(01-22-2020 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:19 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials, but now the MW isn't going along.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 13% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

The immediate problem seems to be not only the bonus payment--but that Boise State was not provided the details regarding the sale of the rights to their home and away games as the re-entry agreement outlined. The MWC negotiated and agreed on the new TV deal without provided Boise State those details. So could they legally call into question the validity of the new TV deal--saying that the MWC didn't get consent of all parties as required before signing the deal? Using that as leverage to get what they feel they were promised in their re-entry contract...

Boise's lawyers claim that material terms were not disclosed. It may or may not be true. You would think they would have insisted on a delay until all the terms were known. But then the MWC has always been dysfunctional.

They claim the terms were not disclosed and that contractually no TV deal can be signed off on without their approval and that they never signed off on the deal. Shouldn't be very hard to figure out if their alleged fact pattern is true.