johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,414
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 1012
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 06:49 PM)bullet Wrote: (02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract.
Which is worth a lot less than the MWC-With-Boise contract. Taking the December articles about the MWC contract negotiations as mostly accurate ($20M a year from CBS, $15M from Fox, Boise home games in a separate deal), and comparing them to the $45M a year that the combined MWC-Boise contract brings in, the 6 Boise State football games are valued at about $10M.
Quote:Then they approve a payout plus Boise State Bonus. They can approve that independently, and if it pays the Boise State Bonus, then Boise State cannot block it.
Then when the Boise State contract is handed out, they approve it contingent on the money going into performance pools, and Boise State only getting any share in excess of it's Boise State Bonus in the main contract.
Boise State can veto that. OK, so they aren't on TV. But they can't block the "rest of the MWC" contract, so the rest of the MWC IS on TV.
Yeah, for a lot less money. And Boise would be exiting the MWC as soon as possible, devaluing the rest-of-MWC deal because you lose the 4 Boise road games.
(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-10-2020 09:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (02-10-2020 09:03 AM)panite Wrote: By 2026 when the next contract comes up the AAC will have straighten out their problem with or without the wavier, or with or without a change in the rule for the Championship Game.
Which gets back to my point. If they have distinct contracts, first they approve the MWC-without-Boise contract. Then they approve a payout plus Boise State Bonus. They can approve that independently, and if it pays the Boise State Bonus, then Boise State cannot block it.
Then when the Boise State contract is handed out, they approve it contingent on the money going into performance pools, and Boise State only getting any share in excess of it's Boise State Bonus in the main contract.
Boise State can veto that. OK, so they aren't on TV. But they can't block the "rest of the MWC" contract, so the rest of the MWC IS on TV.
Can SDSU convince the majority of the MWC to play hardball like that? I don't know and wouldn't be prepared to speculate.
But the idea that "Boise State has an agreement so the MWC has no points of leverage" is just not true. Boise State doesn't just need the money. They also need to be on TV, or else their brand just wilts away.
Yes, even if courts say that the $1.8m bonus is a perpetual thing, that doesn't mean that either side can't try to get the other to agree to change it, including using leverage in the contract negotiations. There is no clause in the $1.8m bonus deal that says neither side will ever ask the other to change it, LOL. Boise can try and use whatever leverage they have to try and boost it, and the MW can do the same to erode or eliminate it. The only thing the clause means is that for that $1.8m to change, you have to get the other party to agree to it.
This time around, the MW seemed to vote on the entire package at the same time. IMO that was an error, because lumping the Boise deal in with the "rest of MW" deal effectively gives Boise a veto over the whole package.
The MW should have two separate votes, one for the Boise deal and one for the "rest" deal. That way, Boise can't hold the rest of the conference's deal hostage to what they want in their deal. And that two-vote approach is totally justifiable, as Boise themselves insist that their deal be negotiated separately.
If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.
What are you even talking about? Calling it "bad faith" to treat the two separate contracts as two separate contracts?
I'm sorry, I was scrambling it with the scheme to play 3-card monte with the Boise bonus money.
Basically, anything the MWC does that would genuinely give them leverage with the Boise contract, Boise can use as evidence of bad faith (which it would be) and try to get their TV rights back in court.
(02-10-2020 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Yes, even if courts say that the $1.8m bonus is a perpetual thing, that doesn't mean that either side can't try to get the other to agree to change it, including using leverage in the contract negotiations. There is no clause in the $1.8m bonus deal that says neither side will ever ask the other to change it, LOL. Boise can try and use whatever leverage they have to try and boost it, and the MW can do the same to erode or eliminate it. The only thing the clause means is that for that $1.8m to change, you have to get the other party to agree to it.
This time around, the MW seemed to vote on the entire package at the same time. IMO that was an error, because lumping the Boise deal in with the "rest of MW" deal effectively gives Boise a veto over the whole package.
The MW should have two separate votes, one for the Boise deal and one for the "rest" deal. That way, Boise can't hold the rest of the conference's deal hostage to what they want in their deal. And that two-vote approach is totally justifiable, as Boise themselves insist that their deal be negotiated separately.
If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.
How would the MW doing what I describe be in "bad faith"? The MW would be fully justified in voting on the packages separately, as, at Boise's insistence, they are negotiated separately.
Plus, that would be in keeping with the theme of the re-entry agreement, which gives Boise a veto over its own deal, but not the MW deal as a whole, and lumping them in to one vote gives them an effective veto over the whole, which is not how it is supposed to work.
(02-10-2020 07:55 PM)Wedge Wrote: (02-10-2020 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote: Yes, even if courts say that the $1.8m bonus is a perpetual thing, that doesn't mean that either side can't try to get the other to agree to change it, including using leverage in the contract negotiations. There is no clause in the $1.8m bonus deal that says neither side will ever ask the other to change it, LOL. Boise can try and use whatever leverage they have to try and boost it, and the MW can do the same to erode or eliminate it. The only thing the clause means is that for that $1.8m to change, you have to get the other party to agree to it.
This time around, the MW seemed to vote on the entire package at the same time. IMO that was an error, because lumping the Boise deal in with the "rest of MW" deal effectively gives Boise a veto over the whole package.
The MW should have two separate votes, one for the Boise deal and one for the "rest" deal. That way, Boise can't hold the rest of the conference's deal hostage to what they want in their deal. And that two-vote approach is totally justifiable, as Boise themselves insist that their deal be negotiated separately.
If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.
How would the MW doing what I describe be in "bad faith"? The MW would be fully justified in voting on the packages separately, as, at Boise's insistence, they are negotiated separately.
Plus, that would be in keeping with the theme of the re-entry agreement, which gives Boise a veto over its own deal, but not the MW deal as a whole, and lumping them in to one vote gives them an effective veto over the whole, which is not how it is supposed to work.
It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no? I assume that means they can't just put something on the table that is plainly terrible from Boise's point of view. They can't make Boise's home games live streams on the conference website filmed by a college student with a single camera. If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, and if they negotiate a terrible deal for Boise's home games and refuse to renegotiate it, then, I would think, the conference is in violation of its contract with Boise whether they hold one vote or two.
They don't NEED separate votes, but if they don't have separate votes, Boise has a chance to veto the whole contract.
|
|