(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."