(02-10-2020 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 05:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, even if courts say that the $1.8m bonus is a perpetual thing, that doesn't mean that either side can't try to get the other to agree to change it, including using leverage in the contract negotiations. There is no clause in the $1.8m bonus deal that says neither side will ever ask the other to change it, LOL. Boise can try and use whatever leverage they have to try and boost it, and the MW can do the same to erode or eliminate it. The only thing the clause means is that for that $1.8m to change, you have to get the other party to agree to it.

This time around, the MW seemed to vote on the entire package at the same time. IMO that was an error, because lumping the Boise deal in with the "rest of MW" deal effectively gives Boise a veto over the whole package.

The MW should have two separate votes, one for the Boise deal and one for the "rest" deal. That way, Boise can't hold the rest of the conference's deal hostage to what they want in their deal. And that two-vote approach is totally justifiable, as Boise themselves insist that their deal be negotiated separately.

If the Mountain West shows that degree of bad faith, Boise has a pretty good shot at getting a court to declare that since the Reentry Agreement has been violated, the home game TV rights revert to Boise State, who can sell them directly to TV and not share the proceeds.

How would the MW doing what I describe be in "bad faith"? The MW would be fully justified in voting on the packages separately, as, at Boise's insistence, they are negotiated separately.

Plus, that would be in keeping with the theme of the re-entry agreement, which gives Boise a veto over its own deal, but not the MW deal as a whole, and lumping them in to one vote gives them an effective veto over the whole, which is not how it is supposed to work.

It shouldn't matter. They're supposed to negotiate the TV contract in good faith, no? I assume that means they can't just put something on the table that is plainly terrible from Boise's point of view. They can't make Boise's home games live streams on the conference website filmed by a college student with a single camera. If they negotiate something that is a good deal for Boise State, then they don't need separate votes, and if they negotiate a terrible deal for Boise's home games and refuse to renegotiate it, then, I would think, the conference is in violation of its contract with Boise whether they hold one vote or two.