(08-03-2021 08:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 12:09 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 12:07 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 11:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  As funny as that one liner can be the teeth were potential interference with a contract due to pay each forgotten team over 100 million on the life of the contract. Easy to prove damages.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But it might help if y'all hired him back as a legal consultant:-)

What is your take on Bowlsby's testimony about the $14 million haircut? As I said, I was immensely reassured (as I'm sure was his intent). This is nowhere near as bad as has been projected. We might just land on our feet.

It's in line with what I expected. Especially in that venue when you are trying to state potential damages to encourage action you have little reason to downplay severity.

That said it depends. I do think the cherry picked and fudgy math numbers used by Dodd and Mandel are overly pessimistic.

If WVU and TCU with Pitt, SU, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF and UConn was worth $15 million a year to ESPN 10 years ago (the contract they turned down), then WVU and TCU with Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., Kansas, Kansas St. and Iowa St. ought to be worth at least $14 million.

That old offer from ESPN wasn't just for the FBS teams, it also included the basketball games of no-football Big East members who are now making about $4.5 million/year each from Fox. So the ESPN offer probably did not value the FBS teams at $15 million/year each.

If you figure a 70/30 split (as was suggested at the time) of the $150 million+ deal,
it comes to almost $15 million for the football schools. If you assume $4 million/school for basketball (the original BE deal for the secessionists), it still comes to $13 million for the football schools. (150-4X17=82; 4 + 82/9 = 13.1). And I think the figure might have been a little higher than $150 million.

(08-02-2021 12:35 PM)YNot Wrote:  Out of the box settlement idea to provide a win-win-win scenario for Texas and Oklahoma, the Big 12, the SEC, FOX and ESPN:

I don't think that actually works... but I want to give you mad props (do the kids still say "mad props" these days? I'm old) for the effort.

Too many people say misguided, regurgitated stupid things, and too few people think from a "real world, how to find a win, I can find a solution" perspective. So I wanted to reply just to say that I appreciate the WORK you put in on that post trying to find the solution.

Much respect.

(08-02-2021 08:44 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 04:00 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, in the case of the murder, the issue is who is going to file charges against the killer?

I am struggling to find out who the "state" in this example will be.

Also, no doubt in your example the ex-wife would be entitled to half of the billions, but in that case, the target of her suit would be the party who left her, her now-ex husband.

Can Bowlsby file a suit because he's now out of a job? Can a scrap of LLC paper?

Love that you think in terms of analogies because so do I, but they're really falling off the rails. The ex-wife is entitled to her share because she has the contract (Wedding contract), and the Big 12 has the contract with ESPN.

What you're saying about the piece of paper suing ESPN is totally correct, but that's why I've been saying it's moot.

In order for the Big 12 to become a piece of paper, the 8 members have to decide they don't want the $840 from ESPN, the FOX money, the NCAA Tournament revenue, and the CFP revenue.

And that's just not happening because it's insane. There's not enough Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12 landing spots for them to all jump to. And even if there WERE, it still makes more sense for all of them to go in 2025 instead of now.

The whole situation of leaving the Big 12 is "Do you want the $1.2 billion you're owed; Yes or No?" The answer is yes.

Even in the case of a Merger, No matter what name is taken or kept, it would be the AAC to B12, The Corportation has to be B12, Too much to be lost if the 8 went the other direction. You may have a new captain of the ship rather than Bob.

Absolutely. The concept of the B12 teams leaving to join the AAC is pure ESPN fantasy.

The AAC fans are reading "rumors" about it and getting their hopes up that after years of being "second-class," they capitalize on being close to the ruling class and win one. But they think that because they're reading ESPN stuff. ESPN is trying to kill the Big 12 to save money; the only way the B12 teams go to the AAC is to gain money; ESPN can NOT save money on rights fees AND increase the payout to the B12 to entice them to jump to the AAC at the same time. ESPN is the only one paying into the scenario, therefore ESPN can't SAVE B12 money and give more AAC money that the B12 jumps to AAC.

It's far more likely that everything Bowlsby said about ESPN's attempts to destroy the Big 12 is true: Because they SAVE MONEY destroying the Big 12. And once the Big 12 stops panicking about people leaving and crunches numbers, there's no longer any financial incentive to leave the Big 12, so they just raid the AAC.

(07-31-2021 11:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2021 06:08 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(07-31-2021 10:05 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2021 09:43 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  The "normal" way for expansion and realignment to happen is that conferences/schools hire media companies to have those sorts of conversations with ESPN (and other networks) which gives ESPN (and others) plausible deniability. There apparently was no such buffer this time.

I would be unsurprised if rather than being a misunderstanding, it was a legally unproveable understanding on Aresco's part. ESPN has good media law lawyers, and Aresco is the one with the unfortunate responsibility to convince the AAC Presidents to go along.

It might be harder to find media consultants who are willing to be risk holding the bag for tortious interference when ESPN points to their paper trail and proves that ESPN stays on the legal side of the line. After all, the consultant's expertise in what they can and cannot legally say is part of what they are being hired for.

I was specifically speaking to the Texas, OU move. I stand by my original statement. ESPN has a fiduciary responsibility to their partner the SEC. If the SEC initiated the contact, they most likely had a non-disclosure agreement in place before they ever broached the subject. Those two combined would make ESPN liable to the SEC if they failed to negotiate in good faith, or disclosed the potential move.

But the claim is that ESPN engaged in tortious interference by initiating the action of the AAC and offering to pay the AAC more if it succeeded in recruiting Big12 schools, and the ESPN do the same with the SEC and OK/TX was stated to be a suspicion. If both statements are warranted, then substantial evidence (though not necessarily conclusive evidence) exists for the first, but not for the second.

Quote: The AAC may be a separate issue altogether. I am not sure if ESPN really told Aresco to go get them, or that was Aresco's interpretation. ESPN has the same fiduciary responsibility to the AAC that they have to the SEC, ACC, and anyone else that they have contracts with. Bolwsby is butthurt because he got blindsided by this. But if the SEC has any lawyers worth their salt, there was an NDA that preceded any discussions. If that is the case, Bowlsby's got nothing. And for all of you who will ask, "What about their responsibility to the Big XII?" They have yet to breach any term of their CURRENT contract. Their responsibility to the Big XII begins and ends there. They have already declined to hold early renewal talks for their broadcast rights. ESPN is not responsible for the Big XII after the expiration of their current deal. Even if this was all ESPN's doing, from start to finish, as long as they don't violate the terms of their current agreement, they are not guilty of tortious interference.

So far, Texas and Oklahoma have stated they will fulfill the terms of the current GOR. The SEC has not offered membership until that is fulfilled. Where is your tortious interference? You can't claim the loss injured you if they fulfill their obligations. Not anymore than Toyota could sue GM if they hired away some of their best engineers after their current agreements are complete.

The argument would surely be that it is improper for ESPN to be engaged in that activity, and whether there are precedents for a purchaser with a dominant market position to seek to destroy one of its own suppliers for its commercial benefit is something for a lawyer to answer, but it seems that ESPN would be under more jeopardy than for the AAC or the SEC to seek to destroy one of their market competitors.

The analogy, after all, is not Toyota and GM, it's a steelmaker that has a supply contract with Toyota alleging that Toyota is offering to pay a rival to hire away the steelmaker's quality control team, to prevent the steelmaker from meeting the quality standard specified in the contract so the supply contract can be terminated early. Which is the kind of thing that seems like it could be found to be tortious interference (at least, for Toyota USA ~ it's a common law economic tort, and Japan is not a common law country).

Quote: Let's not confuse right with legal here. The issue here is akin to a girl telling you she will go steady with you over the summer and then she tells you in July when school starts again, you aren't her steady. You would feel betrayed for sure, but did she promise you anything beyond the summer? Did Texas and OU promise anything beyond the current GOR? No and no.

However it is certainly the case that there doesn't have to be a standing agreement not to engage in an action in order for the action to be found to be improper.

Whether the court would agree with the argument of the Big12 that such behavior by one of their contractual buyers is improper is something that can be found out by bringing the suit, but it seems likely that the primary goal is to prevent the alleged interference from occurring rather than being paid damages if it does.

As long as there is no interference with the current contract there is not tortious interference. You can not claim tortious interference on an agreement that doesn't exist. The remedy for tortious interference is damages plus penalties. If the current agreement is fulfilled, what are the damages? There are none.

Your argument assumes that ESPN approached the SEC and / or AAC about raiding the Big XII. As long as that doesn't affect any contractual agreements, that still isn't tortious interference. You can not claim tortious interference on a future state that isn't contractual. As the financial advisor commercials point out, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

This is more akin to a hostile takeover of one corporation by a competitor. It happens every day in business.

(08-14-2021 01:01 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  As long as there is no interference with the current contract there is not tortious interference. ...

Precisely ... well, except for the "the current contract" being "any current contracts" ... the Big12 alleged that ESPN was engaged in behavior which if successful would constitute tortious interference (in most if not all of their current contracts, when it comes down to it), and requested that ESPN stop doing that.

Their first preference, after all, would not be damages for such tortious interference as may be provable in court, but rather for the dissolution of the Big12 as a business strategy of ESPN to not occur in the first place.