You could possibly make that case, although as one conference, that would not hold water. But you replied to this statement "They can also argue that the fact that the C7 were leaving lowered any potential bids for tv deals," and a dded to it, and you said the C7 withdrawing did not remove Fox from the bidding process. It did. It also removed Turner from the bidding process (although they were lukewarm after ND and Louisville left).

(03-06-2013 05:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You could possibly make that case, although as one conference, that would not hold water. But you replied to this statement "They can also argue that the fact that the C7 were leaving lowered any potential bids for tv deals," and a dded to it, and you said the C7 withdrawing did not remove Fox from the bidding process. It did. It also removed Turner from the bidding process (although they were lukewarm after ND and Louisville left).

Except thats like saying the B1G signing with so and so removed that TV partner from bidding which hurt conference X's ability to sign a big TV deal. The C7 had in writing the right to split and form their own conference for whatever reasons they saw fit. The Aresco league has no real legal leg to stand on in that regard.

(03-06-2013 05:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Except thats like saying the B1G signing with so and so removed that TV partner from bidding which hurt conference X's ability to sign a big TV deal. The C7 had in writing the right to split and form their own conference for whatever reasons they saw fit. The Aresco league has no real legal leg to stand on in that regard.

It's not about a right to do it. Specifically mentioned was what harm was done by the withdrawal. Let's put it this way, if I were married and I decided to get a divorce, I'd have every right to do so., But by law, because my taking my option to divorce harmed my wife's comfort of living, I could be liable damages in the terms of spousal support. I had the right to do what I did, but I still had to pay to do it. Note even couples who have a prenup and divorce, alamony and child support are often still allocated.

(03-06-2013 05:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-06-2013 05:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Except thats like saying the B1G signing with so and so removed that TV partner from bidding which hurt conference X's ability to sign a big TV deal. The C7 had in writing the right to split and form their own conference for whatever reasons they saw fit. The Aresco league has no real legal leg to stand on in that regard.

It's not about a right to do it. Specifically mentioned was what harm was done by the withdrawal. Let's put it this way, if I were married and I decided to get a divorce, I'd have every right to do so., But by law, because my taking my option to divorce harmed my wife's comfort of living, I could be liable damages in the terms of spousal support. I had the right to do what I did, but I still had to pay to do it. Note even couples who have a prenup and divorce, alamony and child support are often still allocated.

Except this isn't exactly like a real life divorce. The Aresco league would then be saying that they can not provide for themselves.

Also the C7 can say that the Aresco league was unable to provide for them the level of comfort they were used to.

Remember that Aresco is the one who was running the contract talk. We didn't leave until word came down that we weren't going to get squat.

I'm not sure how to put it any easier to understand.
the C7 schools are leaving the BE. The BE because of this has less value. Therefore exit fees are acceptable damages. The BE conference was unique in which it gave an out clause to the various three entities if they left in mass but with the provision that they gave a 2 year notice. By leaving prior to the 2 year notice the C7 waives this clause and must pay the fees. While it is possible to dispute the damages caused by the C7 leaving in this case the schools had already contractually agreed as to what the average potential damage would be for each school. In this case it is 10 million for FBS schools and 5 million for BB schools. This fee increases with less notice (i believe its double) so 10 million per school for the BB only schools to leave in less than a year. Each school signed this deal as they believed that this would be the reasonable estimate for the amount of damages per school on average.

Since the C7 is leaving with less than a years notice it is arguably on the hook for 35-70 million in exit fees that represent a total of the preagreed upon estimate of likely damages to the BE brand per leaving school. The point is that the C7 leaving clearly devalues the BE.

If debated the BE could show the loss to potential media rights had the C7 stayed. The loss of the MSG. The costs of scheduling. The costs of filling out non rev leagues. ect. ect. down to frivolous things such as the cost of rewallpapering the league offices to remove the logos of the C7. So yes there are damages that can be shown. Some easily seen and quantifiable and others less realistic and subjective in value.

The reason for having contractual exit fees is that by pre-agreeing to what the damages would be you don't have to hire the experts, the lawyers, pay the court costs arguing over everything from how much media rights would have been down to the cost of the wallpapering service.

There you have it. Now while you might think that the BE was not damaged to the extent of 35-70 million dollars it was clearly damaged. The C7 acknowledges this and rather than arguing over all the details used their exit fees as leverage to get the naming rights, history and MSG. From the numbers that have been given it looks like a number around 35 million was used. Likely a middle ground number from where the C7 probably started (nominal) and the BE (closer to 70million) its no surprise it ended at the pre-agreed contractual number.

Does that make better sense now?

(03-06-2013 05:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You could possibly make that case, although as one conference, that would not hold water. But you replied to this statement "They can also argue that the fact that the C7 were leaving lowered any potential bids for tv deals," and a dded to it, and you said the C7 withdrawing did not remove Fox from the bidding process. It did. It also removed Turner from the bidding process (although they were lukewarm after ND and Louisville left).

Aresco's negotiating strategy was always to use basketball as leverage to get exposure for football. That's what eliminated bidders. (I'm pretty sure that the C-7 presidents have actual documentation that this was Aresco's strategy, instead of just Jersey Guy posts) Were Turner or Fox EVER willing to show Aresco League football games on basic cable?

Turner would(may) have been interested in the C7/Louisville/NBE Big East basketball package if it were available without football, but it wasn't.