is that clause typically in the contracts of other networks (Fox, NBC, CBS-Sports, etc)?

It is all in how you read it. holding the right to "extend the agreement" doesn't mean they had to take it. The "extending" of the agreement is the loophole to allow the league to back out of the contract they signed with NBC: they did not have to take it. I know for a fact the AAC did not have to take it: they took several days to decide which one they wanted to do. ...

My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The way I always understood it, the clause did not mandate the conferences accept the ESPN offer---it was nothing more than a contractual commitment to give ESPN the last swing at the piñata (which is why a conference would not likely find it to be particularly objectionable)--- But like you said, without the actual contract--we are just guessing.

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

The bolded part is my understanding as well, but others disagree and say the AAC was under no obligation to take the ESPN match or the NBC offer, they could go back to NBC and say "ESPN matched, would you like to offer more"? Sans contract details, nobody can know for sure.

One piece of evidence that might be instructive is how the C-USA situation was resolved: ESPN sued C-USA for not giving them their 'match' right, and the settlement was that the C-USA title game was transferred from FOX to ESPN.

Televising the title game is a big deal, not a trivial thing, which to me implies that the breach of the C-USA 'match' clause wasn't a trivial thing either, and yet, if the clause is merely a courtesy notification, a "hey X, I've gotten an offer from Y, would you like to match?" with no obligation to take X even if they do match, then I doubt a court would regard a breach as being serious at all and ESPN could not have gotten that kind of substantive settlement from C-USA.

(03-29-2017 05:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 10:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If AAC had the right to reject ESPN's match... why not reject it?
I know ESPN has the eyeballs but tactically it makes no sense.

NBCSN already had the Premier League deal that was pulling surprising audiences and made for a good lead in. The network already had good brand awareness in NHL markets and seven of the 12 teams are in or very close to NHL markets. NBC/Comcasts RSN's are strong over a big portion of the league.

AAC was going to get most favored status in several broadcast windows and getting bumped to NBC more likely that going over on to ABC.

Look at the ratings for FS1 vs ESPN. Looking at the Big 12 and PAC ratings, being on ESPN vs FS1 is worth about 3X the audience. NBC-SN would be as bad, or worse. You might get an extra OTA game or two a year, but NBC affiliates are not going to be happy about dumping mildly profitable Saturday afternoon programming for the 6th or 9th biggest college football game of a weekend.

Aresco got the AAC very good coverage guarantees from ESPN. They have a lot of games on ESPN and ESPN 2, and almost every game is on TV somewhere, even if it's ESPNews or CBS-SN.

They don't like it when I suggest this, but if they had to choose between their ESPN coverage package and no TV money, and say $5M per school from Fox or NBC, they'd stay with ESPN.

That's the problem. There's those on here who believed the AAC would get 10 million a year a school PLUS a weekly AAC game of the week on NBC OTA plus tier 2 games with espn2/news/classic. They dont see this as an either or (coverage vs Big $) They want it all. ESPN will low ball the AAC again. It's what they do. There probably won't be a significant raise...or its the open market for more money and less exposure. I'm ok with that because I know the real money is made on Saturday's at the games, not from tv. I'm looking forward to the day when the tv money dries up for all conferences. Schools like Cal, Illinois, Wake and Rutgers would be crippled. Schools like ECU will be just fine as we've never made much on tv anyway. The P4 tv networks/LHN will dry up too. I'll never pay for a conference tv network again. Even if it's a penny a month. I will not add to their numbers. I know I'm not alone. Let the new era begin.

(03-29-2017 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

The bolded part is my understanding as well, but others disagree and say the AAC was under no obligation to take the ESPN match or the NBC offer, they could go back to NBC and say "ESPN matched, would you like to offer more"? Sans contract details, nobody can know for sure.

One piece of evidence that might be instructive is how the C-USA situation was resolved: ESPN sued C-USA for not giving them their 'match' right, and the settlement was that the C-USA title game was transferred from FOX to ESPN.

Televising the title game is a big deal, not a trivial thing, which to me implies that the breach of the C-USA 'match' clause wasn't a trivial thing either, and yet, if the clause is merely a courtesy notification, a "hey X, I've gotten an offer from Y, would you like to match?" with no obligation to take X even if they do match, then I doubt a court would regard a breach as being serious at all and ESPN could not have gotten that kind of substantive settlement from C-USA.

Agreed. By the same token--if the "right to match" was in fact a "right of first refusal at market price", then ESPN would have received all the CUSA rights--not just the CCG. And before you say it was a settlement (which is was), if ESPN really didn't want the CUSA rights then FOX could have simply rescinded the offer and let ESPN have the rights for 14 million. Then ESPN would have no case and no damages. Since ESPN wouldn't want CUSA, they would either be stuck matching the exposure and $$ for CUSA or would have to pass. Sounds to me like FOX didn't really want to carry the CUSA CCG on FOX-OTA (CUSA games were relegated to FOX regional sports networks), so giving the CCG to ESPN to go away while keeping the CUSA rights for their Fox Regionals was a perfect way out for FOX.

(03-29-2017 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

The bolded part is my understanding as well, but others disagree and say the AAC was under no obligation to take the ESPN match or the NBC offer, they could go back to NBC and say "ESPN matched, would you like to offer more"? Sans contract details, nobody can know for sure.

One piece of evidence that might be instructive is how the C-USA situation was resolved: ESPN sued C-USA for not giving them their 'match' right, and the settlement was that the C-USA title game was transferred from FOX to ESPN.

Televising the title game is a big deal, not a trivial thing, which to me implies that the breach of the C-USA 'match' clause wasn't a trivial thing either, and yet, if the clause is merely a courtesy notification, a "hey X, I've gotten an offer from Y, would you like to match?" with no obligation to take X even if they do match, then I doubt a court would regard a breach as being serious at all and ESPN could not have gotten that kind of substantive settlement from C-USA.

Agreed. By the same token--if the "right to match" was in fact a "right of first refusal at market price", then ESPN would have received all the CUSA rights--not just the CCG. And before you say it was a settlement (which is was), if ESPN really didn't want the CUSA rights then FOX could have simply rescinded the offer and let ESPN have the rights for 14 million. Then ESPN would have no case and no damages. Since ESPN wouldn't want CUSA, they would either be stuck matching the exposure and $$ for CUSA or would have to pass. Sounds to me like FOX didn't really want to carry the CUSA CCG on FOX-OTA (CUSA games were relegated to FOX regional sports networks), so giving the CCG to ESPN to go away while keeping the CUSA rights for their Fox Regionals was a perfect way out for FOX.

I think it is safe to say, no idea for a contract will be known until sometime in 2018. I think both parties are better off standing pat until the 2017 season is over. Disney may be willing to toss ESPN to a buyer. NOTE-A THEORY NOT STATING AS A FACT. Amazon, Netflix or AT&T could be interested to buy ESPN to get live streaming content owned by them. I think sports are heading that way. I mean right now I have PSVUE and it is cheaper for me to get INTERNET and $10 TV-addon for local stations. Which I can view both on ROKU rather than pay more for Internet Only. Now if Spectrum would just get their app on FIRE TV, I prefer there interface over ROKU.

As I stated before, I still think NBC and the AAC make the best partnership. As long as they are at ESPN, they will be treated as a the Top G5 and never as a Power Conference.

(03-29-2017 11:35 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 10:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My recollection was that those days were spent not deciding which to take, but deciding whether ESPN had in fact actually "matched" the NBC offer in all relevant particulars.

That's consistent with a situation in which the match clause was such that the AAC had no choice but to sign with ESPN if they matched the NBC offer - even in that situation, they would have the right to spend some time having their lawyers check out the details of the ESPN 'match' to make sure it actually was a match and didn't have different clauses.

Really, without the actual contract details, we're all guessing to a degree.

What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

The bolded part is my understanding as well, but others disagree and say the AAC was under no obligation to take the ESPN match or the NBC offer, they could go back to NBC and say "ESPN matched, would you like to offer more"? Sans contract details, nobody can know for sure.

One piece of evidence that might be instructive is how the C-USA situation was resolved: ESPN sued C-USA for not giving them their 'match' right, and the settlement was that the C-USA title game was transferred from FOX to ESPN.

Televising the title game is a big deal, not a trivial thing, which to me implies that the breach of the C-USA 'match' clause wasn't a trivial thing either, and yet, if the clause is merely a courtesy notification, a "hey X, I've gotten an offer from Y, would you like to match?" with no obligation to take X even if they do match, then I doubt a court would regard a breach as being serious at all and ESPN could not have gotten that kind of substantive settlement from C-USA.

Agreed. By the same token--if the "right to match" was in fact a "right of first refusal at market price", then ESPN would have received all the CUSA rights--not just the CCG. And before you say it was a settlement (which is was), if ESPN really didn't want the CUSA rights then FOX could have simply rescinded the offer and let ESPN have the rights for 14 million. Then ESPN would have no case and no damages. Since ESPN wouldn't want CUSA, they would either be stuck matching the exposure and $$ for CUSA or would have to pass. Sounds to me like FOX didn't really want to carry the CUSA CCG on FOX-OTA (CUSA games were relegated to FOX regional sports networks), so giving the CCG to ESPN to go away while keeping the CUSA rights for their Fox Regionals was a perfect way out for FOX.

I think it is safe to say, no idea for a contract will be known until sometime in 2018. I think both parties are better off standing pat until the 2017 season is over. Disney may be willing to toss ESPN to a buyer. NOTE-A THEORY NOT STATING AS A FACT. Amazon, Netflix or AT&T could be interested to buy ESPN to get live streaming content owned by them. I think sports are heading that way. I mean right now I have PSVUE and it is cheaper for me to get INTERNET and $10 TV-addon for local stations. Which I can view both on ROKU rather than pay more for Internet Only. Now if Spectrum would just get their app on FIRE TV, I prefer there interface over ROKU.

As I stated before, I still think NBC and the AAC make the best partnership. As long as they are at ESPN, they will be treated as a the Top G5 and never as a Power Conference.

If I were running the AAC, Id be willing to take less if the network would pay enough for the Miami Beach Bowl that its payout could attract a high level P5 (or better yet, if it would bid for a contract bowl for the AAC).

(03-28-2017 10:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If AAC had the right to reject ESPN's match... why not reject it?
I know ESPN has the eyeballs but tactically it makes no sense.

AAC was going to get most favored status in several broadcast windows and getting bumped to NBC more likely that going over on to ABC.

Tactically it made no sense to leave espn for a start up paying peanuts who's only carrot was "exposure," when the espn networks, even the lowest cable network, had a larger audience and drew more people than the NBC cable channel. Also only one football game was guaranteed on NBC, with the rest being "maybe."

(03-28-2017 11:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  what do you think the aac should have done?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

I would have done exactly what the AAC did.

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That doesn't sound like a "match" situation, it just sounds like a courtesy notification to B when I get offers from others followed by possible continued bidding.

The match situation was about allowing the aac out of the NBC contract, based on the prior stipulation NBC was aware of. They designed the contact in a way ESPN, they thought, would never match. They did not account for ESPN "turning on" ESPNnews, opening several more broadcast windows, in addition to ones created by the SEC Network.

To note I know someone who was in the room. I know the contract details as it pertains to this. It was an absolute choice. The choice was being he number 2 on a small network, and potentially being blackballed coverage wise from ESPN, or take time slot guarantees on ESPN's second tier channels, and get ESPN coverage. In the end, when ESPN matched, they didn't feel the NBC offer was enough to take the risk, once ESPN offered the same terms.

If ESPN had a breach claim against AAC if went with NBC then AAC did not have an option.
CUSA did have to go back to ESPN, they breached that agreement. Whether ESPN wanted to match becomes irrelevant. Only thing relevant is ESPN's damages at that point. Evidence suggests ESPN wouldn't have matched but they wanted their pound of flesh for the breach.

(03-29-2017 12:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If ESPN had a breach claim against AAC if went with NBC then AAC did not have an option.
CUSA did have to go back to ESPN, they breached that agreement. Whether ESPN wanted to match becomes irrelevant. Only thing relevant is ESPN's damages at that point. Evidence suggests ESPN wouldn't have matched but they wanted their pound of flesh for the breach.

They didn't. It seems you are hearing what you want to here. ESPN had no breach claim if the American left. A right of first refusal type contract would be akin to a reserve clause. It was not that. It was a right to basically match the terms of the contract signed on the open market, which allows the conference to back out of the contract they signed, should they choose, legally. It is similar to the NBA's restricted free agency in terms of allowing for a team to match a player tender, which is an otherwise valid signed contract, but dissimilar in that the team cannot force the player to stay.

(03-29-2017 12:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 12:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If ESPN had a breach claim against AAC if went with NBC then AAC did not have an option.
CUSA did have to go back to ESPN, they breached that agreement. Whether ESPN wanted to match becomes irrelevant. Only thing relevant is ESPN's damages at that point. Evidence suggests ESPN wouldn't have matched but they wanted their pound of flesh for the breach.

They didn't. It seems you are hearing what you want to here. ESPN had no breach claim if the American left. A right of first refusal type contract would be akin to a reserve clause. It was not that. It was a right to basically match the terms of the contract signed on the open market, which allows the conference to back out of the contract they signed, should they choose, legally. It is similar to the NBA's restricted free agency in terms of allowing for a team to match a player tender, which is an otherwise valid signed contract, but dissimilar in that the team cannot force the player to stay.

I was responding to a claim that would have happened. Scroll back up.

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

In this scenario they could not do that. Because the American did not take an "offer" to ESPN to match: they took a valid signed contract. The terms allowed the American to cancel the contract and go back to ESPN if ESPN matched, in full, the NBC contract. That is why it had to be a "match," and could not be sweetened, because that would have violated the contract they signed with ESPN. ESPN could not then offer the American a better deal, because they had already signed (if they brought just an offer, during negotiations, that would be a different situation). What the match did, was allow the American to get basically everything they wanted from ESPN, because NBC was willing to do it, that ESPN would not give them during negotiations (ESPN's final offer was for substantially more money than the American signed with for NBC, about double). But ESPN stunned the American coaches, and NBC, when they matched it. Yes they did spend time to make sure it was indeed a match, they had to to make sure they could get out of the NBC contract, not because they felt they were forced to stay with ESPN. This is why Aresco always used the phrase that they traded money for exposure: because they did. They turned down more money with ESPN for NBC, then ESPN gave them what they wanted. There was some thought they could talk ESPN and that they would have been okay even giving them the original amount of money they offered a few months before (it was said to be between $35-$40 million per year, but with a lot of ESPN3 and syndicated games, and more years) in addition to the timeslot guarantees, but that would have violated the right to match clause and they would have been bound to the NBC contract, and thus it made no sense to even ask. I also know ESPN did not care for the designation of two of the teams in the renegotiation clause, but again was not allowed to change them.

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

Not quite. the right to match is on a SIGNED Deal, meaning after you have negotiated with everyone, taken all of your offers, had counter offers, etc. The other important thing is, as mentioned above, there is no ability to change the deal (for ESPN anyway) even to the benefit of the conference in question, as "matching" it, after the deal is signed, is the only thing that allows the conference out of the deal they already signed. Remember the American SIGNED with NNC: it was not an offer ESPN matched. This was well after all offers had been considered. The American only went with ESPN, as mentioned above, because ESPN matched all of the terms, something no one thought they would do.

To add to the above, as I understand it, ESPN originally wanted to use the American to help fill in the syndication gaps from the conversion of the SEC syndicated packages to the SEC Network. Yes they would have a couple of ESPN games, and an ABC game per year, but it was mainly designed to fill in schedule holes on ESPNU and ESPN2, keep the syndication business running, and prop up ESPN 3. They probably felt they were paying the American a premium for allowing them to use them that way. NBC took the opposite approach and said we'll give you all the timeslots you want, but we'll pay you less for that privilege.

At some point ESPN decided to start using ESPN News for games, AND they started to realize they could sublicense excess games to CBS instead of syndicating them. This was just prior to the AAC signing with NBC. My guess is that the two things, combined with the removal of a few SEC games per year from the inventory, created a perfect storm so that the American's sudden availability for peanuts, just came together at the perfect time for ESPN to say, "yeah, we can do that."

(03-29-2017 12:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was responding to a claim that would have happened. Scroll back up.

If so then my mistake.

(03-29-2017 01:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

In this scenario they could not do that. Because the American did not take an "offer" to ESPN to match: they took a valid signed contract. The terms allowed the American to cancel the contract and go back to ESPN if ESPN matched, in full, the NBC contract. That is why it had to be a "match," and could not be sweetened, because that would have violated the contract they signed with ESPN. ESPN could not then offer the American a better deal, because they had already signed (if they brought just an offer, during negotiations, that would be a different situation). What the match did, was allow the American to get basically everything they wanted from ESPN, because NBC was willing to do it, that ESPN would not give them during negotiations (ESPN's final offer was for substantially more money than the American signed with for NBC, about double). But ESPN stunned the American coaches, and NBC, when they matched it. Yes they did spend time to make sure it was indeed a match, they had to to make sure they could get out of the NBC contract, not because they felt they were forced to stay with ESPN. This is why Aresco always used the phrase that they traded money for exposure: because they did. They turned down more money with ESPN for NBC, then ESPN gave them what they wanted. There was some thought they could talk ESPN and that they would have been okay even giving them the original amount of money they offered a few months before (it was said to be between $35-$40 million per year, but with a lot of ESPN3 and syndicated games, and more years) in addition to the timeslot guarantees, but that would have violated the right to match clause and they would have been bound to the NBC contract, and thus it made no sense to even ask. I also know ESPN did not care for the designation of two of the teams in the renegotiation clause, but again was not allowed to change them.

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

Not quite. the right to match is on a SIGNED Deal, meaning after you have negotiated with everyone, taken all of your offers, had counter offers, etc. The other important thing is, as mentioned above, there is no ability to change the deal (for ESPN anyway) even to the benefit of the conference in question, as "matching" it, after the deal is signed, is the only thing that allows the conference out of the deal they already signed. Remember the American SIGNED with NNC: it was not an offer ESPN matched. This was well after all offers had been considered. The American only went with ESPN, as mentioned above, because ESPN matched all of the terms, something no one thought they would do.

To add to the above, as I understand it, ESPN originally wanted to use the American to help fill in the syndication gaps from the conversion of the SEC syndicated packages to the SEC Network. Yes they would have a couple of ESPN games, and an ABC game per year, but it was mainly designed to fill in schedule holes on ESPNU and ESPN2, keep the syndication business running, and prop up ESPN 3. They probably felt they were paying the American a premium for allowing them to use them that way. NBC took the opposite approach and said we'll give you all the timeslots you want, but we'll pay you less for that privilege.

At some point ESPN decided to start using ESPN News for games, AND they started to realize they could sublicense excess games to CBS instead of syndicating them. This was just prior to the AAC signing with NBC. My guess is that the two things, combined with the removal of a few SEC games per year from the inventory, created a perfect storm so that the American's sudden availability for peanuts, just came together at the perfect time for ESPN to say, "yeah, we can do that."

What are you referring to here? Is that a reference to the "A" and "B" group categories that triggered renegotiation/cancellation clauses in the NBC deal?

(03-29-2017 01:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

In this scenario they could not do that. Because the American did not take an "offer" to ESPN to match: they took a valid signed contract. The terms allowed the American to cancel the contract and go back to ESPN if ESPN matched, in full, the NBC contract.

Right, but the one unresolved issue (at least to me) is whether the original ESPN 'match' clause was worded such that once ESPN matched, that was it, the AAC had no choice, the contract was ESPN's, or whether the AAC then had the choice between NBC and ESPN.

I'm not sure our discussion here can resolve that. Here's a tweet from a Sports Business Journal writer at the time:

***********************
John Ourand @Ourand_SBJ

@JThoma11 ESPN's current contract gives it the right to match. If it matches, Big East can't go back to NBC to try and get a better deal.

3:31 PM - 21 Feb 2013
***********************

I had assumed that meant if ESPN matched the deal was theirs, but your posts reveal that this is an unwarranted assumption because the language of the tweet doesn't really say the Big East must take the ESPN deal, only that they can't try to re-start bidding by asking NBC for more, but that doesn't preclude the Big East having the choice to take either deal.

(03-29-2017 02:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What are you referring to here? Is that a reference to the "A" and "B" group categories that triggered renegotiation/cancellation clauses in the NBC deal?

Yes

(03-29-2017 02:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 01:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  In this scenario they could not do that. Because the American did not take an "offer" to ESPN to match: they took a valid signed contract. The terms allowed the American to cancel the contract and go back to ESPN if ESPN matched, in full, the NBC contract.

Right, but the one unresolved issue (at least to me) is whether the original ESPN 'match' clause was worded such that once ESPN matched, that was it, the AAC had no choice, the contract was ESPN's, or whether the AAC then had the choice between NBC and ESPN.

Just to filll in the wholes, as was told to me, there was no debate about by any of the decision makers. HE also said the language of the contract makes it much more clear than some of the hearsay (I don't remember it much now)

The debates were three fold. One to see if the match was sufficient enough to allow them rescind the NBC offer, per the pre-arranged deal where ESPN could match the offer, and the American coudl then consider taking it. Two to make sure it protected their own interests, which was mostly number one, making sure they were the same, but to make sure there were no loopholes on the timeslot issue, and investigating the sublicense clause that eventually allowed games to be sublicensed to CBS sports net, etc. Remember the NBC contract made guarantees about games on NBC Sports, but was very vague on number of games on NBC Network (OTA). Third was to decide if they wanted to go to the network that courted them, NBC, or back to the safety net of ESPN.

I just happened to know someone who literally worked on this deal, and he told me in real time (well real time as in a few weeks after it happened) how it went down. In fact they did consider trying to get the two to reopen the bidding, but NBC made it clear that wasn't an option: take their deal, or they could get out of it if the ESPN deal matched theirs exactly. I think they even had something in there to ensure no side deals were made with ESPN to sweeten the pot, but I don't remember those details.

(03-29-2017 02:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 01:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-29-2017 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What still doesn't sit well with me is that if the match clause was as Coog and yourself say it was, then it's really rather substanceless: I currently have a deal with B and it has a match clause. So when I get an offer from A, the contract says I must then take that offer to B so they have the chance to match, but ... even if B matches A, I'm not obligated to take B, and so long as the deal with A isn't actually a signed contract, I can also go back to A and say "hey, B just matched you, would you like to up your offer?", which if they do, I then take back to B to "match", etc.

In this scenario they could not do that. Because the American did not take an "offer" to ESPN to match: they took a valid signed contract. The terms allowed the American to cancel the contract and go back to ESPN if ESPN matched, in full, the NBC contract. That is why it had to be a "match," and could not be sweetened, because that would have violated the contract they signed with ESPN. ESPN could not then offer the American a better deal, because they had already signed (if they brought just an offer, during negotiations, that would be a different situation). What the match did, was allow the American to get basically everything they wanted from ESPN, because NBC was willing to do it, that ESPN would not give them during negotiations (ESPN's final offer was for substantially more money than the American signed with for NBC, about double). But ESPN stunned the American coaches, and NBC, when they matched it. Yes they did spend time to make sure it was indeed a match, they had to to make sure they could get out of the NBC contract, not because they felt they were forced to stay with ESPN. This is why Aresco always used the phrase that they traded money for exposure: because they did. They turned down more money with ESPN for NBC, then ESPN gave them what they wanted. There was some thought they could talk ESPN and that they would have been okay even giving them the original amount of money they offered a few months before (it was said to be between $35-$40 million per year, but with a lot of ESPN3 and syndicated games, and more years) in addition to the timeslot guarantees, but that would have violated the right to match clause and they would have been bound to the NBC contract, and thus it made no sense to even ask. I also know ESPN did not care for the designation of two of the teams in the renegotiation clause, but again was not allowed to change them.

(03-29-2017 09:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The one thing the "right to match" clause does is limit the bidding to one round. (not counting the ESPN exclusive period.)

Best I can tell, if Aresco had taken the NBC deal to ESPN, ESPN matches (or close-enough matches), and Aresco goes back to NBC, then ESPN has a claim against the Aresco LEague for breach of contract. What the damages would be I have no idea, but they're in breach.

Not quite. the right to match is on a SIGNED Deal, meaning after you have negotiated with everyone, taken all of your offers, had counter offers, etc. The other important thing is, as mentioned above, there is no ability to change the deal (for ESPN anyway) even to the benefit of the conference in question, as "matching" it, after the deal is signed, is the only thing that allows the conference out of the deal they already signed. Remember the American SIGNED with NNC: it was not an offer ESPN matched. This was well after all offers had been considered. The American only went with ESPN, as mentioned above, because ESPN matched all of the terms, something no one thought they would do.

To add to the above, as I understand it, ESPN originally wanted to use the American to help fill in the syndication gaps from the conversion of the SEC syndicated packages to the SEC Network. Yes they would have a couple of ESPN games, and an ABC game per year, but it was mainly designed to fill in schedule holes on ESPNU and ESPN2, keep the syndication business running, and prop up ESPN 3. They probably felt they were paying the American a premium for allowing them to use them that way. NBC took the opposite approach and said we'll give you all the timeslots you want, but we'll pay you less for that privilege.

At some point ESPN decided to start using ESPN News for games, AND they started to realize they could sublicense excess games to CBS instead of syndicating them. This was just prior to the AAC signing with NBC. My guess is that the two things, combined with the removal of a few SEC games per year from the inventory, created a perfect storm so that the American's sudden availability for peanuts, just came together at the perfect time for ESPN to say, "yeah, we can do that."

What are you referring to here? Is that a reference to the "A" and "B" group categories that triggered renegotiation/cancellation clauses in the NBC deal?

Which two teams did espn not want designated as Group A or Group B?

It was more they thought South Florida was more valuable than two of the other new additions, then then thinking the other two weren't valuable. It's also possible they figured hey had more ability to be a flight risk. That part I didn't know.

(03-29-2017 07:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It was more they thought South Florida was more valuable than two of the other new additions, then then thinking the other two weren't valuable. It's also possible they figured hey had more ability to be a flight risk. That part I didn't know.

I assume you meant UCF, not USF, here.