If a schools signs a GOR Agreement, they can still leave a conference, if they can afford to pay the cost of leaving and still turn a profit. It is just like breaking a contract or lease in the business world.

(11-03-2013 10:45 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If a schools signs a GOR Agreement, they can still leave a conference, if they can afford to pay the cost of leaving and still turn a profit. It is just like breaking a contract or lease in the business world.

This...and if they don't want to pay up...expensive litigation awaits for all.

(11-03-2013 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 09:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 05:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Well, where is your written in stone proof that his story is not treue? You have shown no proof his story is not true. All you have done is expressed your opinion that you think his story is not true. Dude, you are losing the battle of words.

How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this.

You answered nothing of what I said.

Let me ask you something: If a GoR is basically an insignificant barrier to exit, and if the purpose of the GoR was to mollify the networks and had little to do with discouraging exit, why did the ACC replace its $50 million exit fee with the GoR?

It's pretty clear that the ACC thinks the GoR has the extremely prohibitive effect on defection that I think it does, at least $50 million worth and probably a whole lot more, and since it's literally their business to know that they surely had the idea vetted by top lawyers. And yet I'm supposed to believe your story to the contrary?

The ACC didn't replace the exit fee.

Interesting, thanks for the correction.

That acknowledged, do you deny that the ACC had, as a primary purpose of creating a GoR, the goal of raising barriers to exit well above that provided by the $50m exit fee? Do you doubt that the ACC GoR has the same punitive language (no payments if a school leaves) that we now know the Big 12 GoR has?

Here are some statements by important ACC personages at the time of the GoR announcement:

UNC's Athletic Director: “These are strong and definitive moves by the ACC and its member schools to further announce our desire to stay together and position ourselves among the top conferences in the country. ....Today’s announcement should put (conference) realignment on the shelf.”

NC State's AD: "The assignment of media rights to the ACC by each member guarantees stability in the league, of course."

We can go on, but I think the point is clear.

As to the first paragraph? GoR's aren't made to stop exits, exit fees are. GoR's give the conference the ability to hold broadcasting rights, by continuing to pay for them, so that they can assure their Network partners of the product they will be providing. They are not meant to keep a school from leaving, they are meant to keep another conference from wanting. A GoR mixed with a strong exit fee, now THAT provides the best protection that a conference that NEEDS protection can have.

As to the Big 12 having those bylaws? You can put anything in a contract, if it is proven in a court of law to be illegal then it is simply voided. I cant prove that these add on's will be voided but I find it very questionable that schools such as Texas would assign their freedom into the hands of the Big 12. I think they probably know something that we don't in regards to how enforceable certain aspects of certain contracts really are.


As to the statement by the NC State AD? Looks like a nice public statement. Does it mean that definitively no movement will happen from the ACC? No. Keep in mind though that I am not of the mind that there will be moves from the ACC. What was proven by all this is that ESPN will make moves in order to protect the viability of ACC basketball.


UNC AD's comment? There is one word that stood out to me. That is the word "Should". The choice of using that one single word shows doubt.

Believe what you want to believe. In the end, that is all we have until after January.

(11-03-2013 10:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 09:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 08:59 AM)lew240z Wrote:  From the Big 12 Bylaws:


SECTION 3 WITHDRAWAL AND SANCTIONS
3.1 Withdrawal. Notwithstanding the commitment of each Member set forth in Section 1.2.3 above, a Member may only withdraw from the Conference, cease to be a member in the Conference, or otherwise fail to fully participate in the activities of the Conference in contravention of its commitment to remain a Member in the Conference for such ninety-nine (99) year period (“Withdraws” or “Withdrawal”) by fully complying with the provisions of these Bylaws and by paying the Buyout Amount (as defined below). Each Member acknowledges and agrees that the Withdrawal of a Member and the payment of the Buyout Amount and implementation of the provisions of these Bylaws does not abrogate the obligations of such Withdrawing Member (as defined below) pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Grant of Rights Agreement dated effective as of July 1, 2012, or any replacement or extension thereof or other agreement pursuant to which such Member grants the right to telecast some or all of its sporting events to the Conference (a “Grant of Rights Agreement”). The Grant of Rights Agreement which will remain in full force and effect as to such Withdrawing Member and the Withdrawing Member shall continue to be fully bound under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal for the remainder of the term of any Grant of Rights Agreement as if it remained a Member of the Conference, but the Withdrawing Member shall not be entitled to payment of any amounts or any other benefits arising under the Grant of Rights Agreement after Withdrawal.

Thank you, been waiting for someone to pull out this bylaw. It is the actual one decent argument that the Big 12 COULD do this. That doesn't mean that in a court of law it will be upheld should it be challenged.

What that line really is, is a great starting point for a negotiated payment but the conference would never get away with having a departed school's games be broadcasted and not paying them for that. They can put anything in a contract and the school's can sign it knowing that in the future they can challenge the legality of it. That is how contracts get voided.

You says this is actually "one decent argument" that the Big 12 could withhold payment from a departing school? Sorry Charlie, Lew has posted actual contract language that Big 12 schools themselves signed on to acknowledging that it in fact the conference can do just that. In contrast, you have no facts at all to support your claim that such a term would "never be upheld in court. "

So as of now, your position is not just one equally plausible story, it stands out as the one least based in facts and truth and most reliant on (your) personal speculative beliefs. So please couch it in those terms in the future.

Just because you sign a contract, that doesn't mean all of it can be enforceable. There are Voided contracts for a reason. So you can cut the bull**** of telling me to "couch" it because you are not looking at all possibilities. You are just trying to win an argument that is not winnable at this point so why don't YOU couch it.

This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

(11-03-2013 10:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 09:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 05:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 11:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  How am I "losing" when he did exactly what you said I did and what I did is causing me to "lose"?

I just had like a two page conversation where I answered all this.

You answered nothing of what I said.

Let me ask you something: If a GoR is basically an insignificant barrier to exit, and if the purpose of the GoR was to mollify the networks and had little to do with discouraging exit, why did the ACC replace its $50 million exit fee with the GoR?

It's pretty clear that the ACC thinks the GoR has the extremely prohibitive effect on defection that I think it does, at least $50 million worth and probably a whole lot more, and since it's literally their business to know that they surely had the idea vetted by top lawyers. And yet I'm supposed to believe your story to the contrary?

The ACC didn't replace the exit fee.

Interesting, thanks for the correction.

That acknowledged, do you deny that the ACC had, as a primary purpose of creating a GoR, the goal of raising barriers to exit well above that provided by the $50m exit fee? Do you doubt that the ACC GoR has the same punitive language (no payments if a school leaves) that we now know the Big 12 GoR has?

Here are some statements by important ACC personages at the time of the GoR announcement:

UNC's Athletic Director: “These are strong and definitive moves by the ACC and its member schools to further announce our desire to stay together and position ourselves among the top conferences in the country. ....Today’s announcement should put (conference) realignment on the shelf.”

NC State's AD: "The assignment of media rights to the ACC by each member guarantees stability in the league, of course."

We can go on, but I think the point is clear.

As to the first paragraph? GoR's aren't made to stop exits, exit fees are. GoR's give the conference the ability to hold broadcasting rights, by continuing to pay for them, so that they can assure their Network partners of the product they will be providing. They are not meant to keep a school from leaving, they are meant to keep another conference from wanting. A GoR mixed with a strong exit fee, now THAT provides the best protection that a conference that NEEDS protection can have.

As to the Big 12 having those bylaws? You can put anything in a contract, if it is proven in a court of law to be illegal then it is simply voided. I cant prove that these add on's will be voided but I find it very questionable that schools such as Texas would assign their freedom into the hands of the Big 12. I think they probably know something that we don't in regards to how enforceable certain aspects of certain contracts really are.

With the bolded text, you are playing language games. An exit fee and GoR are both designed to stop teams from leaving - the concept of which includes a school not wanting to go and another conference not wanting them to join, since both are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a school to actually join another conference, as there has to be desire on both sides (trust me, my USF would dearly like to leave the AAC, but sadly, no P5 conference wants us, so we aren't going anywhere).

And both work fundamentally the same way, they raise the costs of leaving. If a school has to leave its media money behind with its old conference, that is financially costly to it, just as paying an exit fee is costly. Of course, if a school is eager enough to leave it might decide to pay those costs anyway, so the point of a GoR or an exit fee is to raise those costs prohibitively high. In that regard, they have an additive effect.

As to the Big 12 bylaws, since the schools signed the contracts they are thus on record, in writing, as agreeing to those terms. A court will treat that agreement as presumptively valid and will require that the school seeking to void those terms have the burden of proof of explaining why the terms are "illegal". The first question a judge is going to ask is "University of Texas, why do you believe you should not have to abide by the terms of the contract you signed"? And he/she will expect a legally-compelling answer.

You have provided no court precedents that indicate that these terms would likely be ruled "illegal" in a court of law. You have just insisted that, in your opinion, no court would uphold them, without a substantive basis. Your position here is therefore far and away the more speculative, unsupported one.

I am supposed to cite cases of law for you now? Get out of here.

Believe what you will but I have grown bored of you constantly twisting my words out of context, telling me my words meant something that they did not.

If you want to believe that Texas willingly signed away it's future freedom to the Big 12 then go right ahead. I would counter that their history is filled with examples showing Texas to not be of that kind of mindset.

Have fun saying that your speculation means more than mine.

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:56 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This argument isn't being won by either side, HO. Only a judge can make that determination, and lawyers input means little at this point. Anything here is merely speculation.

And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

No hurry here for Texas... they will just keep cashing the current TV checks and leave when Big XII TV dries up in the future. They know they have a landing pad somewhere.

Folks can also go through this slide if they want some learning.

http://www.slideshare.net/SiddharthRanja...er-viewpdf

"Agreements made without consideration are void"
Kind of like a conference attempting to withhold money from a departed school while trying to hold on to the broadcasting rights of that school?

"Agreement in restraint of trade"
Kind of like...restraining the University from being able to trade it's natural rights due to the creation of it's own sports programs and everything that is produced by them?

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

Perhaps. But then again, what if the judge is a A&M, Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, TT, or TCU grad? Texas isn't the only school in Texas. So it's not a foregone conclusion that a Texas judge would favor the Longhorns like you suppose.

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:07 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:58 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And yet, after every post being made in my direction they attempt to say that they have "won" and that I should stop.

So what is your point in directing your comment at me?

Your's was the latest comment in the thread, directly above mine. Had quo's been the latest, it would have been directed at him. It was just a matter of timing, nothing more.

Alright.

Would you say though that it is unlikely that a school such as Texas would sign on to a contract with such Bylaw verbage if they didn't think that such a term would be hard to uphold in a court of law?

We are talking about a school that left the SWC because it was far too regional. That was back in the day when college football was a regional game. Now Texas is in a conference that is more regional than any other major conference and it has the smallest population in it's footprint. They have looked around at other conferences and even admitted to talking to them about membership and yet we are to believe they are committed to The Big 12? It is also the major conference that supports the least amount of sports.

You really think that is the kind of conference that a school like Texas is willing to sign away it's freedom to? I'm sorry but Texas has too much history pointing to the opposite in terms of their behavior.

I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

That first point undercuts your claim that schools got no "consideration" for signing the GoR.

The second isn't a doozy. Any institution can be "restrained" if they freely choose to restrain themselves, which they did by signing the GoR. And in any event, the school wouldn't be being "restrained". They can join the new conference, they just have to pay the price in accordance with the terms of the contract they signed.

(11-03-2013 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:57 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 11:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I have a question for you in return. Why would Texas enter into a contract with little or no validity?

If what you detail is the case, why create such a contract in the first place? It will be a very expensive proposition to get the GoR nullified. If Texas had wandering eyes, as you say is the case, why sign away their TV rights with the GoR? They'd be better served letting the conference hang in limbo, which would leave them free to entertain any offer they please.

Because they got a nice boost in pay for it.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...wyers.html

Quote:What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Voided contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of voided contracts include:
Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

That last one there is quite a doozy. Certainly opens the door for lawyers to argue that certain schools, which are supported by States and thus are State Institutions of themselves, cannot be restrained in such a way.

I kind of doubt that applies to a GoR in the way you think. Texas entered into the agreement with the full understanding that it was a marriage (perhaps of convenience, but a marriage non the less) with the other 9 schools in the B12. They married who they wanted, which IMO nullifies the argument you present.

If they later decide a divorce is in order, they have to pay alimony - in the form of all their TV revenue assigned to the conference, for the duration of the GoR. Any divorce is expensive, as anyone who has been through one can attest. I've got 2 ex-wives, which gives me some experience in this venue. I can't remember their names, so I just call 'em plaintiff.

But in the end, only a judge can decide whether or not that applies. What we describe is merely our opinion, which doesn't count as the official word on the subject.

I think it would be an error of judgement to think any Judge would allow the conference to hold all of the revenue from the school.

Since we are talking about Texas here. In what State is the Big 12 headquartered in? You think a Judge in the State of Texas would do that to Texas University? No, a settlement would be achieved.

Perhaps. But then again, what if the judge is a A&M, Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, TT, or TCU grad? Texas isn't the only school in Texas. So it's not a foregone conclusion that a Texas judge would favor the Longhorns like you suppose.

We both know it isn't that simple. Judges are no longer able to truly judge by their own opinion. They are more representative now of the forces that put them where they are and that will keep them there.

A judge that is a grad from one of those schools might award more to the Big 12 but no way they have the balls to award everything to the Big 12 vs The University of Texas. That judge would face political slaughter in the future.