(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.