(03-15-2013 03:51 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:26 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The GOR isn't ironclad. Texas will find a loophole,they'll leave the big12 behind like a bad date."

Thank God for Louisville fans who know more about GORs, without actually having seen the contracts, than the commissioners, lawyers, ADs and television network partners of the B1G, The Pac 12 and the Big 12

"This thread was about the ACC moving its tournament to MSG. That conversation stopped 50 posts ago."

Like it or not, where the ACC plays its basketball tournament is nowhere near as important as Thamel reporting that the commissioners of the 5 power conferences have all privately acknowledged that realignment is far from over. To paraphrase Nick Saban, you are worried about mouse s**t and there is elephant s**t all over the room.

What board is this anyway?!?

No, GOR is ironclad for everyone except for when horn needs to bolt it will vaporize

That's the kind of concrete data point I'm looking for.

(03-15-2013 06:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:51 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:26 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The GOR isn't ironclad. Texas will find a loophole,they'll leave the big12 behind like a bad date."

Thank God for Louisville fans who know more about GORs, without actually having seen the contracts, than the commissioners, lawyers, ADs and television network partners of the B1G, The Pac 12 and the Big 12

"This thread was about the ACC moving its tournament to MSG. That conversation stopped 50 posts ago."

Like it or not, where the ACC plays its basketball tournament is nowhere near as important as Thamel reporting that the commissioners of the 5 power conferences have all privately acknowledged that realignment is far from over. To paraphrase Nick Saban, you are worried about mouse s**t and there is elephant s**t all over the room.

What board is this anyway?!?

No, GOR is ironclad for everyone except for when horn needs to bolt it will vaporize

That's the kind of concrete data point I'm looking for.

Post a copy of the GOR, Big 12, since you have obviously studied it and know that that it is an unassailable legal document.

What does it say, anyway? Post it. As a lawyer, I would like the opportunity to read it.

(03-15-2013 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:51 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:26 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The GOR isn't ironclad. Texas will find a loophole,they'll leave the big12 behind like a bad date."

Thank God for Louisville fans who know more about GORs, without actually having seen the contracts, than the commissioners, lawyers, ADs and television network partners of the B1G, The Pac 12 and the Big 12

"This thread was about the ACC moving its tournament to MSG. That conversation stopped 50 posts ago."

Like it or not, where the ACC plays its basketball tournament is nowhere near as important as Thamel reporting that the commissioners of the 5 power conferences have all privately acknowledged that realignment is far from over. To paraphrase Nick Saban, you are worried about mouse s**t and there is elephant s**t all over the room.

What board is this anyway?!?

No, GOR is ironclad for everyone except for when horn needs to bolt it will vaporize

That's the kind of concrete data point I'm looking for.

Post a copy of the GOR, Big 12, since you have obviously studied it and know that that it is an unassailable legal document.

What does it say, anyway? Post it. As a lawyer, I would like the opportunity to read it.

Of course I've never seen it. What I have seen are a ton of quotes from ADs, conference commissioners and many journalists who all say it is ironclad. I've posted links to these quotes from established sources many times over the course of many similar discussions we've had on many threads on this board. If necessary, I'll dig them all up and post them again.

I'm also still waiting on anyone to post the first quote from an AD, conference commissioner or respected journalist who says a GOR is vulnerable.

Quotes mean jack. Only someone who has actually read a legal agreement can comment on it with any accuracy.

As a lawyer, I know of nobody in the legal profession who would give an opinion on it without reviewing the document.

Lawyers also know better than to ever speak in absolutes.

Finally, all lawyers know that all contracts are made to be broken and draft them on the assumption that a breach will occur.

Until someone posts the actual document, everything said about it is conjecture and talking without knowing.

(03-15-2013 06:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Quotes mean jack. Only someone who has actually read a legal agreement can comment on it with any accuracy.

As a lawyer, I know of nobody in the legal profession who would give an opinion on it without reviewing the document.

Lawyers also know better than to ever speak in absolutes.

Finally, all lawyers know that all contracts are made to be broken and draft them on the assumption that a breach will occur.

Until someone posts the actual document, everything said about it is conjecture and talking without knowing.

I am not an attorney. But it seems to me that the ACC will not win against Maryland since Maryland did not agree to the binding ACC document to begin with.

But the B12 situation is unique because each and every B12 school signed it volunarily. It seems on this board, many say this contract is invalid. But contracts have to be vaild in a court of law, if they weren't, how could business operate in this country? The contract is a facilitator, it seems to me. Not some document to be ignored and/or thrown out because circumstances change.

Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

This...and whether it is a factor or not the case is being held in North Carolina State Court...really shouldn't be an issue but they did agree to the existing bylaws.

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

If you haven't read their suit against the ACC it lays out a pretty good case that the ACC didn't even follow it's own bylaws in adopting the exit fee raise, didn't implement it at the right time, and therefore may have issues holding it up in court.

It's going to be interesting either way.

(03-15-2013 06:34 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:51 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 11:26 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  "The GOR isn't ironclad. Texas will find a loophole,they'll leave the big12 behind like a bad date."

Thank God for Louisville fans who know more about GORs, without actually having seen the contracts, than the commissioners, lawyers, ADs and television network partners of the B1G, The Pac 12 and the Big 12

"This thread was about the ACC moving its tournament to MSG. That conversation stopped 50 posts ago."

Like it or not, where the ACC plays its basketball tournament is nowhere near as important as Thamel reporting that the commissioners of the 5 power conferences have all privately acknowledged that realignment is far from over. To paraphrase Nick Saban, you are worried about mouse s**t and there is elephant s**t all over the room.

What board is this anyway?!?

No, GOR is ironclad for everyone except for when horn needs to bolt it will vaporize

That's the kind of concrete data point I'm looking for.

Post a copy of the GOR, Big 12, since you have obviously studied it and know that that it is an unassailable legal document.

What does it say, anyway? Post it. As a lawyer, I would like the opportunity to read it.

Of course I've never seen it. What I have seen are a ton of quotes from ADs, conference commissioners and many journalists who all say it is ironclad. I've posted links to these quotes from established sources many times over the course of many similar discussions we've had on many threads on this board. If necessary, I'll dig them all up and post them again.

I'm also still waiting on anyone to post the first quote from an AD, conference commissioner or respected journalist who says a GOR is vulnerable.

Just how much does a quote weigh? I wonder just how many quotes it takes to make a ton of 'em.

(03-15-2013 08:05 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

If you haven't read their suit against the ACC it lays out a pretty good case that the ACC didn't even follow it's own bylaws in adopting the exit fee raise, didn't implement it at the right time, and therefore may have issues holding it up in court.

It's going to be interesting either way.

That the key to the case, but in the end I don't see this going all the way to court...JMO, they will settle so both sides will "feel" good about the situation.

(03-15-2013 06:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Quotes mean jack. Only someone who has actually read a legal agreement can comment on it with any accuracy.

As a lawyer, I know of nobody in the legal profession who would give an opinion on it without reviewing the document.

I think it's fair to say that any contract like this either has a liquidated damages clause, or the court will make one up for it, assuming a party to the contract wanted out, correct?

So the question, as always, is how much is the buyout?

The other question that nobody answers is that what exactly is it about the GOR that prevents a school from playing its games against who it wants? Each school has simply sold its media rights to its games for a stated fee over a number of years, correct? But does the contract require those games be played against certain teams?

(03-14-2013 09:58 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 07:05 PM)PhiladelphiaVT Wrote:  More conference realigment nonsense. Thamel seems convinced that the ACC will soon be poached into near-oblivion, so what difference does it make where future ACC basketball tournaments are held? Why would MSG want to sign a long-term lease with a soon-to-be-gutted ACC when in a few years MSG could sign such a lease with an 18-20 team B1G that includes UNC, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State, and Michigan?

The Big East used to be the Big East and play at MSG. After the next round of raids, the ACC will be the Big East and should play at MSG......why is that so hard to figure out?

By the way,this quote was HUGE by Thamel:

"All five major conference commissioners privately acknowledge that realignment isn't done. And the next logical evolution will inevitably be a poaching of the ACC."

So, either Thamel is a liar and willing to throw his career down the toilet to support WVU message board rumors...OR...Swofford is telling people that the writing is on the wall and the ACC is in huge trouble. Even Swofford is admitting it to people but it is tragic that not one of the myopic ACC fans who post here can come to terms with reality.

No offense, but i think you are reading this quote incorrectly.

The five major conference commissioners acknowledged that realignment is not done. This is obvious, every conference had teams they would like to add, if possible.

Thamel says that the ACC being poached is the next logical step. Not the five conference commissioners, just Thamel. Big difference.

(03-15-2013 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:34 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:01 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 03:51 AM)AirRaid Wrote:  No, GOR is ironclad for everyone except for when horn needs to bolt it will vaporize

That's the kind of concrete data point I'm looking for.

Post a copy of the GOR, Big 12, since you have obviously studied it and know that that it is an unassailable legal document.

What does it say, anyway? Post it. As a lawyer, I would like the opportunity to read it.

Of course I've never seen it. What I have seen are a ton of quotes from ADs, conference commissioners and many journalists who all say it is ironclad. I've posted links to these quotes from established sources many times over the course of many similar discussions we've had on many threads on this board. If necessary, I'll dig them all up and post them again.

I'm also still waiting on anyone to post the first quote from an AD, conference commissioner or respected journalist who says a GOR is vulnerable.

Just how much does a quote weigh? I wonder just how many quotes it takes to make a ton of 'em.

Come on XLance, you know everything in Texas is bigger, even the bull! And, one big load of bull would weigh a ton easily.

(03-15-2013 08:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:05 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

If you haven't read their suit against the ACC it lays out a pretty good case that the ACC didn't even follow it's own bylaws in adopting the exit fee raise, didn't implement it at the right time, and therefore may have issues holding it up in court.

It's going to be interesting either way.

That the key to the case, but in the end I don't see this going all the way to court...JMO, they will settle so both sides will "feel" good about the situation.

IMO the only way Maryland settles is if the ACC backs off the raise in the exit fee. I don't see them paying more than the original $25 million, unless forced to by the court...

(03-15-2013 09:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:05 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

If you haven't read their suit against the ACC it lays out a pretty good case that the ACC didn't even follow it's own bylaws in adopting the exit fee raise, didn't implement it at the right time, and therefore may have issues holding it up in court.

It's going to be interesting either way.

That the key to the case, but in the end I don't see this going all the way to court...JMO, they will settle so both sides will "feel" good about the situation.

IMO the only way Maryland settles is if the ACC backs off the raise in the exit fee. I don't see them paying more than the original $25 million, unless forced to by the court...

Well we all know the ACC is not going to back off. Maryland may settle because they're just ready to move on and believe the Big 10 money is so good it won't matter. If this goes to court, they would end up paying more than the exit fee..when you include lawyer costs.

(03-15-2013 09:15 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 09:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 08:05 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 07:59 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Maryland agreed to the bylaws by which the exit fee was raised. Whether they voted for that raise is irrelevant.

If you haven't read their suit against the ACC it lays out a pretty good case that the ACC didn't even follow it's own bylaws in adopting the exit fee raise, didn't implement it at the right time, and therefore may have issues holding it up in court.

It's going to be interesting either way.

That the key to the case, but in the end I don't see this going all the way to court...JMO, they will settle so both sides will "feel" good about the situation.

IMO the only way Maryland settles is if the ACC backs off the raise in the exit fee. I don't see them paying more than the original $25 million, unless forced to by the court...

Well we all know the ACC is not going to back off. Maryland may settle because they're just ready to move on and believe the Big 10 money is so good it won't matter. If this goes to court, they would end up paying more than the exit fee..when you include lawyer costs.

That depends on whether or not they win the case. The loser is usually responsible for any court costs, and if Maryland wins, the ACC will most likely pay them...

(03-15-2013 06:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Quotes mean jack. Only someone who has actually read a legal agreement can comment on it with any accuracy.

The ADs have read the GORs, the conference commissioners have read the GORs, the TV networks have read the GORs and these guys (most of which are or were attorneys) are the ones saying they think the GORs are ironclad.

The only people saying GORs aren't ironclad are the ACC posters on this board, who have never read the documents, but have countless theories about special loopholes allowing Texas to exit without penalty if DeLoss Dodds gets too much mustard on his turkey sandwich.

Oh what will become of this board if the ACC signs a GOR.

All Hail the Mighty GOR.

(03-15-2013 09:49 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  The ADs have read the GORs, the conference commissioners have read the GORs, the TV networks have read the GORs and these guys (most of which are or were attorneys) are the ones saying they think the GORs are ironclad.

The only people saying GORs aren't ironclad are the ACC posters on this board, who have never read the documents, but have countless theories about special loopholes allowing Texas to exit without penalty if DeLoss Dodds gets too much mustard on his turkey sandwich.

If the GOR was so ironclad, why does the Big 12 still have an exit fee?

(03-15-2013 09:54 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Oh what will become of this board if the ACC signs a GOR.

All Hail the Mighty GOR.

LMBO!!!!!....