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 - johnbragg - 01-30-2020 11:59 AM

(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.



RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - ken d - 01-30-2020 12:40 PM

(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-30-2020 01:06 PM

(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.

If you go back to the December time frame when the meetings in question were held---the reporting would tend to indicate exactly what Boise is saying. The reports leaking out say the deal has been accepted, but that it apparently doesnt include the separate Boise rights. Shortly after the reports surface, the MW actually comes out and says no deal has been accepted yet. So--it sounds like the reporting coming out at the time would tend to mirror the type of vote described in the Boise complaint.


http://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporters/report-mountain-west-strikes-tv-deal-with-fox-payouts-to-increase-2-million-annually


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-30-2020 02:04 PM

(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure how a court is going to look upon the linkage of the TV contract to the rest of the Boise STate/MWC relationship. If there is something in writing by Boise approving of the contract, without strongly linking that approval to maintaining Boise's special status, I'm not sure Boise can use threatening the contract as leverage--at all. Boise isn't unhappy with the TV contract, they're unhappy with the MWC moving to end Boise's special status. And Fox (and CBS) have nothing to do with that.

Quote:The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.

I think the MWC schools think they can have their cake and eat it too. They want Boise in the MWC, as an equal member. I don't think they're serious about kicking Boise out and seeing what a no-Boise TV contract looks like.

(01-30-2020 01:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

I think that hinges on exactly what was said, in writing, and when. According to Boise State's complaint, when Thompson & Co were discussing the contract with Boise, it was in the context of the TV consultant guy proposing to the membership an INCREASE in the Boise bonus. How intertwined were those discussions? I dunno. But from Boise's public statement quoted upthread, they're happy with their games on Fox/FS1, with no kickoffs after 7:45, with the amount of weeknight games etc. They have no complaint about the Fox (or CBS) contract, except as a package-deal with the MWC trying to void the Re-Entry Agreement.

Quote:The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.

Right. If the Mountain West schools want to end Boise's special status, they can follow the procedure in the MWC bylaws to vote Boise out.

Quote:If you go back to the December time frame when the meetings in question were held---the reporting would tend to indicate exactly what Boise is saying. The reports leaking out say the deal has been accepted, but that it apparently doesnt include the separate Boise rights. Shortly after the reports surface, the MW actually comes out and says no deal has been accepted yet. So--it sounds like the reporting coming out at the time would tend to mirror the type of vote described in the Boise complaint.
http://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporters/report-mountain-west-strikes-tv-deal-with-fox-payouts-to-increase-2-million-annually

The December reporting was sketching out $35M a year total, $20M from CBS and $15M from Fox, with Boise having a separate deal. The January announcement was for $45M a year, which would slot in reasonably with Fox getting Boise's package for an additional $10M per year.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-30-2020 02:23 PM

(01-29-2020 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The conference didn't own the rights, Boise State did. Boise State conveyed their TV rights to the MWC in the contract. If the contract ends, the rights revert to Boise State and they can negotiate with ESPN and Fox themselves.

Often overlooked point you make there. A conference doesn't inherently own any rights in league member telecasts unless they convey them to the conference and visiting teams by default do own an interest in the telecast rights of their games unless they contract it away, which they regularly do.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - arkstfan - 01-30-2020 02:28 PM

The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-30-2020 03:46 PM

(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-30-2020 05:42 PM

(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

I went back to the not-quite-a-lawsuit-complaint that Boise filed, first post of this thread. According to their court filing, at the December MWC Board of Directors meeting, Boise State voted "No" on both ending the $1.8M bonus and on the CBS/Fox TV contract.

Boise State makes a "reach" claim, in my opinion. They declare the distribution of revenue from the TV contract a "material term", and that since the MWC did not give Boise accurate information about the distribution of TV revenue, that the MWC did not keep Boise informed of the contract.

That seems to my non-lawyer brain like a load of hooey. The contract is between MWC on the one hand and CBS and Fox on the other. CBS and Fox cut checks to the MWC for certain dollar amounts on certain dates, how the MWC splits the money is not the network's concern.

But, to my non-lawyer brain, that doesn't really matter. At the Board of Directors' meeting, Boise State voted "HELL NO" on the Fox/CBS tv contract. The Re-Entry Agreement gives Boise State veto power over the TV contract that televises their home football games, it doesn't say that Boise State has to have a valid reason to vote no--a tantrum as a negotiating contract counts.

Quote:33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms, including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agreement, before a contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material terms of the contract.

I just noticed something of possible future interest. "It did not, however, disclose ... the agreement's cancellation terms" Why is Boise State listing that as one of the details that they're interested in? Hmmm.

EDIT: Most likely, Boise State would like to know what if any composition clause there is, so that they can calibrate how much leverage their threat to leave the conference would have.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - bullet - 01-30-2020 07:04 PM

(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

And Boise's claim appears to be correct. But that doesn't mean the MWC has to have them in their conference.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 01-30-2020 07:25 PM

(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

So they would be entitled to damages even though they are publicly stating they are looking for a new conference. Yeah, it doesn't work that way. That statement shows they want out and letting them out would achieve this goal. Damages: $0.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-30-2020 07:26 PM

(01-30-2020 05:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

I went back to the not-quite-a-lawsuit-complaint that Boise filed, first post of this thread. According to their court filing, at the December MWC Board of Directors meeting, Boise State voted "No" on both ending the $1.8M bonus and on the CBS/Fox TV contract.

Boise State makes a "reach" claim, in my opinion. They declare the distribution of revenue from the TV contract a "material term", and that since the MWC did not give Boise accurate information about the distribution of TV revenue, that the MWC did not keep Boise informed of the contract.

That seems to my non-lawyer brain like a load of hooey. The contract is between MWC on the one hand and CBS and Fox on the other. CBS and Fox cut checks to the MWC for certain dollar amounts on certain dates, how the MWC splits the money is not the network's concern.

But, to my non-lawyer brain, that doesn't really matter. At the Board of Directors' meeting, Boise State voted "HELL NO" on the Fox/CBS tv contract. The Re-Entry Agreement gives Boise State veto power over the TV contract that televises their home football games, it doesn't say that Boise State has to have a valid reason to vote no--a tantrum as a negotiating contract counts.

Quote:33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms, including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agreement, before a contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material terms of the contract.

I just noticed something of possible future interest. "It did not, however, disclose ... the agreement's cancellation terms" Why is Boise State listing that as one of the details that they're interested in? Hmmm.

EDIT: Most likely, Boise State would like to know what if any composition clause there is, so that they can calibrate how much leverage their threat to leave the conference would have.

I went back to the complaint as well, and after reading it, I have to agree that I was mistaken - in the complaint, Boise is saying they voted against a FOX/CBS agreement that DID cover their home game rights, not an agreement that involved only other MW schools. However, I do think the complaint seems at least somewhat at odds with the January 17 press statement, for what that's worth. But a formal complaint has to trump a press statement.

Beyond that, what I found interesting in the complaint was Boise seemed to be saying that back in 2013, ESPN got the rights to Boise's games for $7m a year. That implies that had Boise gone independent at that time, they could have gotten a deal for $7m a year, way more than the $2.8m that they got from sharing that with the rest of the MW. And with price inflation, one would expect that number would be even higher today, maybe $10m? The complaint does not say how much Boise's rights went for in the newly-negotiated deal.

Or .... maybe not? Is Boise perhaps worth more to ESPN (or now FOX) in the MW than as an independent? If they went Indy, and had to cobble together a schedule like UConn did, would they be worth less? If not, then why not go Indy and make a whole lot more?

But if so, then maybe it's not just Boise adding value to the MW, the MW adds value to Boise, so they should temper their demands.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 01-30-2020 07:27 PM

(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

The re-entry agreement CAN'T be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition NOT perpetual.
We can spin language anyway we like.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 01-30-2020 07:31 PM

(01-29-2020 07:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 07:05 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 03:37 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

Or Boise will go to court and lose. 50/50 chance actually.

Boise STate and the Mountain West entered into a contract. If the Mountain West chooses to renege on that contract, they will lose in court.

(01-29-2020 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 01:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  This is true, the CBS deal is in good shape.

Depends. The CBS deal would almost certainly have a conference composition clause. I guarantee it is going to be triggered if Boise leaves.

I'm not talking about Boise leaving. I'm talking about Boise--in the rosiest of rosy scenarios--getting a court to rapidly declare:
1. The Mountain West did NOT get Boise's signature on the new media deals
2. This is a breach of the BSU-MWC re-entry agreement
3. The most obvious remedy for the breach is that the rights to BSU's home football games revert to BSU.

That eviscerates the Fox part of the MWC media package, justifying Fox backing out of the deal. Boise then shops their 6 home games a year directly to Fox (or ESPN)

(01-29-2020 04:56 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 12:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  You misstate the choices. I don't think the Mountain West can vote to end Boise's special status, short of voting to expel Boise State.

To be particular, they can vote to do so, but Boise STate will go to court and win. I'm pretty sure Boise State;s next move is to void the TV contracts the MWC just signed.

And then what? Voiding that contract does not put money in Boise State's pocket. Indeed, no media deal, no bonus. Boise State may be able to spoil a deal it doesn't like, but it can't force a deal it prefers.

That is true. But being able to spoil a deal gives Boise STate leverage against the rest of the MWC, leverage that Boise tried to use to get their bonus increased in proportion to the new media contract.

MWC isn't reneging on the bonus. They just don't think it's proportional based as Boise does. And they don't think the contract is in perpetuity. You think a rational judge is going to believe that a Conference signed away their rights forever?


Courts have ruled against groups like MWC who broke the terms of agreements. Boise State have the strongest case against MWC. Boise State is the ratings darling of the conference. Once they leave? MWC would struggle with viewership.

Can you stop being a homer in one thread please?


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Scoochpooch1 - 01-30-2020 07:32 PM

(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-29-2020 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  But the assumption is they can prove they didn't approve the contract. We obviously don't have the facts, but Boise gave the impression they did with their own public statements.

Yes, my impression from the Boise public statements is that Boise did agree to their portion of the deal. From a Boise press statement on January 17:

"ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation."

That implies to me that Boise agreed to a FOX deal for their rights. Could be wrong, but that's how I read that.

If so, then to get out of that Boise would presumably have to claim that they agreed under false pretenses by the MW or somesuch, but that would put the burden of proof on Boise to show that, not the MW.

I googled up the bolded part and found Idaho TV station news article that includes the statement.

TLDR: Boise likes the TV deal, doesn't want friction with Fox. But if part of this deal is that Boise is giving up their rights under the Re-Entry Agreement, then Boise State is going to the mattresses.

Quote:The new television agreement brings many benefits to the Mountain West, and we are looking forward to a new relationship with CBS and FOX. When the league set out to negotiate a new television deal, it was looking for three things – additional revenue for its member institutions, earlier kick times and exposure for both the league and its schools.

From a revenue standpoint, equal share tripled for all members of the conference, including Boise State. Due to our location, later kickoffs are going to be a part of any TV deal. FOX agreed to kick no later than 7:45 p.m., and between the two partners, they have agreed to move a maximum of 10 games per season off of Saturday.

ESPN has been a great partner of Boise State – and the Mountain West – for a long time, and we had some hesitation about moving away from that relationship. However, the terms and value offered to the Mountain West by FOX were better. We feel that our new partner is committed to helping Boise State continue to grow our brand and raise our institutional profile across the nation.

The Mountain West stated that this was the last time our deal would be negotiated separately. However, Boise State’s decision to join the conference was predicated on a number of negotiated provisions, including the right to separately negotiate material terms of media rights relating to our home games. This is stated in our conference agreement and cannot be changed by any vote of the membership or conflicting agreement. We will not support any change to this provision and are in the process of weighing our options to move forward.

Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.

Probably the most accurate analysis thus far.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-30-2020 07:36 PM

(01-30-2020 07:25 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 02:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The re-entry agreement CAN be deemed perpetual and if it doesn't have some termination built in it is by definition perpetual.

If the MWC bylaws permit expulsion, then yeah Boise can be expelled and is entitled to some sort of damages whether calculated by actual loss or by terms of the membership agreement.

So they would be entitled to damages even though they are publicly stating they are looking for a new conference. Yeah, it doesn't work that way. That statement shows they want out and letting them out would achieve this goal. Damages: $0.

To the best of my knowledge---Boise didn't publicly state they were looking for another conference (and even after the lawsuit became public, Boise still has made no public mention of moving).


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - Attackcoog - 01-30-2020 07:43 PM

(01-30-2020 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 05:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

I went back to the not-quite-a-lawsuit-complaint that Boise filed, first post of this thread. According to their court filing, at the December MWC Board of Directors meeting, Boise State voted "No" on both ending the $1.8M bonus and on the CBS/Fox TV contract.

Boise State makes a "reach" claim, in my opinion. They declare the distribution of revenue from the TV contract a "material term", and that since the MWC did not give Boise accurate information about the distribution of TV revenue, that the MWC did not keep Boise informed of the contract.

That seems to my non-lawyer brain like a load of hooey. The contract is between MWC on the one hand and CBS and Fox on the other. CBS and Fox cut checks to the MWC for certain dollar amounts on certain dates, how the MWC splits the money is not the network's concern.

But, to my non-lawyer brain, that doesn't really matter. At the Board of Directors' meeting, Boise State voted "HELL NO" on the Fox/CBS tv contract. The Re-Entry Agreement gives Boise State veto power over the TV contract that televises their home football games, it doesn't say that Boise State has to have a valid reason to vote no--a tantrum as a negotiating contract counts.

Quote:33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms, including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agreement, before a contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material terms of the contract.

I just noticed something of possible future interest. "It did not, however, disclose ... the agreement's cancellation terms" Why is Boise State listing that as one of the details that they're interested in? Hmmm.

EDIT: Most likely, Boise State would like to know what if any composition clause there is, so that they can calibrate how much leverage their threat to leave the conference would have.

I went back to the complaint as well, and after reading it, I have to agree that I was mistaken - in the complaint, Boise is saying they voted against a FOX/CBS agreement that DID cover their home game rights, not an agreement that involved only other MW schools. However, I do think the complaint seems at least somewhat at odds with the January 17 press statement, for what that's worth. But a formal complaint has to trump a press statement.

Beyond that, what I found interesting in the complaint was Boise seemed to be saying that back in 2013, ESPN got the rights to Boise's games for $7m a year. That implies that had Boise gone independent at that time, they could have gotten a deal for $7m a year, way more than the $2.8m that they got from sharing that with the rest of the MW. And with price inflation, one would expect that number would be even higher today, maybe $10m? The complaint does not say how much Boise's rights went for in the newly-negotiated deal.

Or .... maybe not? Is Boise perhaps worth more to ESPN (or now FOX) in the MW than as an independent? If they went Indy, and had to cobble together a schedule like UConn did, would they be worth less? If not, then why not go Indy and make a whole lot more?

But if so, then maybe it's not just Boise adding value to the MW, the MW adds value to Boise, so they should temper their demands.

I suspect that is not entirely accurate. In late 2012, because the shuttering of the Mountain (the MW linear conference network) violated the terms of the CBS deal with the MW, the Mountain West was able to trigger a renegotiation of the tv deal. In this renegotiation, the MW got back the rights to all their second tier content. This content, along with the Boise games, was sold to ESPN. I think that entire package sold for about 7 million. So I dont think the Boise rights were worth 7 by themselves in 2012-2103.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - bullet - 01-30-2020 09:59 PM

(01-30-2020 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 05:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

I went back to the not-quite-a-lawsuit-complaint that Boise filed, first post of this thread. According to their court filing, at the December MWC Board of Directors meeting, Boise State voted "No" on both ending the $1.8M bonus and on the CBS/Fox TV contract.

Boise State makes a "reach" claim, in my opinion. They declare the distribution of revenue from the TV contract a "material term", and that since the MWC did not give Boise accurate information about the distribution of TV revenue, that the MWC did not keep Boise informed of the contract.

That seems to my non-lawyer brain like a load of hooey. The contract is between MWC on the one hand and CBS and Fox on the other. CBS and Fox cut checks to the MWC for certain dollar amounts on certain dates, how the MWC splits the money is not the network's concern.

But, to my non-lawyer brain, that doesn't really matter. At the Board of Directors' meeting, Boise State voted "HELL NO" on the Fox/CBS tv contract. The Re-Entry Agreement gives Boise State veto power over the TV contract that televises their home football games, it doesn't say that Boise State has to have a valid reason to vote no--a tantrum as a negotiating contract counts.

Quote:33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms, including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agreement, before a contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material terms of the contract.

I just noticed something of possible future interest. "It did not, however, disclose ... the agreement's cancellation terms" Why is Boise State listing that as one of the details that they're interested in? Hmmm.

EDIT: Most likely, Boise State would like to know what if any composition clause there is, so that they can calibrate how much leverage their threat to leave the conference would have.

I went back to the complaint as well, and after reading it, I have to agree that I was mistaken - in the complaint, Boise is saying they voted against a FOX/CBS agreement that DID cover their home game rights, not an agreement that involved only other MW schools. However, I do think the complaint seems at least somewhat at odds with the January 17 press statement, for what that's worth. But a formal complaint has to trump a press statement.

Beyond that, what I found interesting in the complaint was Boise seemed to be saying that back in 2013, ESPN got the rights to Boise's games for $7m a year. That implies that had Boise gone independent at that time, they could have gotten a deal for $7m a year, way more than the $2.8m that they got from sharing that with the rest of the MW. And with price inflation, one would expect that number would be even higher today, maybe $10m? The complaint does not say how much Boise's rights went for in the newly-negotiated deal.

Or .... maybe not? Is Boise perhaps worth more to ESPN (or now FOX) in the MW than as an independent? If they went Indy, and had to cobble together a schedule like UConn did, would they be worth less? If not, then why not go Indy and make a whole lot more?

But if so, then maybe it's not just Boise adding value to the MW, the MW adds value to Boise, so they should temper their demands.

The formal complaint was a lawyer's statement. So it gets taken with a grain of salt. Lawyers lie all the time in their statements. They aren't under oath. So it carries less weight with regard to what really happened.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - johnbragg - 01-30-2020 10:28 PM

(01-30-2020 07:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 05:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 03:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not to me. The rest of the statement seems to pertain to the votes the MW took to strip Boise of the bonus in 2026 and end separate negotiations for them, which Boise opposed. But there's no necessary connection between that vote and Boise's acceptance of their portion of their separate TV deal.

In fact, the Boise statement alludes to the fact that their deal was negotiated separately, thus to me distinct from the votes that approved the general MW deal and ending Boise's bonus.

IMO, what Boise is saying is "we accepted the new deal negotiated for us with FOX by the MW, but we reject the MW's claim that this is the last time we will have a separate deal. We will always have a separate deal until we say otherwise".

I went back to the not-quite-a-lawsuit-complaint that Boise filed, first post of this thread. According to their court filing, at the December MWC Board of Directors meeting, Boise State voted "No" on both ending the $1.8M bonus and on the CBS/Fox TV contract.

Boise State makes a "reach" claim, in my opinion. They declare the distribution of revenue from the TV contract a "material term", and that since the MWC did not give Boise accurate information about the distribution of TV revenue, that the MWC did not keep Boise informed of the contract.

That seems to my non-lawyer brain like a load of hooey. The contract is between MWC on the one hand and CBS and Fox on the other. CBS and Fox cut checks to the MWC for certain dollar amounts on certain dates, how the MWC splits the money is not the network's concern.

But, to my non-lawyer brain, that doesn't really matter. At the Board of Directors' meeting, Boise State voted "HELL NO" on the Fox/CBS tv contract. The Re-Entry Agreement gives Boise State veto power over the TV contract that televises their home football games, it doesn't say that Boise State has to have a valid reason to vote no--a tantrum as a negotiating contract counts.

Quote:33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms, including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agreement, before a contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material terms of the contract.

I just noticed something of possible future interest. "It did not, however, disclose ... the agreement's cancellation terms" Why is Boise State listing that as one of the details that they're interested in? Hmmm.

EDIT: Most likely, Boise State would like to know what if any composition clause there is, so that they can calibrate how much leverage their threat to leave the conference would have.

I went back to the complaint as well, and after reading it, I have to agree that I was mistaken - in the complaint, Boise is saying they voted against a FOX/CBS agreement that DID cover their home game rights, not an agreement that involved only other MW schools. However, I do think the complaint seems at least somewhat at odds with the January 17 press statement, for what that's worth. But a formal complaint has to trump a press statement.

Beyond that, what I found interesting in the complaint was Boise seemed to be saying that back in 2013, ESPN got the rights to Boise's games for $7m a year. That implies that had Boise gone independent at that time, they could have gotten a deal for $7m a year, way more than the $2.8m that they got from sharing that with the rest of the MW. And with price inflation, one would expect that number would be even higher today, maybe $10m? The complaint does not say how much Boise's rights went for in the newly-negotiated deal.

Or .... maybe not? Is Boise perhaps worth more to ESPN (or now FOX) in the MW than as an independent? If they went Indy, and had to cobble together a schedule like UConn did, would they be worth less? If not, then why not go Indy and make a whole lot more?

But if so, then maybe it's not just Boise adding value to the MW, the MW adds value to Boise, so they should temper their demands.

I suspect that is not entirely accurate. In late 2012, because the shuttering of the Mountain (the MW linear conference network) violated the terms of the CBS deal with the MW, the Mountain West was able to trigger a renegotiation of the tv deal. In this renegotiation, the MW got back the rights to all their second tier content. This content, along with the Boise games, was sold to ESPN. I think that entire package sold for about 7 million. So I dont think the Boise rights were worth 7 by themselves in 2012-2103.

I can't seem to google it up, but I remember that part of the CBS-MWC renegotiation in December 2012 was that for a reduced payment (I think $8M instead of $12M ?) the Mountain West got the right to sell 2 national packages. One of them was the Boise State games, the other was the rest of the package.

If I remember it right, that would work out to $8M from CBS, $7 M from ESPN for the Boise games, and $5M from ESPN for the rest.

EDIT: This says "two networks". On the other hand, it says the money stays the same

EDIT 2: Nope, Attackcoog was right. Somebody posted a more complete PDF of Boise's complaint, including the Exhibits, especially the March 2013 BSU letter to ESPN.

"ESPN will pay the MWC seven million dollars annually for the License, Which also includes broadcasts of other MWC events."
http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Complaint-and-Demand-for-Jury-Trial.pdf


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - BruceMcF - 01-31-2020 05:35 AM

(01-30-2020 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yes. While the excerpted part quoted earlier might imply approval on Boise's part, the entirety of their statement, coupled with their timely filing of a lawsuit, suggests otherwise.

The other members of the MWC are entirely within their rights to decide, in accordance with their bylaws, who can be a member. The reentry agreement cannot, based on judicial precedent, be deemed to be an agreement in perpetuity. And, since no shorter period of time was specified in that agreement, I see no reason why the MWC cannot vote to cancel it.

However, if they were to do so, it would seem incumbent on them to not hold Boise to any exit penalties should such decision cause the Broncos to leave. In effect, voting to cancel the agreement could be deemed as establishing the length of Boise's and the league's commitment to each other, not just the league's commitment to Boise.

While IANDL, that sounds both lawyerly and plausible.

Where the economics comes in is that if this is the case, then if the MWC members who are opposed to the annual bonus to Boise State genuinely believe that Boise State at this point in time has no good alternative to remaining in the MWC, then this is a good time to make the move, so that everything is settled and the mechanism going ahead is bedded down during the life of the recently signed agreement.

IOW, throwing down the gauntlet will raise a stink. Raising a stink will depress media rights values until the fuss dies down. So give the fuss the longest possible time to die down.


RE: Boise State Lawsuit against the MWC - quo vadis - 01-31-2020 08:09 AM

(01-30-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  EDIT 2: Nope, Attackcoog was right. Somebody posted a more complete PDF of Boise's complaint, including the Exhibits, especially the March 2013 BSU letter to ESPN.

"ESPN will pay the MWC seven million dollars annually for the License, Which also includes broadcasts of other MWC events."
http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Complaint-and-Demand-for-Jury-Trial.pdf

Haha .... OK, that makes more sense. Good find.

04-cheers