(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (01-23-2020 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-23-2020 06:18 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: (01-23-2020 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote: (01-23-2020 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: False. The suit also says that the MW denied Boise's right to refuse the FOX deal in December of 2019. That would be a past event that they are requesting relief. Additionally, the suite alleges that the MW membership also took a vote (past tense) which passed, compelling an end date to the for the Boise special deal in 2026 (a vote to unilaterally end the Boise special deal is expressly prohibited in the Boise term sheet).
He's absolutely correct on your last part. No real action has happened yet so they have no grounds for a suit on what may or may not happen in 6 years.
Boise seems to be claiming they can veto, not only their home game deal, but also their road game deal and that they never approved either or that they did approve them but didn't know material facts. From the press releases, it appears they did approve both. And common sense says they don't have veto power on the road game part. So probably the only issue is whether "material" facts were withheld from them.
Seems like they are blowing a lot of hot air and made this unneccesarily public. Basically threatening the other MWC presidents was a really bad move when you have to "live" with them.
Here is quote from BSU rep about the new TV deal.
”ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.”
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/sports/natio...0be77.html
That statement, describing FOX as their "new partner" seems to imply that Boise did agree to the TV deal that was negotiated on their behalf by the MWC.
If so, they really don't have any grounds for their complaint, as the MWC vote to end paying them the bonus in 2025 seems irrelevant until the MWC actually misses a payment.
For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.
Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.
Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.
I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.
Yes, as I said far back in the thread, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.
But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.
One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.
That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.
But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.
If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.
We shall see.