Based on their pending TV contract, damages to them from us leaving early are somewhere less than $6M. (Thinking that their $20M contract is 20% basketball, so $4M per year.)

On the other hand, they don't HAVE a freakin' TV contract for next year. They have a (terrible) offer that their membership has not chosen to approve, about one week after it was signed by ESPN.

They apparently didn't solicit bids on a one-year basketball TV contract.

Does any or all of that add up to breaching the bylaws in our favor, in terms of early exit? In that the Conference, in the persons of the Commissioner and the active Directors, is not performing its duties to us?

Thinking about it, at one point, the word from Commissionerville was that they were going to do a quick "bridge contract" for basketball, while working on a deal to give us the name in return for staying for 2013-14. That went up in smoke. If that's documented as something Aresco said to the C-7, rather than to Blaudschun, then was that a promise we relied on in not splitting for 2013 a month ago?

Because right now, if we stay for 2013-14, we have no guarantee of the name, and we have no guarantee that our games are even televised next year.

There's a general principle of "you're leaving, suck eggs" in an organization when you're on your way out the door. But that has limits, and I think the existence of the Mutual Commitment Agreement would place the limits on that pretty close to zero, wouldn't it?

I agree. It's zero. The split agreement was a known provision, so it was one of the caveats for them to be aware of when they bought in. Buyer, beware.

More specifically, West Virginia took it to court. Basically all that the courts did in that case was to force the 2 sides back to the table to come up with an agreement. The eventual settlement was not something that the court mandated. That's what I believe what happen here. The court would force everyone back to the table to do exactly what they're already doing right now. The result would be the same. The courts will only be a factor if there is a complete breakdown, resulting in a standoff. I don't expect that because there are too many practical reasons for them to get it done.

I'm asking because I'm exploring MU88's option of walking away without an agreement, leaving them the name, and then suing for what's coming to us--70% of the money plus $30M or so for the Big East name.

Is MU88 a poster? I've been away from these boards for the last 24 hours. I didn't see it. I'll get back to you if I come across it.

(03-04-2013 04:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm asking because I'm exploring MU88's option of walking away without an agreement, leaving them the name, and then suing for what's coming to us--70% of the money plus $30M or so for the Big East name.

I think they would argue that the football and basketball parts of the money should be split 50/50- since everyone who left played football- then with the 30 million for the Big East name would take it down to 20 million. Which is very close to what they are offering.

it seems like what you are saying is close to what we are wanting- split 70/30 then 30 million for the big east name taking it down to 40 million(both options like 5 million less).

I bet something comes down tonight. just too much $$$ involved for it not to get figured out.

(03-04-2013 04:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm asking because I'm exploring MU88's option of walking away without an agreement, leaving them the name, and then suing for what's coming to us--70% of the money plus $30M or so for the Big East name.

My understanding of the situation is that MU88's proposed option is a viable option - the downside being that we wouldn't get the name right away (when it's most important to have it) and there would be ongoing uncertanity as a result of protracted litigation.

From a legal standpoint, my understanding is that MU88's proposed option involves the C7 dissolving the league. John - the questions in your original post involved the contractual obligations of the various parties to each other. If the league is dissolved by the C7, those contractual obligations cease to exist.

Conference exit fees, as an example, arise from contractual liquidiated damages clauses. Every team in the Big East has agreed that the contractual penalty for leaving the league is a set amount, depending on the amount of notice given. The law views these liquidated damages clauses as a substitue for actual damages (ie - less tv money). You can only recover actual damages OR the exit fees. These contractual damages clauses would almost certainly cease to exist if the conference was dissolved. Any contractual obligations the remaining schools have to the C7 would also cease to exist once the conference was dissolved.

My understanding of the situation is that the C7 have two options: negotiate an acceptable settlement or dissolve the league. Dissolution would likely result in extended litigation about how the money should be split and who gets the name (and how much the name is worth). It is unlikely there would be any litigation over exit fees, breaches of duties, etc. because all that would pretty much go out the window once the league was dissolved.

John, I've come across MU88's post on the other thread. I completely agree with everything he said in theory. Theoretically, I think it could be done just the way he said. It's rumored that the assets are supposed to be split evenly between the 2 sides.

As a practical matter, none of us has seen the prenup, so we don't know exactly what it says. And the devil is in the details. As a practical matter, the C7 want to move on, so they're going to have to make some concessions. As a practical matter, Fox has input into this and we don't know how much they value the name. I agree with MU88 that the name is way overvalued. I wouldn't take it for the money they're demanding. But Fox may value it a lot and may want it badly. As a practical matter we have no idea how active Fox is behind the scenes and how much money - not money in the TV contract, but straight cash - they're willing to contribute to make this happen.

I've previously posted that the C7 have a lot more leverage than they're being given credit for. I've also suggested that they could exercise the nuclear option if they really wanted to get down and dirty. But I'm also a practical guy, and in the real world it's often necessary to make concessions that you don't like to cut a deal that you do like. This is a deal that can get done and that I believe will get done because both sides have too much to lose if it doesn't get done.

I'm guessing that they split the difference and settle for something close to $25 million.

One more thought . . .

There's a thread on the old BE board triggered by a blogger who claims that the Big XII is hot on the trail of USF and UCF. It's not important whether he's right. It simply shows how this whole thing is built on what are still incredibly shifting sands. It also highlights that UConn & Cincy are not the only attractive targets who could be grabbed by another conference.

This whole thing could fall apart in front of us once again by some other unanticipated dramatic turn of events. . .

. . . Which is precisely why the C7 got out of it when they did. I'm not sure what strategy this dictates since stalling could be as much to their financial advantage as exiting quickly. But there are many factors which cannot be accounted for but which do influence any individual's decision to stay or to move on.

(03-04-2013 04:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 04:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm asking because I'm exploring MU88's option of walking away without an agreement, leaving them the name, and then suing for what's coming to us--70% of the money plus $30M or so for the Big East name.

I think they would argue that the football and basketball parts of the money should be split 50/50- since everyone who left played football-

That's reasonable for the exit fees. (Of course you don't file a lawsuit for what's reasonable, you file for the moon and stars.) So 70% of 50% of the exit fees would be 35% of $50M, and 70% of the $50M or so in tournament credits. That's $17.5 + $35 = $52.5M, before we pay for leaving early or the name.

Quote:then with the 30 million for the Big East name would take it down to 20 million. Which is very close to what they are offering.

it seems like what you are saying is close to what we are wanting- split 70/30 then 30 million for the big east name taking it down to 40 million(both options like 5 million less).

I bet something comes down tonight. just too much $$$ involved for it not to get figured out.

If it doesn't get done by tomorrow, I think it goes to court. I don't think we take the risk of playing without a TV contract. And they don't have one approved, a week after it was signed. They (including the commissioner that we basically hired for them) are so dysfunctional I don't know if they are capable of making a deal right now.

That said, once it goes to court a settlement is also possible.

(03-04-2013 04:33 PM)IrishBluejay Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 04:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm asking because I'm exploring MU88's option of walking away without an agreement, leaving them the name, and then suing for what's coming to us--70% of the money plus $30M or so for the Big East name.

My understanding of the situation is that MU88's proposed option is a viable option - the downside being that we wouldn't get the name right away (when it's most important to have it) and there would be ongoing uncertanity as a result of protracted litigation.

We would be saying goodbye to the name and taking damages instead. You can't change the name of our group, and then change it back.

Quote:From a legal standpoint, my understanding is that MU88's proposed option involves the C7 dissolving the league.

No, we'd be withdrawing, or completing the split, or some damn thing. They'd still have the Big East Conference.

Quote:John - the questions in your original post involved the contractual obligations of the various parties to each other. If the league is dissolved by the C7, those contractual obligations cease to exist.

What would matter at trial is the contractual obligations leading up to us walking out later this week, on grounds that the Conference is endangering our programs by its inability to negotiate a deal on anything.

Quote:Conference exit fees, as an example, arise from contractual liquidiated damages clauses. Every team in the Big East has agreed that the contractual penalty for leaving the league is a set amount, depending on the amount of notice given. The law views these liquidated damages clauses as a substitue for actual damages (ie - less tv money). You can only recover actual damages OR the exit fees. These contractual damages clauses would almost certainly cease to exist if the conference was dissolved. Any contractual obligations the remaining schools have to the C7 would also cease to exist once the conference was dissolved.

My understanding of the situation is that the C7 have two options: negotiate an acceptable settlement or dissolve the league. Dissolution would likely result in extended litigation about how the money should be split and who gets the name (and how much the name is worth). It is unlikely there would be any litigation over exit fees, breaches of duties, etc. because all that would pretty much go out the window once the league was dissolved.

We could also leave, and sue for what the MCA says was rightfully ours. That would be the money due to us, plus money for the name that we had to leave behind.

Under the MCA, we have the right to leave without an exit fee, given 27 months notice. Since we exercized that right, the conference has acted with reckless disregard for the health of our programs--no TV contract and it's March already, no agreement on the terms of our departure, nothing.

I don't think it would be viewed 70% at all John. I think we're looking at 50% of the 100 million total. So 50 million before leaving early or the name.

Also it's 70 million in exit fees and 30 million in tourney credits that forms the 100 million dollars.

I think in some ways if we don't leave early the tv deal gets done in a second. You would see everyone approve it, then the exit fees issue is a lot less problematic as more mouths would get it.

The more I think of this situation, I'm beginning to think that the smartest thing the C7 could do would be to dissolve the conference to force the assets to be liquidated. They'd be doing everyone a big favor.

When you consider that only 3 members are left and that all of them could be gone tomorrow, what is there that's left saving? If I"m one of the newbies, I'd want out of here as fast as I could.

The C7 should not leave one dime on the table. Imagine if UConn, Cincy, and USF leave 3 months from now after getting a huge pay day out of all this. To add insult to injury, a group of schools that never had anything to do with the Big East would then continue to collect the revenue from NCAA credits for several years from a time when none of them were even in the conference! Included in that would be credits earned by many of the C7 including Villanova's run to the Final Four in 2009 and UConn's Final 4 run that same year as well as UConn's NC in 2011.

Let's face it. The old Big East is dead and should be buried.

(03-04-2013 05:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think it would be viewed 70% at all John. I think we're looking at 50% of the 100 million total. So 50 million before leaving early or the name.

Also it's 70 million in exit fees and 30 million in tourney credits that forms the 100 million dollars.

I think in some ways if we don't leave early the tv deal gets done in a second. You would see everyone approve it, then the exit fees issue is a lot less problematic as more mouths would get it.

Unless and until we know the language of the prenup, there's no way of knowing whether it should be 50% or 70%.

I'm assuming that the prenup is pretty ambiguous. Otherwise, we might have heard more details from one side or the other. On the other hand, our side's administrations usually don't say nuthin bout nuthin.

But if the prenup isn't very detailed, if we sue, we sue for the moon and stars. Including the highest estimate we can justify of the Big East name we're leaving behind.

(03-04-2013 04:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  They apparently didn't solicit bids on a one-year basketball TV contract.

I just wanted to add from theri perspective that made no sense. The One year bridge deal was only valuable as part of thei rdeal goign forward. If it wa ssold to another network, they;d have to spend money to advertise so people could find them this year, then spend that entire year promoting where to find them next year. IT's not beneficial to them to be part of your TV package either because they'd be switching networks twice in two years.

Thsu selling the bridge year on its own, even if it fetched more money, was in no one's best interest.

(03-06-2013 05:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 04:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  They apparently didn't solicit bids on a one-year basketball TV contract.

I just wanted to add from theri perspective that made no sense. The One year bridge deal was only valuable as part of thei rdeal goign forward. If it wa ssold to another network, they;d have to spend money to advertise so people could find them this year, then spend that entire year promoting where to find them next year. IT's not beneficial to them to be part of your TV package either because they'd be switching networks twice in two years.

Thsu selling the bridge year on its own, even if it fetched more money, was in no one's best interest.

I understand why they did it. However, it's March 6 and they have no TV contract. If we walked away today before close of business and became the Eastern 12 and went to court, it lets us say

"They didn't have a TV deal for us, they didn't even try to bid the one year we were there. We couldn't wait any longer--we didn't know when or if they would get a TV deal, and we had 4 months before the conference year started."

Which builds a case that we HAD to leave because they were completely negligent in looking after our interests. Which knocks out damages from leaving early.