(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

Correct. Boise was granted that specific right in the term sheet that governed their return to the MW in late 2012. The Boise home games must be sold as a separate package and the MW and Boise must mutually agree on any media agreement that includes the rights for Boise St home football games. That agreement specifies that it overrides any prior agreements, bylaws, incorporation articles, and cannot be unilaterally altered by any future vote of the MW. So you are correct, the Boise “special deal” granting Boise a specific narrow veto right regarding any MW agreement that includes the Boise home football games is clearly atypical and not the norm.

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

I still question if it is really a perpetual deal if there are exit exit options (expulsion) and there is an implied end to agreement. Basically, the deal obviously is intended by both parties to last as long as Boise remains a member. Thus, there is a theoretical end to the deal. Furthermore, all parties involved have an option to end the deal. Boise can leave. The conference can vote as a group to expel Boise if the terms become too onerous for 75% of the membership, or if a 75% vote of the membership cannot be mustered, any individual school can exit the conference for greener pastures (ending their participation in the deal). So, in this case, every party has an option which will end their connection to the deal.

(01-29-2020 10:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

Correct. Boise was granted that specific right in the term sheet that governed their return to the MW in late 2012. The Boise home games must be sold as a separate package and the MW and Boise must mutually agree on any media agreement that includes the rights for Boise St home football games. That agreement specifies that it overrides any prior agreements, bylaws, incorporation articles, and cannot be unilaterally altered by any future vote of the MW. So you are correct, the Boise “special deal” granting Boise a specific narrow veto right regarding any MW agreement that includes the Boise home football games is clearly atypical and not the norm.

It seems clear that Boise has veto power over their portion of the TV rights, the rights to their home games. The MW goes off and negotiates the deal, but then Boise has to agree to the terms before it becomes official.

But it would not seem that Boise has veto power over the rest of the MW deal. That deal really is 'severable' from the Boise deal, the Boise deal could have been with ESPN while the rest of the conference could have been with FOX/CBS.

Yes, Boise does add value to the rest of the MW deal, because Boise will play at those other MW teams and a Boise @ Fresno game boosters viewership for the MW. But those are games owned by the MW because they are at the home of MW teams. So even if Boise were to reject the deal for their own home games, that shouldn't impact the deal that has been struck for the other MW home games, as those aren't Boise-owned games. Boise would have to leave the conference and cancel those away games at MW teams for the general MW deal to be affected, and surely the network partners have contract contingencies for schools leaving the conference.

Boise thus would presumably have just one vote in the room on accepting the general (non-Boise) portion of the MW contract.

The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

What is the confusion about the bonus? From the documents Boise themselves quoted, it seems to have been fixed at $1.8m.

Ironically, that seems to irk both sides, LOL, as the other members don't like the idea of Boise getting that regardless of merit in perpetuity, and Boise thinks it should go up proportionately as the TV deal goes up.

So if both sides don't like it, well, that's what the discussions right now are about.

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

That’s the conclusion I have arrived at as well. This isn’t a mistake or a difference in the interpretation of the agreements. This is the MW membership saying to Boise we are done with the special deal—-your welcome to stay as a equal member—but we are willing to move on without you if your unwilling to give it up.

(01-29-2020 09:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Fox is apparently obligated to air at least 7 games per year on either Fox OTA or FS1, including the MWC CCG, with the rest on FS2. Fox could take the position that without the Boise State home games, which Fox has all of, they'll air every MWC game they have (except the CCG) on FS2. Then the MWC would get a CCG on either Fox OTA or FS1, plus 3 games on CBS OTA, and everything else on either FS2 or CBSSN.

OTOH, if the only games currently set to be on Fox OTA or FS1 are Boise State games anyway, the rest of the MWC might not care much.

And if Fox reduces its share of annual payments by $7 million to account for Boise leaving, it's only a loss of about $700,000/team/year for the remaining members. If they really want Boise gone, they may not care much about that reduction, either.

Fox surprised me that they stepped out of the CUSA negotiations rather than sign CUSA to fill content on FS2, now after looking like FS2 would be a niche backwater, they commit to MWC content.

They got to be staying drunk or doing drugs at Fox Sports, they are wildly unpredictable.

Naah. The Boise State games are worth having on FS1, maybe on Fox. Nothing on FS2 matters. The MWC games can fill dead air on FS2, or if there's a tractor pull that Fox is obligated to televise, the MWC games can go on Fox's app.

It's all about the properties on Fox and FS1. The rest of the MWC games are a throw-in for Fox.

(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

You haven't been paying attention. when Boise was playing the Aresco League agaisnt the MWC, the MWC signed a contract saying Boise home football games will be under a separate TV contract, and Boise has to approve the contract.

And the Boise-MWC agreement specifically overrides anything in the MWC bylaws to the contrary.

EDIT: I seem to have misread Arkstfan--Boise doesn't have a veto over the entire MWC package, just the Boise home football game contract.

(01-29-2020 12:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

You haven't been paying attention. when Boise was playing the Aresco League agaisnt the MWC, the MWC signed a contract saying Boise home football games will be under a separate TV contract, and Boise has to approve the contract.

And the Boise-MWC agreement specifically overrides anything in the MWC bylaws to the contrary.

I think ArkSt was referring to Boise not having a veto over the "rest of MW" contract, not the Boise home games contract. We all know Boise has a veto over the Boise home games contract.

(01-29-2020 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  For all you haggling over the Rule Against Perpetuities, the common law required that a trust or estate vest in SOMEONE sooner or later.

Contracts can be perpetual under the common law. If you search the web you can find examples where the mayor of some place will present to the Queen's representative a coin and like seven horseshoe nails as rent on land worth billions.

That is a situation like the St. Louis Spirits. There was a purchase agreement, in that case a right to use the land.

Boise joining the MWC isn't a purchase agreement. Its more like a partnership. Partnerships can be ended. Forget the legal term, something like "specific performance" is rare in contract cases. They get monetary damages rather than compelling someone to complete the contract as written. And the monetary damages for Boise are minor or nonexistent at the end of each TV deal.

Boise's choices (assuming everyone keeps to their same position) are accept the deal in 6 years or leave. MWC's choices are to accept the Boise bonuses and separate TV negotiations or have Boise leave without penalty and with their share of conference assets. Both have choices, not just Boise.

You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I think Boise should ask the conference to change their name.
Boise and friends conference and keep half the money.
They win everything anyway .

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

(01-29-2020 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:44 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

Correct. Boise was granted that specific right in the term sheet that governed their return to the MW in late 2012. The Boise home games must be sold as a separate package and the MW and Boise must mutually agree on any media agreement that includes the rights for Boise St home football games. That agreement specifies that it overrides any prior agreements, bylaws, incorporation articles, and cannot be unilaterally altered by any future vote of the MW. So you are correct, the Boise “special deal” granting Boise a specific narrow veto right regarding any MW agreement that includes the Boise home football games is clearly atypical and not the norm.

It seems clear that Boise has veto power over their portion of the TV rights, the rights to their home games. The MW goes off and negotiates the deal, but then Boise has to agree to the terms before it becomes official.

But it would not seem that Boise has veto power over the rest of the MW deal. That deal really is 'severable' from the Boise deal, the Boise deal could have been with ESPN while the rest of the conference could have been with FOX/CBS.

Yes, Boise does add value to the rest of the MW deal, because Boise will play at those other MW teams and a Boise @ Fresno game boosters viewership for the MW. But those are games owned by the MW because they are at the home of MW teams. So even if Boise were to reject the deal for their own home games, that shouldn't impact the deal that has been struck for the other MW home games, as those aren't Boise-owned games. Boise would have to leave the conference and cancel those away games at MW teams for the general MW deal to be affected, and surely the network partners have contract contingencies for schools leaving the conference.

Boise thus would presumably have just one vote in the room on accepting the general (non-Boise) portion of the MW contract.

Fox would have a strong argument to void their half of the deal--the Boise home games and the CCG are valuable, the lower-tier MWC games are not.

(01-29-2020 01:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

I'm not sure how Boise can void the contract that involves the rest of the MW schools. They only have refusal power over their own separate contract.

This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

(01-29-2020 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The critical thing here is that there are 12 equity members in MWC and they don't like the terms of the agreement that raised membership from 10 to 12 because of the most favored status for Boise or at least don't like it as Boise interprets it. Seems to be some confusion over how Boise's bonus is to be determined.

The intention seems clear that the MWC is more than willing to sever the relationship rather than continue it on those terms or at least the way Boise State reads those terms and has given Boise State pretty long-term warning of that intention.

And that warning would mitigate any monetary damages in 6 years as Boise has plenty of time to evaluate options.

I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

I think Boise and Craig Thompson are both difficult to deal with. I don't know how much Thompson thought out his comment or if it was a planned message that the MWC was not Boise and the 11 drawves. I do know there are a lot of better ways for Boise to deal with this than the way they did. They basically threatened to sue the other presidents. That definitely was a factor (not necessarily deciding factor) in the ACC's UConn/UL decision.

(01-29-2020 01:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I get the contractual wrangling. What's on my mind is the motivation behind the timing and the motive behind Boise and B.Y.U. looking for a window for change?

It seems to me that the likeliest motive would be a potential offer elsewhere. I sincerely doubt it would be the PAC. I'm just wondering if Texas might be willing to expand the Big 12 in an effort to stave off realignment enticements.

I don't believe Boise was vetted in their last public search which was an attempt at leverage to use against the network, or to use against those in the Big 12 who wanted to expand.

I may be wrong but the timing and nature of this with regard to those two schools seems a bit odd to me.

Even if Texas was suspicious that Oklahoma and Kansas might bolt these could be two of four that could be added to prop up the conference.

While I don't believe UT would benefit long term from this it just seems that something is afoot besides arguing over the TV contract.

My thought has been similar regarding Boise St. Boise knows independence is not viable. Boise knows a lawsuit, regardless of outcome, damages the relationship with the Mt West. Boise knows there are no regional locations for football outside of the Mt West, PAC, and kinda sorta XII.

The AAC for football-only is a possibility and I guess a similar deal with the XII but you don't make waves without a destination in place. Or you do - but that would be incredibly foolish.

(01-29-2020 12:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:42 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 05:39 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Yep, Fox and CBS wants to steal Boise State from ESPN. The majority of the contract demands a Boise State. Boise State leaves? MWC is in breach of that contract so the MWC commish not only screwed Boise State, but the whole conference as a whole. He should be fired, the contract should be voided and get a commish that will get a contract with ESPN that is the same amount as AAC gets.

No, thats not how TV contracts work. Ask yourself why the AAC contract wasn't voided when UConn left? Or any of the Big east contracts voided when they lost members over the years? Hell the XII lost FOUR TEAMS and the TV contract wasn't voided!

But in this case, the MW sold something they never had the rights to (and still dont). At the very least it completely voids the Boise home game portion of the deal---as those games could still be sold to anyone at this point. It also likely voids the amount since all parties seem to be in agreement that Boise games represent a larger than typical portion of the value on the TV package.

Here is where it gets interesting, if the MW really did not have Boise consent when they agreed to the CBS/FOX deal, it would seem that CBS/FOX would have a tremendous amount of legal leverage as the MW essentially committed fraud when they agreed to the deal. If those Boise home game rights end up with anyone other than CBS/FOX, it could get really ugly.

The norm is the commissioner and a committee (usually a mix of AD's and presidents, sometimes just presidents) will negotiate the TV deal and present it to the membership (normally via teleconference because everyone is getting uptight) and a simple majority vote ratifies the agreement.

Again talking norms
Unless the MWC has a bylaw or contract ratified by 3/4ths of the membership (ie a fundamental change to league equity and rules) granting a veto, Boise wouldn't get a veto.

You haven't been paying attention. when Boise was playing the Aresco League agaisnt the MWC, the MWC signed a contract saying Boise home football games will be under a separate TV contract, and Boise has to approve the contract.

And the Boise-MWC agreement specifically overrides anything in the MWC bylaws to the contrary.

AND the bonus that is either a percentage or fixed figure