(09-06-2017 12:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  There is a weather clause in contract to get out of game. The clause does not say that weather has to affect the home team in Arkansas. It just says game can be cancelled due to weather (which just happens to be affecting Miami). Game does not have to be made up if there are no dates available. Read the game contract.

The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

It's not a clear case. "Impossibility" isn't necessarily the fact that the game can or can't be played in Jonesboro, but rather whether all parties are able to fulfill all aspects of the agreement and if this is a force majeure situation. Miami could argue that it is a force majeure situation because the fact that they could arrive to play the game doesn't mean that they'd be able to return home. We can argue whether or not it would actually be safer for Miami players to be in Jonesboro when a hurricane is hitting Florida, but regardless of how one feels about those circumstances, Miami could probably reasonably demonstrate that it would incur additional costs for lodging those players longer, re-chartering a jet for a different date, and other expenses that would have not come up but for the force majeure situation. Was Arkansas State offering to meet any of those additional costs that Miami would have incurred (particularly since many of these college football scheduling agreements have fairly specific expense reimbursement clauses)? If so, then Arkansas State might have more of a case. However, if Arkansas State is just relying upon a liquidated damages clause in this situation, claiming that the game could have been played, and stating that the force majeure clause doesn't apply, I don't think that would hold up.

The practical nature of these situations is that the parties will meet somewhere in the middle (e.g. the liquidated damages amount minus the expenses that Miami would have incurred by having to stay additional days in Jonesboro) because neither party has a 100% clear cut case.

Right now I'm hearing Miami's position on damages is sue us.
Inconvenient and impossible aren't the same thing.

I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

@4x4

They have plenty of time to do both. They could have their parents, friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc... handle that. They could then fly to play. It's an excuse not to play. Does FIU not have that issue as well?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand that to some degree but I'm not buying it as the primary motive for not playing.

(09-06-2017 01:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  @4x4

They have plenty of time to do both. They could have their parents, friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc... handle that. They could then fly to play. It's an excuse not to play. Does FIU not have that issue as well?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand that to some degree but I'm not buying it as the primary motive for not playing.

Say that they all have someone to look after their belongings and family. They go to this game then might not be able to return until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest.

This week's practices will be disrupted, next weeks practices will be disrulted and they have an important conference matchup next week.

Doesn't seem worth the risk to anyone to play an exhibition in Arkansas.

(09-06-2017 01:17 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 01:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  @4x4

They have plenty of time to do both. They could have their parents, friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc... handle that. They could then fly to play. It's an excuse not to play. Does FIU not have that issue as well?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand that to some degree but I'm not buying it as the primary motive for not playing.

Say that they all have someone to look after their belongings and family. They go to this game then might not be able to return until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest.

This week's practices will be disrupted, next weeks practices will be disrulted and they have an important conference matchup next week.

Doesn't seem worth the risk to anyone to play an exhibition in Arkansas.

What happens if they go ahead and evacuate and can't come back?

Are there examples of past games being cancelled because "next week's practices might be disrupted"?

If ASU, instead of pushing Nebraska to the limit, had been slaughtered by the Cornhuskers, I'm thinking Miami would have made the same decision as all other Florida schools and played the game as scheduled.

Miami is potentially about to be hit by one of the strongest hurricanes EVER, and we are worrying about a football game? Great decision by Miami putting the needs of their players and families first. A large part of their players are from Miami, and their homes are about to get plastered. Football is secondary. Too bad, so sad for Ark State unfortunately, but this is more important...by far. I can't even believe it's up for debate.

So what would have happened had Irma been much weaker or taken a definitive turn away from the U.S. coast? Would Miami have conjured up another reason to bail? Does anyone in good faith honestly believe that the Miami athletic staff's initial or predominant reaction to the news that one of the strongest hurricanes in Atlantic Basin recorded history is a significant threat to directly impact their campus is Hey, we can use this as an excuse to not play Arkansas State! Because that seems to strain credulity.

They may well be making a wrong (or at least morally questionable) decision by cutting bait on the game. But what FIU, FAU and UCF do has no bearing on how they want to handle it. They're a different institution with different people in charge that may govern by different philosophies. And this is the choice they've made.

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  There is a weather clause in contract to get out of game. The clause does not say that weather has to affect the home team in Arkansas. It just says game can be cancelled due to weather (which just happens to be affecting Miami). Game does not have to be made up if there are no dates available. Read the game contract.

The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

I'm starting to think that ArkST isn't going to get any money out of this. ESPN and ArkST can't second-guess Miami's decision that it is "impossible" under the circumstances to travel to Jonesboro. That decision can only be made by the school under the hurricane warning, not be second-guessed by anyone else.

And if it goes to court, I doubt a judge would second-guess either.

Plus, the optics of the situation are terrible for Ark State - Miami is under the gun of a major hurricane and you are going to try and squeeze $650k out of them because they have more important things to worry about than a football game? That will look like crass extortion.

The classy thing for Ark State to do is say "we understand Miami has bigger issues right now than a football game, we send our thoughts and prayers hoping that everyone at Miami is safe during the hurricane" and that's the end of it.

(09-06-2017 01:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  @4x4

They have plenty of time to do both. They could have their parents, friends, siblings, girlfriends, etc... handle that. They could then fly to play. It's an excuse not to play. Does FIU not have that issue as well?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand that to some degree but I'm not buying it as the primary motive for not playing.

Remember that includes travel to and from. You all will end up paying more in court costs than what you would get from Miami if you take it to court.

(09-06-2017 12:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  There is a weather clause in contract to get out of game. The clause does not say that weather has to affect the home team in Arkansas. It just says game can be cancelled due to weather (which just happens to be affecting Miami). Game does not have to be made up if there are no dates available. Read the game contract.

The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

It's not a clear case. "Impossibility" isn't necessarily the fact that the game can or can't be played in Jonesboro, but rather whether all parties are able to fulfill all aspects of the agreement and if this is a force majeure situation. Miami could argue that it is a force majeure situation because the fact that they could arrive to play the game doesn't mean that they'd be able to return home. We can argue whether or not it would actually be safer for Miami players to be in Jonesboro when a hurricane is hitting Florida, but regardless of how one feels about those circumstances, Miami could probably reasonably demonstrate that it would incur additional costs for lodging those players longer, re-chartering a jet for a different date, and other expenses that would have not come up but for the force majeure situation. Was Arkansas State offering to meet any of those additional costs that Miami would have incurred (particularly since many of these college football scheduling agreements have fairly specific expense reimbursement clauses)? If so, then Arkansas State might have more of a case. However, if Arkansas State is just relying upon a liquidated damages clause in this situation, claiming that the game could have been played, and stating that the force majeure clause doesn't apply, I don't think that would hold up.

The practical nature of these situations is that the parties will meet somewhere in the middle (e.g. the liquidated damages amount minus the expenses that Miami would have incurred by having to stay additional days in Jonesboro) because neither party has a 100% clear cut case.

Right now I'm hearing Miami's position on damages is sue us.
Inconvenient and impossible aren't the same thing.

I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Come on, now. If Miami agrees to play *AT* a G5 stadium, that G5 school is take that deal every single time with or without a clause regarding hurricanes or other weather-related events. Pretty much any G5 school would take *any* P5 game at their own home stadium, much less a high profile one like Miami.

(09-06-2017 01:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  There is a weather clause in contract to get out of game. The clause does not say that weather has to affect the home team in Arkansas. It just says game can be cancelled due to weather (which just happens to be affecting Miami). Game does not have to be made up if there are no dates available. Read the game contract.

The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

I'm starting to think that ArkST isn't going to get any money out of this. ESPN and ArkST can't second-guess Miami's decision that it is "impossible" under the circumstances to travel to Jonesboro. That decision can only be made by the school under the hurricane warning, not be second-guessed by anyone else.

And if it goes to court, I doubt a judge would second-guess either.

Plus, the optics of the situation are terrible for Ark State - Miami is under the gun of a major hurricane and you are going to try and squeeze $650k out of them because they have more important things to worry about than a football game? That will look like crass extortion.

The classy thing for Ark State to do is say "we understand Miami has bigger issues right now than a football game, we send our thoughts and prayers hoping that everyone at Miami is safe during the hurricane" and that's the end of it.

Well said...you don't play around with Cat 5 hurricanes.

And by the way, we haven't heard if USF @ UConn will be cancelled yet, but if it is, so be it. This situation is far more important.

(09-06-2017 01:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Miami is potentially about to be hit by one of the strongest hurricanes EVER, and we are worrying about a football game? Great decision by Miami putting the needs of their players and families first. A large part of their players are from Miami, and their homes are about to get plastered. Football is secondary. Too bad, so sad for Ark State unfortunately, but this is more important...by far. I can't even believe it's up for debate.

They would be evacuating one way or another. Other than worrying if your car is gonna be left behind (a legit concern, those are hard to replace), they would already be going anyways. They wouldn't be taking all of their belongings, just important documents, pictures and maybe a few personal favorite items. So other than worrying about evacuating your car, it makes little difference.

Miami just doesn't want to take the chance of losing to Arkansas State and that's fine.

(09-06-2017 02:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

It's not a clear case. "Impossibility" isn't necessarily the fact that the game can or can't be played in Jonesboro, but rather whether all parties are able to fulfill all aspects of the agreement and if this is a force majeure situation. Miami could argue that it is a force majeure situation because the fact that they could arrive to play the game doesn't mean that they'd be able to return home. We can argue whether or not it would actually be safer for Miami players to be in Jonesboro when a hurricane is hitting Florida, but regardless of how one feels about those circumstances, Miami could probably reasonably demonstrate that it would incur additional costs for lodging those players longer, re-chartering a jet for a different date, and other expenses that would have not come up but for the force majeure situation. Was Arkansas State offering to meet any of those additional costs that Miami would have incurred (particularly since many of these college football scheduling agreements have fairly specific expense reimbursement clauses)? If so, then Arkansas State might have more of a case. However, if Arkansas State is just relying upon a liquidated damages clause in this situation, claiming that the game could have been played, and stating that the force majeure clause doesn't apply, I don't think that would hold up.

The practical nature of these situations is that the parties will meet somewhere in the middle (e.g. the liquidated damages amount minus the expenses that Miami would have incurred by having to stay additional days in Jonesboro) because neither party has a 100% clear cut case.

Right now I'm hearing Miami's position on damages is sue us.
Inconvenient and impossible aren't the same thing.

I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Come on, now. If Miami agrees to play *AT* a G5 stadium, that G5 school is take that deal every single time with or without a clause regarding hurricanes or other weather-related events. Pretty much any G5 school would take *any* P5 game at their own home stadium, much less a high profile one like Miami.

Feel free. But I think I'd pass on Miami in the future without a much clearer cancellation process imbedded in the contract.

This cost us a lot...and I'd be very hesitant to sign up to take a second punch.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

FIU is playing. They moved their home game to B'Ham to play.

(09-06-2017 12:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

You seriously think that if party A sues a party B that is in the path of a giant hurricane because B decided it was safer to not travel to A, that public sympathy is going to be on the side of party A?

Seriously?

If it comes to that, A will be savaged in the media, online, etc.

Look, i get it, you and the Ark State community were looking forward to this game, and it sucks to lose it. But the blame is on the hurricane, not Miami. Just feel fortunate your campus, students, faculty, etc. won't be suffering wind and flooding damage.

(09-06-2017 01:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  There is a weather clause in contract to get out of game. The clause does not say that weather has to affect the home team in Arkansas. It just says game can be cancelled due to weather (which just happens to be affecting Miami). Game does not have to be made up if there are no dates available. Read the game contract.

The clause very specifically states that option only exist if it is impossible for Miami to travel to Jonesboro for the game

ESPN offered moving the game up a couple days. Miami refused. By doing that, they must fulfill the buyout.

I'm starting to think that ArkST isn't going to get any money out of this. ESPN and ArkST can't second-guess Miami's decision that it is "impossible" under the circumstances to travel to Jonesboro. That decision can only be made by the school under the hurricane warning, not be second-guessed by anyone else.

And if it goes to court, I doubt a judge would second-guess either.

Plus, the optics of the situation are terrible for Ark State - Miami is under the gun of a major hurricane and you are going to try and squeeze $650k out of them because they have more important things to worry about than a football game? That will look like crass extortion.

The classy thing for Ark State to do is say "we understand Miami has bigger issues right now than a football game, we send our thoughts and prayers hoping that everyone at Miami is safe during the hurricane" and that's the end of it.

Not really concerned about optics or classy or what have you. More interested in contracts and legalities and not losing large amounts of money.

We are not wealthy. We can't just gift P5 programs a home game because of "feelz".



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(09-06-2017 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

You seriously think that if party A sues a party B that is in the path of a giant hurricane because B decided it was safer to not travel to A, that public sympathy is going to be on the side of party A?

Seriously?

If it comes to that, A will be savaged in the media, online, etc.

Look, i get it, you and the Ark State community were looking forward to this game, and it sucks to lose it. But the blame is on the hurricane, not Miami. Just feel fortunate your campus, students, faculty, etc. won't be suffering wind and flooding damage.

Fairly confident that contract law will be almost entirely unaffected by public sympathy as usual.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(09-06-2017 01:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Miami is potentially about to be hit by one of the strongest hurricanes EVER, and we are worrying about a football game? Great decision by Miami putting the needs of their players and families first. A large part of their players are from Miami, and their homes are about to get plastered. Football is secondary. Too bad, so sad for Ark State unfortunately, but this is more important...by far. I can't even believe it's up for debate.

North Korea has a hydrogen bomb and missiles capable of reaching US soil, a nuclear exchange could kill a billion or more in minutes with less than 20 minutes warning and we are worrying about a storm where people have adequate warning to reach safety and leaving only property to be harmed?

(09-06-2017 02:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 12:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'd say sue them then.

Will probably cost them more in the long run as other G5 AD's get more hesitant about scheduling Miami.

Stiffing a G5 on home game buyout is not a real good look.

You seriously think that if party A sues a party B that is in the path of a giant hurricane because B decided it was safer to not travel to A, that public sympathy is going to be on the side of party A?

Seriously?

If it comes to that, A will be savaged in the media, online, etc.

Look, i get it, you and the Ark State community were looking forward to this game, and it sucks to lose it. But the blame is on the hurricane, not Miami. Just feel fortunate your campus, students, faculty, etc. won't be suffering wind and flooding damage.

Fairly confident that contract law will be almost entirely unaffected by public sympathy as usual.

You are the one who raised the issue of how this will look in the 'court of public opinion', so i commented on that.

As for how it will play in a real court, good luck with that. I doubt a judge is going to side with the school not in the path of the hurricane. That "impossible" clause is going to be interpreted very liberally in favor of the school that was, as Frank said, in the 'force majeure' situation.

You'll probably lose in court, and surely on twitter. Hopefully, your admins are smart enough to know this.