(05-05-2016 10:50 AM)bluesox Wrote:  So the LHN is easy to break, how about the Big 12 GOR? My guess for most likely landing spots for texas is

1) pac 12
2) ACC

i put very little odds on texas joining the big 10 or SEC.

It isn't easy to break. Nebraskafanwini can't read either.

(05-05-2016 11:27 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:59 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:50 AM)bluesox Wrote:  So the LHN is easy to break, how about the Big 12 GOR? My guess for most likely landing spots for texas is

1) pac 12
2) ACC

i put very little odds on texas joining the big 10 or SEC.

Compared to the GOR, yes, easy to break. The termination doesn't contain any huge obstacles.

For sure the GOR would not be "easy" to break, but I think teams being allowed to retain their third tier rights puts a snag in the way the conference would attempt to punish a team that left. They would either have to put said teams' games in valuable Big 12 time slots, that would then be promoting the other conference - while still paying them, which is an absolute requirement to keep the GOR intact, despite the amendment to the Big 12 by laws, which was placed their specifically because they knew the GOR itself doesn't allow it - or they could choose to attempt to go the media blackout route, and not put the games on TV. Of course since teams' retain their third tier rights, that means the rights then revert back to the school, who could then do what they wanted with them.

That is why I don't think the GOR is a big deal to teams with power, Texas or Oklahoma, where other conferences might deal with the short term headache of the GOR that would eventually be negotiated out, but is very restrictive to the next level of teams, who do not provide the value to make it worth the hassle.

it is not an absolute fact at all that the GOR requires compensation

in fact the GOR specifically has no compensation tied to it and it is the separate contract for conference membership that has compensation tied to it

this (and most of the other nonsense and false facts in this thread) have been discussed repeatedly

(05-05-2016 12:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it is not an absolute fact at all that the GOR requires compensation

in fact the GOR specifically has no compensation tied to it and it is the separate contract for conference membership that has compensation tied to it

this (and most of the other nonsense and false facts in this thread) have been discussed repeatedly

There have been thousands of GOR's to go through the court systems with regards to media rights, mostly music and movies, , and notta one was upheld if the assignee did not pay the agreed upon consideration. Thousands of them. In fact they don't even go to court over that anymore: what they go to court for now is to determine how much value said rights have generated, or if intentionally suppressing the rights voids the deal. No one has been allowed to keep assigned rights, and not pay the agreed upon consideration for doing so. It would be a precedent setting decision for a judge to allow an entity to retain someone's rights without them paying the agreed upon consideration. so until that happens,

Likewise your statement above, that the GOR has no compensation attached to it, would make it an invalid contract. Very first page, of the very first chapter, of intro contract law. So yes, it is an absolute fact that a GOR, a contract, requires compensation. That is basic contract law. The amount of, and length of payment can be debated, and would vary from contract to contract, but no contract is valid without consideration. That is why when people "give" away houses, cars, etc to family members, the sale is generally for $1.00, because there has to be consideration to validate the contract.

(05-05-2016 10:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:44 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The LHN contract with ESPN is pretty simple, IMO, that even your average Joe can get some reasonable feel for how it works.

1) ESPN can't prevent Texas from moving to a different conference.

2) If Texas left to a different conference, the LHN will go with, but it can be merged with another network.

3) either party can terminate the contract and there are no liability payments.

IMO, it is crappy contract. Easy to break, easy to get out of, and not expensive to break from a liability perspective.

I think it "could" be merged into another conference, but Texas seems to (public) have zero interest in that. Which is odd because while the number of Texas fans I personally know is limited, I don't know anyone who seems to like LHN, fans or coaches. Seems like the administration is the only one obscenely happy with it.

They have fifteen million reasons to like it every year.

(05-05-2016 12:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it is not an absolute fact at all that the GOR requires compensation

in fact the GOR specifically has no compensation tied to it and it is the separate contract for conference membership that has compensation tied to it

this (and most of the other nonsense and false facts in this thread) have been discussed repeatedly

There have been thousands of GOR's to go through the court systems with regards to media rights, mostly music and movies, , and notta one was upheld if the assignee did not pay the agreed upon consideration. Thousands of them. In fact they don't even go to court over that anymore: what they go to court for now is to determine how much value said rights have generated, or if intentionally suppressing the rights voids the deal. No one has been allowed to keep assigned rights, and not pay the agreed upon consideration for doing so. It would be a precedent setting decision for a judge to allow an entity to retain someone's rights without them paying the agreed upon consideration. so until that happens,

Likewise your statement above, that the GOR has no compensation attached to it, would make it an invalid contract. Very first page, of the very first chapter, of intro contract law. So yes, it is an absolute fact that a GOR, a contract, requires compensation. That is basic contract law. The amount of, and length of payment can be debated, and would vary from contract to contract, but no contract is valid without consideration. That is why when people "give" away houses, cars, etc to family members, the sale is generally for $1.00, because there has to be consideration to validate the contract.

and this has been discussed over and over

on the one side we have junior amateur lawyers talking about contract law after they have had a 3 hour media rights class as an undergrad and talking about music and record labels

on the other side we have at least 7 and more than likely 8+ teams from the Big 12 that absolutely without a doubt want the GOR to be as difficult to break as possible and we have the most likely hundreds of lawyers and high powered business and legal alumni and in house and outside counsel that looked over the GOR with the idea in mind that it be as difficult as possible to break not to mention the same for the ACC and other conferences

one would think that out of all those legal minds and all those high powered business people at least one of them would have brought up their 3 hour undergrad media rights legal knowledge and tried to offer that up as a reason the GOR would not stand up in court

and if that was a concern you would think that at least one of those schools that want the GOR to be difficult to break would have discussed that

so again on the one side we have junior amateur message forum lawyer with 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes saying that the GOR would just be tossed aside as soon as the conference refused compensation for lack of membership under a separate contract and on the other side we have hundreds of lawyers and high powered business people from a number of teams from several conferences

you have taken the side of the 3 hour undergrad media rights class

I have taken the side of those that I believe have superior legal and business minds and that do this for a living and that have a vested interest in making the GOR as difficult to break as possible

there is simply nothing left to discuss on this issue congrats on taking 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes you should try and be an agent or producer or maybe even a para-legal or clerking in a law firm mail room I am sure they would be impressed with your contract law knowledge one and all

(05-05-2016 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  Alright, really, really bad reading comprehension. They are talking about the content IMG controls which is UT home content as is stated in the clauses surrounding this one. And IMG can't take the content they sold to ESPN and sell it again somewhere else is all this says.

That is your interpretation. That is fine. From refreshing my memory of it, there were some who interpreted it the way you did (most seemed to be Texas fans), and others who interpreted it the way I repeated it, which was most everyone else. Though I don't know why you are saying I have really bad reading comprehension, when I simply repeated what Chip Brown, and the people who wrote the aforementioned blogs said. It was not my interpretation at all. I repeated what I remembered from five years ago, which appears to be almost word for word accurate (the what I repeated, not necessarily how accurate it is).

Again, I have no idea how they would ever enforce such a stance anyway, and it was something I questioned on that very thread five years ago, specifically saying it made me question the interpretation of the person who wrote the blog.

(08-08-2011 01:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 12:41 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:52 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  By the way, MattSarz posted this link that more or less refutes a lot of stuff in the blog.

I bet the writer, Kristi Dosh is from Texas..............

I don't know, but I do know the author he was refuting was from Texas A&M, so at worst, they even out

But it has been a regularly accepted provision of the contract by most people, albeit a contract that has had limited public exposure.

"Consideration" doesn't have to = $$

It's the benefit you receive from the contract. It can be a promise to do something you're not legally obligated to do or NOT do something that you otherwise have the right to do.

(05-05-2016 11:27 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:59 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:50 AM)bluesox Wrote:  So the LHN is easy to break, how about the Big 12 GOR? My guess for most likely landing spots for texas is

1) pac 12
2) ACC

i put very little odds on texas joining the big 10 or SEC.

Compared to the GOR, yes, easy to break. The termination doesn't contain any huge obstacles.

For sure the GOR would not be "easy" to break, but I think teams being allowed to retain their third tier rights puts a snag in the way the conference would attempt to punish a team that left. They would either have to put said teams' games in valuable Big 12 time slots, that would then be promoting the other conference - while still paying them, which is an absolute requirement to keep the GOR intact, despite the amendment to the Big 12 by laws, which was placed their specifically because they knew the GOR itself doesn't allow it - or they could choose to attempt to go the media blackout route, and not put the games on TV. Of course since teams' retain their third tier rights, that means the rights then revert back to the school, who could then do what they wanted with them.

That is why I don't think the GOR is a big deal to teams with power, Texas or Oklahoma, where other conferences might deal with the short term headache of the GOR that would eventually be negotiated out, but is very restrictive to the next level of teams, who do not provide the value to make it worth the hassle.

They are liable for the contract obligations. For ESPN, they owe the base payment to Texas and ESPN owns the rights to the content...unless they mutually agree otherwise. They don't owe for projected profits/losses.

The LHN can be merged into another network as long as ESPN is given 48 hours to match an offer.

GOR is much tougher to break. This LHN isn't that hard to break.

(05-05-2016 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and this has been discussed over and over

on the one side we have junior amateur lawyers talking about contract law after they have had a 3 hour media rights class as an undergrad and talking about music and record labels

on the other side we have at least 7 and more than likely 8+ teams from the Big 12 that absolutely without a doubt want the GOR to be as difficult to break as possible and we have the most likely hundreds of lawyers and high powered business and legal alumni and in house and outside counsel that looked over the GOR with the idea in mind that it be as difficult as possible to break not to mention the same for the ACC and other conferences

You have repeated this over and over. It makes it no less correct.

And since you like to repeat said credentials, are you an attorney? Because let me point something out, your assertaion only makes since if you assume that every contract ever written, is held up. Why do people take others to court over contracts? Because they are often not properly written, properly executed, or properly handled. Your response that it was written by lawyers so it must be true, is so juvenile, and completely misses the point. If that is the case, why have a court system? Why have attorneys? Todge said the contract was written and agreed upon by attorneys, so nothing is wrong.

Nothing is wrong, until something is wrong. And then when someone wants to break a contract, they find a way.

(05-05-2016 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I have taken the side of those that I believe have superior legal and business minds and that do this for a living and that have a vested interest in making the GOR as difficult to break as possible

That is fine. Riddle this: if the GOR is so airtight, why have teams like Oklahoma and Texas made noise about making conference moves, AFTER the GOR was signed. I asked you that before, and you never answered. I mean they also have lawyers. If it was so air tight, why on earth would they attempt to make such a move?

Also, one last thing. You assume the contract was written in a way to never be broken. The contract was drummed up by the power brokers. It is very possible the GOR was never meant to be ironclad by those with power, and those who had no power, really had no choice but to sign anyway. Everyone signing does not in anyway mean every believes it is ironclad. that is just a ridiculous statement.

And the way out of the GOR isn't by going after the GOR, it is by going after the conference bylaws.

(05-05-2016 01:25 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  And the way out of the GOR isn't by going after the GOR, it is by going after the conference bylaws.

That too.

Actually a third option is to simply get members to agree to dissolve the conference


Now I have always believed that no one, especially those in a position of power, would sign a GOR if they had one foot out the door. So I don't for a second think Oklahoma or Texas have plans to leave. If they did, they had no need to sign one, since none of the others were going to voluntarily leave. We are strictly talking about the hypothetical of if they did.

(05-05-2016 10:02 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'm sure ESPN would love for texas to go solo to the ACC with ND football joining, than convert the LHN into the ACC network. I guess they could shift 2 acc school's into the SEC and that would open up 2 more spots in the ACC for maybe baylor/tcu and WVU. The other option is to send texas to the pac 12 with 3 texas partners and take a piece of the pac 12 network. In that case, give the big 10 OU and KU so fox is somewhat happy.

In a "Power 5 perfect world"...it would all be this neat and tidy.

The ACC gets ND and Texas. (ESPN)
The Big Ten gets OU and Kansas. (FOX)
The SEC gets OkStorBaylor and WVU. (ESPN)

AAC merges with other 5 (or 7) Big 12 teams and BYU.

But it's never this tidy.

(05-05-2016 01:29 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:02 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'm sure ESPN would love for texas to go solo to the ACC with ND football joining, than convert the LHN into the ACC network. I guess they could shift 2 acc school's into the SEC and that would open up 2 more spots in the ACC for maybe baylor/tcu and WVU. The other option is to send texas to the pac 12 with 3 texas partners and take a piece of the pac 12 network. In that case, give the big 10 OU and KU so fox is somewhat happy.

In a "Power 5 perfect world"...it would all be this neat and tidy.

The ACC gets ND and Texas. (ESPN)
The Big Ten gets OU and Kansas. (FOX)
The SEC gets OkStorBaylor and WVU. (ESPN)

AAC merges with other 5 (or 7) Big 12 teams and BYU.

But it's never this tidy.

To paraphrase Chris Rock...."Perfect for whom???"

The only way ND football joins a conference is against its will and against its perceived best interests.

So, it is far from "perfect" in that you would be forcing a school to join what is supposedly a "voluntary" organization.

(05-05-2016 01:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and this has been discussed over and over

on the one side we have junior amateur lawyers talking about contract law after they have had a 3 hour media rights class as an undergrad and talking about music and record labels

on the other side we have at least 7 and more than likely 8+ teams from the Big 12 that absolutely without a doubt want the GOR to be as difficult to break as possible and we have the most likely hundreds of lawyers and high powered business and legal alumni and in house and outside counsel that looked over the GOR with the idea in mind that it be as difficult as possible to break not to mention the same for the ACC and other conferences

You have repeated this over and over. It makes it no less correct.

And since you like to repeat said credentials, are you an attorney? Because let me point something out, your assertaion only makes since if you assume that every contract ever written, is held up. Why do people take others to court over contracts? Because they are often not properly written, properly executed, or properly handled. Your response that it was written by lawyers so it must be true, is so juvenile, and completely misses the point. If that is the case, why have a court system? Why have attorneys? Todge said the contract was written and agreed upon by attorneys, so nothing is wrong.

Nothing is wrong, until something is wrong. And then when someone wants to break a contract, they find a way.

(05-05-2016 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I have taken the side of those that I believe have superior legal and business minds and that do this for a living and that have a vested interest in making the GOR as difficult to break as possible

That is fine. Riddle this: if the GOR is so airtight, why have teams like Oklahoma and Texas made noise about making conference moves, AFTER the GOR was signed. I asked you that before, and you never answered. I mean they also have lawyers. If it was so air tight, why on earth would they attempt to make such a move?

Also, one last thing. You assume the contract was written in a way to never be broken. The contract was drummed up by the power brokers. It is very possible the GOR was never meant to be ironclad by those with power, and those who had no power, really had no choice but to sign anyway. Everyone signing does not in anyway mean every believes it is ironclad. that is just a ridiculous statement.

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 of 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"

this of course is web ignorance because just like last time in this discussion it came to the point where you were trying to actually make claims that I had made and then saying I was wrong for making claims I had never made and that you had actually made

unfortunately for you internet forums save things unlike your snapchat and thus I was able to go back in the thread and produce the quotes of what you and I had first stated and you were proven wrong and called out for it and you abandoned the thread

so again lets make clear I have never said the GOR was unbreakable

what I have repeatedly stated is that there is a much larger number of teams that would want the GOR to be as difficult to break as possible and thus if there was something as easy as "hey fellas I know I just work in the mail room, but in my 3 hour undergrad media rights class I learned that no matter what if you do not give something to get something a contract will just be tossed out" there would have been probably hundreds of lawyers and high powered business people that would have pointed that out and pushed for change

and your stupid ASSERTION that teams would have been told of that flaw and just would have signed it anyway is just that stupid.....if you know something is basically meaningless to the point where a guy that had a 3 hour undergrad media rights class could take it to court and break it then why even go through the process of having a GOR and signing it why not just say "this is BS" and move on

you are really trying to claim that multiple universities in the Big 12 and the ACC and other conferences just went through the exercise of looking at the GOR and paying outside counsel to look it over and then after being told "well the guy in the mail room with a 3 hour media rights class could break this in court" they all just went ahead and signed it anyway and then run around pretending it is something that has meaning

that is just a stupid assumption

and to be clear here Texas is not threatening to leave the Big 12 that is just something that OU and OU fans want people to believe (and other dunces) because acting like an idiot like boren is and then trying to blame it all on Texas is popular with the populace because the populace is generally stupid

and boren has run his mouth about a lot of things and the end result is he came out looking like an ass....so if you are hitching up to that old fool knowing what he is talking about and prevailing well have fun with that

you clearly missed the discussion a couple of years back where a guy that had a freshly minted law degree came out and basically gave the same exact argument that you and the other media rights mail room clerks have given and many lawyers on many forums that were known to their forum members to be long term successful lawyers came out and thrashed the guy as a simpleton because they stated that the branch of law he was using was not even the basis for the GOR in the first place and after that he was just swinging at air and missing even that

so one more time for those that are thick and those that feel a 3 hour media rights undergrad course makes them an expert on contract law and the GOR

I am not and have never claimed the GOR is unbreakable and thus every time you try and refute what I am saying with the attempt to make it where I am claiming the GOR is unbreakable you look silly

what I have stated is that I will take the opinion of high powered legal minds, university in house counsel and high powered business and legal alumni that are looking out for universities that have their best interest being that a GOR is very difficult to break over the opinion of a guy that has a 3 hour undergrad media rights class and that claims that schools just spent a great deal of money to sign something they knew was worthless because "well that is the only choice we have" or that attempts to re-frame an argument into "contracts are never broken" in spite of that having never been claimed

the fact that your arguments are so un-reasoned and illogical and rely on trying to put words into others mouths should tell anyone to take the opposite side of any legal argument you are trying to make much less 3 hours of undergrad media rights classes Vs hundreds of legal and business minds

(05-05-2016 01:29 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:02 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'm sure ESPN would love for texas to go solo to the ACC with ND football joining, than convert the LHN into the ACC network. I guess they could shift 2 acc school's into the SEC and that would open up 2 more spots in the ACC for maybe baylor/tcu and WVU. The other option is to send texas to the pac 12 with 3 texas partners and take a piece of the pac 12 network. In that case, give the big 10 OU and KU so fox is somewhat happy.

In a "Power 5 perfect world"...it would all be this neat and tidy.

The ACC gets ND and Texas. (ESPN)
The Big Ten gets OU and Kansas. (FOX)
The SEC gets OkStorBaylor and WVU. (ESPN)

AAC merges with other 5 (or 7) Big 12 teams and BYU.

But it's never this tidy.

OU and Kansas --> SEC

to the B1G?? USC-UCLA-Stanford-Cal

Remaining Big XII and PAC 12 merge, adding BYU and a few more

(05-05-2016 09:56 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  What the timing of the tentative B1G/Fox deal suggests to me is that what the biggest players in the college football market are coming to realize is that all this competitive bidding is sub-optimizing for all of them.

I don't think that either ESPN or Fox has the stomach for an exclusive lock on all the games of any conference. Even if they negotiate exclusive rights, they wind up parceling out some of those rights to other outlets anyway. I could see ESPN and Fox essentially teaming up with both the SEC and B1G after their deals sync up in six years. Mutually skim the parts of those conferences they really want, and then let others fight over the crumbs - not just the crumbs from the B1G/SEC table but all the other conferences as well, including the other three P5's..

Something tells me the Big Ten structured their deals to prevent such a thing from happening. I couldn't tell you how, but I think they made it a point to ensure ESPN and Fox could not team up (maybe a provision against sublicensing) and be able to pay them less, since they would not be competing against each other.

Actually, when I said it was sub-optimizing for all of them, I was including the B1G and the SEC in the "all", not just ESPN and Fox. With the right configuration of brands in both those conferences, the two media giants could concentrate their payments to them and cheaply supplement those contracts with lesser deals with other conferences, including the other P5s. If you think the gap is large now, imagine what it would look like if ESPN and Fox gave the PAC, B12 and ACC a 50% haircut to fund bigger payouts to the two giants.

(05-05-2016 09:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 08:48 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  This is the time for the B12 schools to rise up against Texas. This conference isn't just Texas and OU anymore. Texas (and OU) could leave and you would still have strong foundation with the emergence of Baylor & TCU.

EAST: ISU,WVU, UC, UCF, USF, Memphis
WEST: TCU, Baylor, OSU, KSU, KU, TT

Agree this could happen.

Exchange KU for UH. KU in the BIG.

(05-05-2016 10:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 08:48 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  This is the time for the B12 schools to rise up against Texas. This conference isn't just Texas and OU anymore. Texas (and OU) could leave and you would still have strong foundation with the emergence of Baylor & TCU.

EAST: ISU,WVU, UC, UCF, USF, Memphis
WEST: TCU, Baylor, OSU, KSU, KU, TT

Agree this could happen.

How much TV cash would this new conference command?

Not the cash, but the NYD bowl status, which, to your point, would be affected.

ESPN needs to pull the plug on the LHN. It is a big failure, and Texas refuse to see it as that. When a Network failed? They rename it or pulled the plug. Take a look at Spike TV? Spike was originally TNN. The Nashville Network
That channel showed country music videos, The Grand Old Opry, Hee Haw, Crook and Chase, ASA racing, ARCA events, PBR pro bull riding events and many other things. That channel did not failed. Viacom bought it, and decided to change the format with a new name, and the second named failed because they dropped a lot of programs that made TNN unique and different. Then, Spike came along, and been successful in some things. To keep the LHN to survive, and for that matter, PAC 12, Big 10, ACC and SEC is to expand with schools in all over the country. That means to move many schools around from the P5.

(05-06-2016 02:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN needs to pull the plug on the LHN. It is a big failure, and Texas refuse to see it as that. When a Network failed? They rename it or pulled the plug. Take a look at Spike TV? Spike was originally TNN. The Nashville Network
That channel showed country music videos, The Grand Old Opry, Hee Haw, Crook and Chase, ASA racing, ARCA events, PBR pro bull riding events and many other things. That channel did not failed. Viacom bought it, and decided to change the format with a new name, and the second named failed because they dropped a lot of programs that made TNN unique and different. Then, Spike came along, and been successful in some things. To keep the LHN to survive, and for that matter, PAC 12, Big 10, ACC and SEC is to expand with schools in all over the country. That means to move many schools around from the P5.

My understanding is that ESPN would still owe all of that money to Texas even if it "pulled the plug".

If so, what is the incentive to do that?

David, G5 schools are not what the networks want to pay for.

They want to pay for the big national brands and for matchups between those brands.

The other P5 schools are just lucky enough to be along for the ride.