CSNbbs
Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC (/thread-892957.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Sactowndog - 01-26-2020 01:42 AM

(01-26-2020 12:56 AM)B easy Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 11:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

Not sure what the board lawyers here think but lawyers on the MWC board have stated that given
1) the contract called for 1.8M and
2) Boise was leveraging their agreement to get a higher amount

that in fact Boise acted in bad faith and breached the agreement by leveraging their consent requirement to force a change in the payment amount.

I would need more information about BSU's precise actions to determine if I thought it rises to bad faith dealings. The threshold for bad faith is usually slightly below outright criminal fraud and is adjudicated differently by various jurisdictions. It's determined on a case-by-case basis contingent upon a totality of the circumstances determination of multiple factors. It always involves deceit and is typically determined by the reasonably prudent person standard. The ramifications of a judge finding bad faith also varies per jurisdiction. For example, in NC (and I imagine most jurisdictions), it can create punitive damages and be grounds to compel payment for an opponent's legal fees as well, inter alia.

I would also need to know more information to determine if and how either party breached. Again, I haven't looked at any of the K's language and the 4-corners of the contract usually rules. I will say that if BSU waited till assurances were made and then pushed for additional demands once the situation became time sensitive, then an agreement could be voided due to duress, coercion, &/or undue influence depending on the circumstances.

Of course the devil is in the details and no one has all the relevant data. But I am guessing it may not be as simple as the MWC stupidly voided the agreement.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-26-2020 01:42 AM

(01-25-2020 11:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2020 07:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That statement, describing FOX as their "new partner" seems to imply that Boise did agree to the TV deal that was negotiated on their behalf by the MWC.

If so, they really don't have any grounds for their complaint, as the MWC vote to end paying them the bonus in 2025 seems irrelevant until the MWC actually misses a payment.

For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

Not sure what the board lawyers here think but lawyers on the MWC board have stated that given
1) the contract called for 1.8M and
2) Boise was leveraging their agreement to get a higher amount

that in fact Boise acted in bad faith and breached the agreement by leveraging their consent requirement to force a change in the payment amount.

Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

The SEC asked CBS for more money when they added Missouri and A&M a few years ago. CBS said no. Neither party breached the deal.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - ken d - 01-26-2020 08:43 AM

(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 11:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

Not sure what the board lawyers here think but lawyers on the MWC board have stated that given
1) the contract called for 1.8M and
2) Boise was leveraging their agreement to get a higher amount

that in fact Boise acted in bad faith and breached the agreement by leveraging their consent requirement to force a change in the payment amount.

Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

The SEC asked CBS for more money when they added Missouri and A&M a few years ago. CBS said no. Neither party breached the deal.

I'm not sure we can say with any certainty that the MWC accepted the FOX deal over Boise's objection. All we know is that this is what Boise alleges. That's something that would have to be adjudicated at trial.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-26-2020 09:26 AM

(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-26-2020 09:45 AM

(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-26-2020 10:35 AM

(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

Sure, IANAL too, but I guess they could send a letter back to you reminding you of your contractual obligation and threatening action if a payment is missed?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - B easy - 01-26-2020 12:13 PM

(01-26-2020 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

Sure, IANAL too, but I guess they could send a letter back to you reminding you of your contractual obligation and threatening action if a payment is missed?

Exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - stever20 - 01-26-2020 12:25 PM

what we've seen here IMO is just how quickly something can happen with realignment. Not saying it's gonna happen- but just shows how in general it's such a power keg right now and 1 little flash and boom.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-26-2020 12:47 PM

(01-26-2020 10:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

Sure, IANAL too, but I guess they could send a letter back to you reminding you of your contractual obligation and threatening action if a payment is missed?

True.

And by the same token (or at least similar)Boise State has not exactly filed suit yet.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - IWokeUpLikeThis - 01-26-2020 01:00 PM

(01-26-2020 12:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what we've seen here IMO is just how quickly something can happen with realignment. Not saying it's gonna happen- but just shows how in general it's such a power keg right now and 1 little flash and boom.

Could Boise join AAC this upcoming FB season?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-26-2020 02:05 PM

(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-26-2020 02:46 PM

(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-26-2020 02:53 PM

(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-26-2020 02:55 PM

(01-26-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.

Interesting find. Yes, it appears that Boise could, as part of the process of defending itself from the future harm, repudiate its side of the deal - the assignment of its home TV rights - and walk away from the MW free and clear.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - stever20 - 01-26-2020 03:13 PM

(01-26-2020 01:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 12:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  what we've seen here IMO is just how quickly something can happen with realignment. Not saying it's gonna happen- but just shows how in general it's such a power keg right now and 1 little flash and boom.

Could Boise join AAC this upcoming FB season?

Definitely would be doable. Temple didn't join the Big East in 2012 for football until March 7. So about 40 days from now. The AAC hasn't released the specific schedules yet for the 2020 season.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-26-2020 03:38 PM

(01-26-2020 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.

Interesting find. Yes, it appears that Boise could, as part of the process of defending itself from the future harm, repudiate its side of the deal - the assignment of its home TV rights - and walk away from the MW free and clear.

What we're hypothesizing there is Boise leaving the MWC now and joining the AAC for football and let's say the WAC or the Summit for Olympic sports.

The Mountain West bylaws (if they haven't changed) says its a $5m exit fee if you leave with 12 months notice, or 2x or 3x your final revenue distribution with less than 12 months notice.

Boise claims they owe no exit fee because MWC breached. MWC claims the full 2x or 3x. Both sides file dueling lawsuits. Mountain West does not send Boise STate their final distribution check.

the courts would eventually decide whether Boise was right about an anticipatory breach or not.

Alternately, Boise could use the MWC's "anticipatory breach" to justify joining the AAC effective July 1, 2021 and claiming to pay no exit fee because of the breach. The MWC would withhold revenue, Boise would sue, etc etc


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-26-2020 03:41 PM

(01-26-2020 03:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.

Interesting find. Yes, it appears that Boise could, as part of the process of defending itself from the future harm, repudiate its side of the deal - the assignment of its home TV rights - and walk away from the MW free and clear.

What we're hypothesizing there is Boise leaving the MWC now and joining the AAC for football and let's say the WAC or the Summit for Olympic sports.

The Mountain West bylaws (if they haven't changed) says its a $5m exit fee if you leave with 12 months notice, or 2x or 3x your final revenue distribution with less than 12 months notice.

Boise claims they owe no exit fee because MWC breached. MWC claims the full 2x or 3x. Both sides file dueling lawsuits. Mountain West does not send Boise STate their final distribution check.

the courts would eventually decide whether Boise was right about an anticipatory breach or not.

Alternately, Boise could use the MWC's "anticipatory breach" to justify joining the AAC effective July 1, 2021 and claiming to pay no exit fee because of the breach. The MWC would withhold revenue, Boise would sue, etc etc

One thing about anticipatory breach - the Wiki article says the side that breached can repudiate the breach, which then restores the contract for both parties, so long as the party breached against hasn't suffered material losses in the interim.

Since this issue doesn't become material for 5 more years, it seems the MW could restore the status quo ante by revoking their vote to end the bonus in 2026.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - bullet - 01-26-2020 04:05 PM

(01-26-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agree about Boise asking for more, that's not a breach, unless the original $1.8m deal had a clause that said neither side will ever ask to change the deal, which is highly unlikely.

But disagree about that vote to end the $1.8m bonus as of 2026. That's a meaningless vote until you actually miss a payment. It's like my family can hold a vote tomorrow to stop making our mortgage payment and the bank may find out about it, but until we actually miss a payment the bank has no cause of action. Until then it's just words.

IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.

You can argue anything you want. Doesn't mean its reasonable.

The only real issue they have now is whether they actually approved the contract and whether material terms were kept from them.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-26-2020 04:59 PM

(01-26-2020 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-26-2020 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  IANAL, but I expect that if you send a letter to the bank saying you're not making any payments after June 1, the bank might be able to start some kind of legal process.

For those bringing up "ripeness", its worth noting there is also a legal concept called "anticipatory breach" or "anticipatory repudiation".


An anticipatory breach (also referred to as an anticipatory repudiation) is an action that shows a party's intention to fail to perform or fulfill its contractual obligations to another party. An anticipatory breach negates the counterparty's responsibility to perform its requirements under the contract. By demonstrating a party's intention to breach, the counterparty may also begin legal action.


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anticpatory-breach.asp

Given that there are currently realignment opportunities that may not exist 6 years from now (as well as other unknown opportunities that may occur between now and the time at which he MW has signaled it will unilaterally end the Boise special deal)---anticipatory breach may be an appropriate basis for legal action in order for Boise to determine if their long term future is with the MW or AAC (or elsewhere).

So, very roughly, Boise couldnt go to court now and get a declaratory judgement about the bonus in the next contract (ripeness), but could jump to the AAC this fall and stiff MWC on the late-notice exit fee (anticipatory breach).

(just assume AAC would invite that way for purposes of this sub-discussion)

Seems like something they could certainly argue.

You can argue anything you want. Doesn't mean its reasonable.

The only real issue they have now is whether they actually approved the contract and whether material terms were kept from them.

Correct. Frankly, these kinds of cases are generally not typically decided on the basis of clever arguments. They usually are decided on the basis of the facts of the case. What did the contract say and what did the parties do. If the allegations in the complaint are accurate (and honestly in this case---why would Boise file a divisive suit like this if nothing happened?), then the facts and merits appear to lie squarely in Boise's favor. Based on those allegations, its easy to surmise that the vast majority of the MW membership views the Boise "bonus" deal as divisive and unfair.

Frankly, I think the vast majority of MW schools have had a can full of Boise and their special deal. The MW membership has probably reached the point where they were probably prepared to lose Boise if that's what it takes to get rid of the deal. If that's where they are at, then, there really isn't much of a downside to pushing the issue is this way (even though the merits of any court case will be against them). Why? Because Boise doesnt, as yet, have any significant damages they can claim. Worst case scenario for the MW is they have to renegotiate their TV deal with CBS/FOX and Boise exits the league with no exit fee. On the other hand, since the Boise alternatives to the MW are not all sunshine and rainbows---there is fairly decent chance the MW can negotiate a deal that sunsets the Boise "bonus" and keeps Boise in the league.

If your prepared to suffer a Boise exit---then why not push the issue?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Sactowndog - 01-26-2020 05:21 PM

(01-26-2020 01:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-25-2020 11:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 02:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 12:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-24-2020 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For all we know that quote was created by a low level athletic department communications official when the expectation was that the MW would forward over the relevant info on the deal and, if it contained what they were being told, Boise would then sign off. They never sent the info—or they did—-and the deal didn’t match the promises.

Here is what I think is really going on. Boise never accepted the deal. The law suit spells out the particulars and you can see the Boise strategy if you read between the lines. The Boise strategy was to delay acceptance, using their contract veto power as a lever to force the MW to bump up their bonus to reflect the proportional increase in the new deal. When the MW accepted the deal without Boise consent, they took away Boise’s leverage—but in doing so—violated the Boise term sheet agreement.

Unless the MW can produce a signature showing that Boise signed off on the deal, then the MW clearly violated the agreement and will lose in court. Thus, this will be settled with the MW issuing a statement that the Boise bonus is increasing to “X” (that’s negotiable and will likely be less than the proportional increase Boise wants) and that the “Boise bonus” is a permanent fixture in the leagues media structure which can only be altered or eliminated by mutual agreement of both parties. Boise will probably make moving noises right up to the time that the bluff turns real—-which is the exact moment the MW will fold and give Boise most all of what they want. That’s been the pattern in the past.

I think the end result is Boise doesn’t move, but sets up a landscape in which it’s possible for the AAC to pick off an unhappy eastern member of the MW as an all sports addition (or possibly AF as a football only)l. I don’t think the math works for Boise. It does for certain other members.

Yes, as I said far back in the post, the onus is on the MW to produce evidence that Boise signed off on their segment of the deal.

But I suspect they have that evidence. The MW commissioner doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who wouldn't know something basic like Boise having to agree to their portion of the deal, and wouldn't make a statement announcing the deal unless the deal really was done in all respects. I suspect Boise screwed up and agreed to the deal without having made sure they were getting a bigger bonus. The complaint is about trying to undo that mistake and get the bigger bonus. IMO that's why there is fuzzy language in the complaint about Boise not being given all the specifics and MW officials not following through on alleged pledges to get the Board to agree to a bonus increase. That strikes me as Boise trying to say there was bad faith on the part of the MW and therefore the deal is invalid.

One thing that makes me think that is that Boise's ire wasn't triggered until the MW commissioner made that statement about ending the $1.8m bonus in 2026. IIRC Boise publicly objected to that, not the real issue, the enhanced bonus. I bet they were stewing over not getting a bigger bonus to begin with, but they were going to eat that, but this public announcement about ending it entirely was too much for their ego. That's when they replied. All the public talk was about ending the $1.8m in 2026 - and that is purely ego related, as it has zero to do with dollars now or even the next five years. The real issue that is in play now is the Boise desire for a boost to their bonus.

That said, like you, I think what is most likely to happen is that a deal is being hammered out, probably as we speak, and that deal will come to fruition, with Boise remaining in the MW but also getting a boost on that $1.8m bonus.

But I am not sure that will happen. It's possible that an impasse could be reached, there does seem to be some evidence that the other MW members are fed up with escalating Boise demands, and the public nature of the spat has now created a "loss of face" situation for both sides, which tends to harden everyone's position. Kind of like how AAC officials bristled at the notion of UConn keeping their football in the AAC after announcing they were leaving for the Big East.

If that happens then it could get very messy and who knows what the result will be and where Boise will end up.

We shall see.

I dont think Thompson was the problem. Again, the law suit tells us what we need to know. I suspect the MW presidents drove this decision. Two MW presidents voted to end the Boise special deal IMMEDIATELY (an obvious violation of the agreement). All the presidents (other than Boise) voted to end it when the new CBS/FOX deal expires (again, a violation of the term sheet).

Seems obvious to me the presidents are sick of the deal, believe it should end, and apparently were not willing to allow the term sheet from interfering with the new FOX/CBS deal. Ignoring Boise's lack of consent is perfectly congruent with the other two votes that we know occurred (as Thompson's comments about ending the Boise special deal basically confirm that these conference votes alleged by Boise actually occurred). I have little doubt that Boise never gave the MW its consent. The law suit is calling the MW presidents bluff. Here is the thing---the lawsuit has no value as a negotiating tool unless Boise never gave its consent---which is why I suspect they, in fact, did not give their consent. If you notice--the MW has not denied any claim in the suit.

The way I see it---the purpose of the MW presidents accepting the deal without Boise's consent was to remove the Boise ability to hold the leagues tv deal hostage until the Boise "bonus" increase demands were satisfied by the league. The purpose of the law suit is to reinstate Boise's leverage.

Not sure what the board lawyers here think but lawyers on the MWC board have stated that given
1) the contract called for 1.8M and
2) Boise was leveraging their agreement to get a higher amount

that in fact Boise acted in bad faith and breached the agreement by leveraging their consent requirement to force a change in the payment amount.

Its not a breach. Boise can ask. The MW can say no. I dont see how either action constitutes a breach because neither action violates the terms of the deal. However, accepting the FOX deal over the Boise objection DOES violate the specific terms of the deal (that may even constitute fraud). Additionally, unilaterally ending the deal by a conference vote is also in direct conflict with the specific terms of the agreement. Violating specific terms in the agreement is where you get a breach.

The SEC asked CBS for more money when they added Missouri and A&M a few years ago. CBS said no. Neither party breached the deal.

I’m not sure it’s just ask and saying no. The amount was in the contract. Boise refused to agree unless the terms of the agreement was changed. So how is it one side can force a change in the agreement terms and the other side can’t?