Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Author Message
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,793
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #401
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Next MWC contract doubles
7m per school, Boise at 8.8
AAC off the table, Indy loses CP money & BB money
When C- USA is only option, Boise better off giving up bonus
02-10-2020 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,882
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #402
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 09:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Nothing in the agreement sets an end date. Boise stays in the MWC the payments continue forever. In reality it could continue so far into the future that inflation makes $1.8 million annually an irrelevantly small number.

There may not be an end date, but any agreement can be terminated. Boise State's membership could be terminated. At what cost is the question? Over the past six years, Boise State has collected an additional $10.8 million in TV revenue from this contract. They will collect another $10.8 million over the next six years. This despite not having been to an access bowl since 2014.

Unless they do something really special over the next six years, they should not be making an extra $21.6 million for just being a good football team with a good football brand. The agreement is going to end by 2026, with or without Boise State football.
02-10-2020 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,096
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 375
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #403
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 01:30 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Nothing in the agreement sets an end date. Boise stays in the MWC the payments continue forever. In reality it could continue so far into the future that inflation makes $1.8 million annually an irrelevantly small number.

There may not be an end date, but any agreement can be terminated. Boise State's membership could be terminated. At what cost is the question? Over the past six years, Boise State has collected an additional $10.8 million in TV revenue from this contract. They will collect another $10.8 million over the next six years. This despite not having been to an access bowl since 2014.

Unless they do something really special over the next six years, they should not be making an extra $21.6 million for just being a good football team with a good football brand. The agreement is going to end by 2026, with or without Boise State football.
That's the thing though.... They would 100% have to kick out Boise St. Having them in the conference but just removing that provision is not an option that they can do unilaterally.
02-10-2020 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 353
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #404
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.
02-10-2020 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,503
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #405
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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?
02-10-2020 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,701
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #406
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 07:20 PM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2020 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,321
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 681
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #407
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.
02-10-2020 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,590
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #408
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.

The way I read the deal, the MW cant do ANYTHING with the Boise home football games without Boise's consent. Doesnt matter if the MW thinks ii's "reasonable" or a good deal. That said, the way I read the contract---Boise cant do ANYTHING with their home football games without the MW's consent. So---its not like each side doesn't have a reasonable amount of leverage to use in crafting a deal that ultimately makes sense for both parties. The real problem here is that its now dawning on the other MW members that they have created a deal that makes them a permanent underclass in their own conference. Thats just always going to be a friction point going forward.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 10:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-10-2020 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,701
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #409
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(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.

Boise is protected from all that by having a veto over the deal the MW negotiates on their behalf. It's not like Boise is forced to accept whatever deal the MW negotiates, to the contrary, the re-entry agreement gives Boise the power to veto their deal on whatever grounds they want, so there is no way the MW can foist a bad deal on Boise.

Also, it is in the MW's interest to drive as hard a bargain for Boise's rights as they can, because the Boise money gets lumped in with the 'rest' of the deal and split equally - after Boise gets its $1.8m off the top. So the MW has every incentive to drive as good a bargain as they can with the networks, and to satisfy Boise.

So both sides have leverage.
02-10-2020 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,321
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 681
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #410
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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.

Boise is protected from all that by having a veto over the deal the MW negotiates on their behalf. It's not like Boise is forced to accept whatever deal the MW negotiates, to the contrary, the re-entry agreement gives Boise the power to veto their deal on whatever grounds they want, so there is no way the MW can foist a bad deal on Boise.

Also, it is in the MW's interest to drive as hard a bargain for Boise's rights as they can, because the Boise money gets lumped in with the 'rest' of the deal and split equally - after Boise gets its $1.8m off the top. So the MW has every incentive to drive as good a bargain as they can with the networks, and to satisfy Boise.

So both sides have leverage.

OK, if the bolded part is right, then that falls under something I said above: If they negotiate a good deal for Boise, then they don't need to hold two separate votes.
02-10-2020 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,321
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 681
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #411
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

The way I read the deal, the MW cant do ANYTHING with the Boise home football games without Boise's consent. Doesnt matter if the MW thinks ii's "reasonable" or a good deal. That said, the way I read the contract---Boise cant do ANYTHING with their home football games without the MW's consent. So---its not like each side doesn't have a reasonable amount of leverage to use in crafting a deal that ultimately makes sense for both parties. The real problem here is that its now dawning in the other MW members that they have created a deal that makes them a permanent underclass in their own conference. Thats just always going to be a friction point going forward.

That should be nothing more than a minor irritant. The extra $1.8 million is good money on the G5 level but it's not a gigantic amount; any G5 athletic department could save that much every year by not giving stupidly long contracts to bad coaches. Boise does have guaranteed TV exposure, but if any other MWC football team put together enough good seasons to have the same brand value, they'll get as much exposure as Boise does.

And as far as the exposure goes, if a school that is consistently mediocre or worse at football complains that they're getting less TV exposure than a team with 3 BCS/CFP bowl wins that averages about 10 wins a year, that complaint isn't worth much.
02-10-2020 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 353
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #412
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.
02-10-2020 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,221
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 85
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #413
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
Yeah. The AAC needs to have BSU in the conference.
02-11-2020 05:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #414
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 07:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no?

The whole point of doing two separate votes is they would not want to sabotage the Boise State contract. They'd want to get a good contract.

Quote: If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, ...

The separate votes is regarding how the revenues of the contract are distributed, not so they can negotiate the best possible contract for the "rest of the MWC" and negotiate a stinker of a deal for the Boise State games.
________________________
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  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.

You wouldn't lose Boise State road games from a contract that never had them. You are forgetting that the games involving Boise State are in a Boise State package ... those are the contracts where Boise State has a veto.

You play hardball if you believe that Boise State has nowhere to go.

Indeed, odds are in the scenario where the revenue from the contract(s) that involve(s) Boise goes into a bonus pool and Boise State is already credited as having received $1.8m of it's bonus ... it probably ends up getting a bonus greater than $1.8m. The major difference is that every other school in the conference has an opportunity to earn a similar bonus for similar performance and coverage.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 07:43 AM by BruceMcF.)
02-11-2020 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,503
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #415
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 07:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 07:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no?

The whole point of doing two separate votes is they would not want to sabotage the Boise State contract. They'd want to get a good contract.

Quote: If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, ...

The separate votes is regarding how the revenues of the contract are distributed, not so they can negotiate the best possible contract for the "rest of the MWC" and negotiate a stinker of a deal for the Boise State games.
________________________
(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  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.

You wouldn't lose Boise State road games from a contract that never had them. You are forgetting that the games involving Boise State are in a Boise State package ... those are the contracts where Boise State has a veto.

You play hardball if you believe that Boise State has nowhere to go.

Indeed, odds are in the scenario where the revenue from the contract(s) that involve(s) Boise goes into a bonus pool and Boise State is already credited as having received $1.8m of it's bonus ... it probably ends up getting a bonus greater than $1.8m. The major difference is that every other school in the conference has an opportunity to earn a similar bonus for similar performance and coverage.

Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them. Pac 10 and Big East were much more exaggerated than the current MWC deal. USC was getting triple what Washington St. was. Miami was getting a lot more than the rest of the Big East.
02-11-2020 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,701
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #416
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 10:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  They don't NEED separate votes, but if they don't have separate votes, Boise has a chance to veto the whole contract.

... which is why I fail to grasp how the MW holding separate votes can be argued by Boise as the MW acting in "bad faith". If Boise were to take that position, what Boise would be saying is if you deny us total veto power over the entire contract, not just our deal which we insisted be negotiated separately, well then you are acting in bad faith.

That would take some chutzpah, IMO, especially since the "spirit" of the re-entry agreement is that Boise has veto power over the deal that involves their home games, not the entire deal that covers other school's home games. There was never the idea that Boise alone among all the members should have veto power over the entire MW deal. If a judge agreed with Boise, he'd basically be saying that "good faith" means Boise literally has all the power and leverage not just over their own deal but the entire deal and the rest of the conference has to do what Boise demands. I seriously doubt any judge would agree with that.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 11:11 AM by quo vadis.)
02-11-2020 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #417
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.
02-11-2020 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,590
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #418
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-10-2020 09:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 08:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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:  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.

The way I read the deal, the MW cant do ANYTHING with the Boise home football games without Boise's consent. Doesnt matter if the MW thinks ii's "reasonable" or a good deal. That said, the way I read the contract---Boise cant do ANYTHING with their home football games without the MW's consent. So---its not like each side doesn't have a reasonable amount of leverage to use in crafting a deal that ultimately makes sense for both parties. The real problem here is that its now dawning in the other MW members that they have created a deal that makes them a permanent underclass in their own conference. Thats just always going to be a friction point going forward.

That should be nothing more than a minor irritant. The extra $1.8 million is good money on the G5 level but it's not a gigantic amount; any G5 athletic department could save that much every year by not giving stupidly long contracts to bad coaches. Boise does have guaranteed TV exposure, but if any other MWC football team put together enough good seasons to have the same brand value, they'll get as much exposure as Boise does.

And as far as the exposure goes, if a school that is consistently mediocre or worse at football complains that they're getting less TV exposure than a team with 3 BCS/CFP bowl wins that averages about 10 wins a year, that complaint isn't worth much.

The last few weeks would indicate its not minor. That said, I dont knw what choice they really have. Either live with it and make more---or kick Boise out and make less. For now--it makes more sense to swallow their pride and deal with it.
02-11-2020 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,701
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 888
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #419
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The last few weeks would indicate its not minor. That said, I dont knw what choice they really have. Either live with it and make more---or kick Boise out and make less. For now--it makes more sense to swallow their pride and deal with it.

That's probably a fair description of how the MW ultimately saw it, but on the other hand, there's been no evidence that Boise has more leverage than does the MW. They were pushing for a significantly enhanced bonus and didn't get that either.

Bottom line is that at least for now, both sides realize they are better off with each other, despite their misgivings.
02-11-2020 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ccd494 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 96
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Maine
Location:
Post: #420
RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC
(02-11-2020 12:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  Performance bonuses are not hard to write. Everybody but the Big 10 used to have them.

But the performance bonuses that they wrote at the outset were too volatile for Boise State's liking. A fixed bonus just for being Boise State is not to the liking of SDSU, and likely a few other schools as well.

Somewhere in the middle of the negotiating range is a performance bonus that is more stable from year to year for budgeting purposes without just being "you get more money because that was the price of getting both you and SDSU back X years ago."

The current bonus would be especially irksome to SDSU, since the original deal was basically a buy-one-get-one-free.

If SDSU and other schools didn't like the fixed bonus, they shouldn't have signed the contract specifying it. "Buyer's remorse" isn't a valid reason to nullify a contract.
02-11-2020 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.