(01-31-2020 11:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 07:27 PM)Sactowndog 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:  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.

I’m curious from lawyers but at what point if the agreement says 1.8M and Boise wants more can it be deemed Boise left the agreement if a) it refuses to sign off on a contract unless it’s demands of more money are met?

Remember in this case, Boise’s take was negotiated as a flat amount both initially and in the modification of the entry agreement. Boise was demanding their duty be changed to a percentage which is a significant change!

Does the entire conference have to forgo television revenue for a year? Two years? I get Boise can ask and the conference can say no but if Boise continues to hold the conference contract hostage at what point can Boise be deemed to have in fact left the agreement? In a signed agreement with a predetermined price can Boise in good faith hold up the agreement forever?

A couple of points. Boise can’t hold the whole conference deal hostage. Per the agreement, the Boise homes game MUST be sold separately. Thus, the rest of the MW contract is not really affected by the Boise veto.

Secondly—The Boise home football games can only be sold by MUTAL agreement. So, while Boise can veto any deal to sell those games—so can the MW. The MW deal is done. The 11 MW teams have are assured of being on tv this fall. As time ticks by—-it’s Boise who’s negotiating position becomes weaker. It’s Boise who is looking at a season with no televised home games.

Thus, as you can see, the agreement offers both parties enough tools to protect their interests.

In practice, the clause about Boise having a separate contract doesn't seem to have been implemented. The premium Boise games were bundled with some filler games in the ESPN deal and the Fox deal. A contract can be modified by mutual consent, and Boise didnt squawk about bundling in 2013. Boise's complaint isn't mad about bundling their games in 2020.

It is possible that those were written as two separate contrscts (I thought they were) but Boise's legal complaint says that ESPN was paying $7M per for Boise's games 'and others'.

The CBS deal is secure. Boise could try to bring down the Fox deal. But I don't think they will--they like the Fox deal just fine, Boise State trying to be the BSD with other athletic department is one thing--pissing off TV is a whole other level.

At the end of the complaint Boise State states their demands for relief, and it's stuff like monetary damages TBD and x declaration that the Reentry Agreement is valid and in effect.