(09-14-2021 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sankey and the SEC aren't impacted whatsoever over a GOR ruling we signed our rights out to ESPN for the contract and the SEC still has no exit fee. The bolded part is merely absurd and so far the totality of you argument is in just contradicting mine.

Check out the GOR cases in the entertainment industry. Look up the exit fees paid by departing schools in the past. Then get back to me. I'll entertain specifics to the contrary.

I've already checked out GOR cases involving artists in the entertainment industry who have signed enforceable athletic conference bylaws. They don't exist. You should check out the "commercial activity" exception to sovereign immunity claims and check out whether Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and Oklahoma are just as sovereign as Texas. Those cases do exist. You should also read the Big 12 bylaws and determine for yourself when the "Interim Period" begins and who controls the revenues when that happens. Your arguments are neither meticulous nor scrupulous.

(09-14-2021 09:38 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  BYU wants to join in 2025. If they join next year, they have to cancel & buy out 18 games over the next 3 years.

Even if they join in 2025, BYU has to buy out 4 games in 2025, 4 in 2026, and 1 in 2028.

Nope. BYU wants to join in 2023. They won't have to buyout much if they start 2023 because they have a cancellation clause in their game contracts that allows them to cancel with no buyout if they join a P5 conference and give 18 months notice...so notice in Spring 2022 for the Fall 2023 games.

They also want to give the WCC two more years (2021-22, 2022-23) as a goodwill gesture to their conference mates.

My hunch is that BYU will keep its 2022 football schedule and then keep, buy out, or reschedule any return road trips for which the first game has already been played in Provo.

There will definitely be some tough scheduling decisions. Do you keep the best games or do you try to put together a manageable OOC schedule? What to do with the three rivalry series - Utah, Utah State, and Boise State?

Boise State- continue every year OOC
Utah State- play every other year OOC
Utah- continue every year OOC

Just my $.02

(09-14-2021 05:14 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 05:03 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 11:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:38 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 09:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  BYU wants to join in 2025. If they join next year, they have to cancel & buy out 18 games over the next 3 years.

Even if they join in 2025, BYU has to buy out 4 games in 2025, 4 in 2026, and 1 in 2028.

Nope. BYU wants to join in 2023. They won't have to buyout much if they start 2023 because they have a cancellation clause in their game contracts that allows them to cancel with no buyout if they join a P5 conference and give 18 months notice...so notice in Spring 2022 for the Fall 2023 games.

They also want to give the WCC two more years (2021-22, 2022-23) as a goodwill gesture to their conference mates.

My hunch is that BYU will keep its 2022 football schedule and then keep, buy out, or reschedule any return road trips for which the first game has already been played in Provo.

There will definitely be some tough scheduling decisions. Do you keep the best games or do you try to put together a manageable OOC schedule? What to do with the three rivalry series - Utah, Utah State, and Boise State?

Okay. If this is true, then the OP is incorrect.

BYU is not going to be in the Big 12 for 2022 unless the Big 12 makes it worth their while ($$$). I doubt the Big 12 wants that; they're not beggars.

I also doubt that the Big 12 wants an 11-team conference for 2022. The Big 12 wants Texas & OU to leave the same year that the new 4 join.

Tom Holmoe mentioned in his interviews after the announcement that 2023 is what seemed to work well for everyone so they don't have to redo schedules in all sports for a new member in 2022 and then do it all over again when the 3 other teams join. So if all or most of the new members came in for 2023 that would be much less work schedule-wise.

Exactly. It is somewhat ironic that the Big 12's negotiations with BYU and Houston have effectively set the target date for UT's and OU's settlement negotiations - 2023. The Big 12's efforts at mitigating the damages have effectively raised the price for a 2022 UT/OU departure, but may have lowered it for 2023. The OP is clearly wrong - "everyone" is looking at 2023; not 2022.

No. If you look at reporters and the message boards and coach comments, everyone is working towards 2022. Doesn't mean it will happen then.

(09-14-2021 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  No. If you look at reporters and the message boards and coach comments, everyone is working towards 2022. Doesn't mean it will happen then.

Clearly, we have a different definition of "everyone." I watched the BYU and Houston press conferences and they both said their agreements were to join in 2023. Bowlsby said the same thing and said that, now, the details for a 2023 start were going to have to be worked out. All the reporters' articles accurately reported that 2023 was the start date for the new members and the message boards and coach comments reflected that accuracy. And, regarding Cincinnati and UCF, they all said that it would be July 2024 at the latest but that everyone was working for 2023.

UT and the SEC may be working towards 2022, but that's not "everyone." It may be that "everyone that matters to UT" is working towards 2022, but that's not "everyone" either. As I said, the price for 2022 just went up, but the price for 2023 probably went down. Does UT want to pay more or less?

(09-14-2021 06:38 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  No. If you look at reporters and the message boards and coach comments, everyone is working towards 2022. Doesn't mean it will happen then.

Clearly, we have a different definition of "everyone." I watched the BYU and Houston press conferences and they both said their agreements were to join in 2023. Bowlsby said the same thing and said that, now, the details for a 2023 start were going to have to be worked out. All the reporters' articles accurately reported that 2023 was the start date for the new members and the message boards and coach comments reflected that accuracy. And, regarding Cincinnati and UCF, they all said that it would be July 2024 at the latest but that everyone was working for 2023.

UT and the SEC may be working towards 2022, but that's not "everyone." It may be that "everyone that matters to UT" is working towards 2022, but that's not "everyone" either. As I said, the price for 2022 just went up, but the price for 2023 probably went down. Does UT want to pay more or less?

Well the Texas and OU press conferences said 2025. That didn't mean it was going to be 2025.

(09-14-2021 05:33 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sankey and the SEC aren't impacted whatsoever over a GOR ruling we signed our rights out to ESPN for the contract and the SEC still has no exit fee. The bolded part is merely absurd and so far the totality of you argument is in just contradicting mine.

Check out the GOR cases in the entertainment industry. Look up the exit fees paid by departing schools in the past. Then get back to me. I'll entertain specifics to the contrary.

I've already checked out GOR cases involving artists in the entertainment industry who have signed enforceable athletic conference bylaws. They don't exist. You should check out the "commercial activity" exception to sovereign immunity claims and check out whether Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and Oklahoma are just as sovereign as Texas. Those cases do exist. You should also read the Big 12 bylaws and determine for yourself when the "Interim Period" begins and who controls the revenues when that happens. Your arguments are neither meticulous nor scrupulous.

This is classic dissembling. You put words in the mouth of your counterpart and then argue against them. It's called creating a strawman. Why should paid entertainers sign any kind of athletic GOR??? Of course they don't exist. I checked out commercial activity 10 years ago.

And it's quite clear. The performer gets paid. The question is by whom? All of those cases are about equity (making parties to the disputed contract whole). They are not about and seldom include punitive measures. And if you had looked them up you would know this. Which is why I suggested you do so.

Big 12 bylaws are not law! The may or may not be binding, which is why I said not all clauses and addendums bear the weight of law.

Scrupulous means with integrity which your remarks lack by nature. You didn't engage the argument you created a new one out of thin air. You cite Big 12 bylaws. Those will be interpreted by the courts and measured by precedent.

You also didn't engage the exit fee because so far every school has departed for funds unpaid. Do you know why? Because they can't force collection against another state's school! State's tend to be particular when their taxpayers are dinged to support another state's school.

If the courts decide this matter along the lines I have stated you will be reminded. If they go as you think I'll rep you. But stick to the facts and look things up in earnest.

(09-14-2021 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 05:33 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sankey and the SEC aren't impacted whatsoever over a GOR ruling we signed our rights out to ESPN for the contract and the SEC still has no exit fee. The bolded part is merely absurd and so far the totality of you argument is in just contradicting mine.

Check out the GOR cases in the entertainment industry. Look up the exit fees paid by departing schools in the past. Then get back to me. I'll entertain specifics to the contrary.

I've already checked out GOR cases involving artists in the entertainment industry who have signed enforceable athletic conference bylaws. They don't exist. You should check out the "commercial activity" exception to sovereign immunity claims and check out whether Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and Oklahoma are just as sovereign as Texas. Those cases do exist. You should also read the Big 12 bylaws and determine for yourself when the "Interim Period" begins and who controls the revenues when that happens. Your arguments are neither meticulous nor scrupulous.

This is classic dissembling. You put words in the mouth of your counterpart and then argue against them. It's called creating a strawman. Why should paid entertainers sign any kind of athletic GOR??? Of course they don't exist. I checked out commercial activity 10 years ago.

And it's quite clear. The performer gets paid. The question is by whom? All of those cases are about equity (making parties to the disputed contract whole). They are not about and seldom include punitive measures. And if you had looked them up you would know this. Which is why I suggested you do so.

Big 12 bylaws are not law! The may or may not be binding, which is why I said not all clauses and addendums bear the weight of law.

Scrupulous means with integrity which your remarks lack by nature. You didn't engage the argument you created a new one out of thin air. You cite Big 12 bylaws. Those will be interpreted by the courts and measured by precedent.

You also didn't engage the exit fee because so far every school has departed for funds unpaid. Do you know why? Because they can't force collection against another state's school! State's tend to be particular when their taxpayers are dinged to support another state's school.

If the courts decide this matter along the lines I have stated you will be reminded. If they go as you think I'll rep you. But stick to the facts and look things up in earnest.

Maryland got sued by the ACC and it quickly settled for funds withheld, not the $52 million the ACC asked for.

(09-14-2021 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is classic dissembling. You put words in the mouth of your counterpart and then argue against them. It's called creating a strawman. Why should paid entertainers sign any kind of athletic GOR??? Of course they don't exist. I checked out commercial activity 10 years ago.

And it's quite clear. The performer gets paid. The question is by whom? All of those cases are about equity (making parties to the disputed contract whole). They are not about and seldom include punitive measures. And if you had looked them up you would know this. Which is why I suggested you do so.

Big 12 bylaws are not law! The may or may not be binding, which is why I said not all clauses and addendums bear the weight of law.

Scrupulous means with integrity which your remarks lack by nature. You didn't engage the argument you created a new one out of thin air. You cite Big 12 bylaws. Those will be interpreted by the courts and measured by precedent.

You also didn't engage the exit fee because so far every school has departed for funds unpaid. Do you know why? Because they can't force collection against another state's school! State's tend to be particular when their taxpayers are dinged to support another state's school.

If the courts decide this matter along the lines I have stated you will be reminded. If they go as you think I'll rep you. But stick to the facts and look things up in earnest.

The facts remain that no entertainer has ever signed a GOR while also signing an athletic conference set of bylaws. None. Not a one. That makes this situation unique and not analogous to any other example in the entertainment industry.

The argument that a sovereign immunity defense gives rise to the University of Texas (but not KU; ISU; Wva.; or OSU) being able to void its contractual agreements entered in the commercial realm is silly. You can blather on and on about it for weeks and weeks but it doesn't change its infantile character. If you had actually looked up the relevant cases 10 years ago, you would know this.

If you were a lawyer, you would know that contract lawyers make law each and every time they draft an agreement that is signed and has become binding. If you had a background in legal philosophy, you would understand that "law" consists of more than just statutes, regulations, rules and other administrative or legislative actions and more than court opinions and precedents, it also consists of contracts, agreements, customs and a lot more. Contractual provisions that are reasonable and involve a meeting of the minds ARE law and are enforceable in a rule of law system. I suggest you read up on this...

Scrupulous means not breaching 99-year commitments and breaking your word. Which is what UT did. I cited the Big 12 bylaws because those provisions are what governs this situation. Not sovereign immunity blather or irrelevant analogies to distinguishable situations in the entertainment industry.

The fact is that there is no "exit fee" provision in the bylaws - it is a "Buyout Amount" which is defined to mean revenue withholdings that can/will occur in the "Interim Period" which commenced in July when UT (and OU) loudly proclaimed that they weren't extending the GOR and had accepted an invitation to another conference. These will not be interpreted by a court unless and until UT files a lawsuit against sovereign entities to recover withheld amounts or attempts to breach the enforceable GOR.

This is likely to be settled because UT will not maintain silly arguments and wants to have an orderly transition as does Sankey. And both UT and OU will pay lots of money for the settlement.

(09-14-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  People have talked about analogies to other areas of intellectual property, like copyrights, but I don't know of any situations like that - e.g., Sony has a "GOR" from Marvel for the movie rights to the Spiderman character, and allegedly, it is very lopsided, Sony paid a then-desperate Marvel a relative pittance, and now they make big money off Spiderman movies. But still, IIRC, they have to pay Marvel for those rights. They can't just not pay them.

But IANAL, and as you say, courts will decide all of this in the end.

I wrote some stuff, googled to check, and Sony does pay Marvel 5% (before the Disney-Sony deals made to bring Spider-Man into the MCU). But there are deals where the Valuable Consideration is a lump sum paid initially and that's it--that's what I thought the Sony-Marvel deal from the 90s was.

But I don't think that applies here--the Valuable Consideration is that the Big 12 TV contract is arguably more lucrative than it would be without a GOR. That's pretty thin beer.

(09-14-2021 07:57 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  The facts remain that no entertainer has ever signed a GOR while also signing an athletic conference set of bylaws. None. Not a one. That makes this situation unique and not analogous to any other example in the entertainment industry.

The argument that a sovereign immunity defense gives rise to the University of Texas (but not KU; ISU; Wva.; or OSU) being able to void its contractual agreements entered in the commercial realm is silly. You can blather on and on about it for weeks and weeks but it doesn't change its infantile character. If you had actually looked up the relevant cases 10 years ago, you would know this.

That's true, but no one here is talking about sovereign immunity. Somebody said that that was Clay Travis' argument 10 years ago. Google "outkick grant of rights" and you get this article from 2013

Quote:If you were a lawyer, you would know that contract lawyers make law each and every time they draft an agreement that is signed and has become binding. If you had a background in legal philosophy, you would understand that "law" consists of more than just statutes, regulations, rules and other administrative or legislative actions and more than court opinions and precedents, it also consists of contracts, agreements, customs and a lot more. Contractual provisions that are reasonable and involve a meeting of the minds ARE law and are enforceable in a rule of law system. I suggest you read up on this...

The old Big East and John Marinatto say that's a load of bunk, or West Virginia would have played out their 27 month waiting period.

Quote:The fact is that there is no "exit fee" provision in the bylaws - it is a "Buyout Amount"

Not calling it an exit fee doesn't make it not an exit fee. And a court is going to have questions about how the exit fee is larger because Texas and Oklahoma gave more notice (four years vs two years).

Quote: These will not be interpreted by a court unless and until UT files a lawsuit against sovereign entities to recover withheld amounts or attempts to breach the enforceable GOR.

The Big 12 Conference is not a sovereign entity.

Quote:This is likely to be settled because UT will not maintain silly arguments and wants to have an orderly transition as does Sankey. And both UT and OU will pay lots of money for the settlement.

I expect it will be settled. What I expect the settlement to be is that Texas and Oklahoma stay in the Big 12 until 2025, and collect only half of their normal distributions for the last four years (in other words, spreading the two-years-revenue exit fee over four years).

(09-14-2021 08:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 07:57 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  The facts remain that no entertainer has ever signed a GOR while also signing an athletic conference set of bylaws. None. Not a one. That makes this situation unique and not analogous to any other example in the entertainment industry.

The argument that a sovereign immunity defense gives rise to the University of Texas (but not KU; ISU; Wva.; or OSU) being able to void its contractual agreements entered in the commercial realm is silly. You can blather on and on about it for weeks and weeks but it doesn't change its infantile character. If you had actually looked up the relevant cases 10 years ago, you would know this.

That's true, but no one here is talking about sovereign immunity. Somebody said that that was Clay Travis' argument 10 years ago. Google "outkick grant of rights" and you get this article from 2013

Quote:If you were a lawyer, you would know that contract lawyers make law each and every time they draft an agreement that is signed and has become binding. If you had a background in legal philosophy, you would understand that "law" consists of more than just statutes, regulations, rules and other administrative or legislative actions and more than court opinions and precedents, it also consists of contracts, agreements, customs and a lot more. Contractual provisions that are reasonable and involve a meeting of the minds ARE law and are enforceable in a rule of law system. I suggest you read up on this...

The old Big East and John Marinatto say that's a load of bunk, or West Virginia would have played out their 27 month waiting period.

Quote:The fact is that there is no "exit fee" provision in the bylaws - it is a "Buyout Amount"

Not calling it an exit fee doesn't make it not an exit fee. And a court is going to have questions about how the exit fee is larger because Texas and Oklahoma gave more notice (four years vs two years).

Quote: These will not be interpreted by a court unless and until UT files a lawsuit against sovereign entities to recover withheld amounts or attempts to breach the enforceable GOR.

The Big 12 Conference is not a sovereign entity.

Quote:This is likely to be settled because UT will not maintain silly arguments and wants to have an orderly transition as does Sankey. And both UT and OU will pay lots of money for the settlement.

I expect it will be settled. What I expect the settlement to be is that Texas and Oklahoma stay in the Big 12 until 2025, and collect only half of their normal distributions for the last four years (in other words, spreading the two-years-revenue exit fee over four years).

JR's been going on and on about sovereign immunity for weeks and repeated it multiple times upthread. He has backed off on his earlier claim that it was the Texas law's version of sovereign immunity and has now accepted the over-riding federal character of the issue due to intellectual property concerns, so I'll give him that. But he's only done that because he thinks there are analogies to the entertainment industry which there aren't.

Contracts are law and can be enforced as such if they are reasonable.

I'm going by what the bylaws say - and the relevant clause refers to a "Buyout Amount;" not an exit fee. You can call it what you want, but in law, the actual terms of the contract govern.

We agree that it will be settled. For a LOT of money. I think the price just went down for a 2023 departure; albeit not for a 2022 exit. We shall see.

(09-14-2021 07:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 04:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  People have talked about analogies to other areas of intellectual property, like copyrights, but I don't know of any situations like that - e.g., Sony has a "GOR" from Marvel for the movie rights to the Spiderman character, and allegedly, it is very lopsided, Sony paid a then-desperate Marvel a relative pittance, and now they make big money off Spiderman movies. But still, IIRC, they have to pay Marvel for those rights. They can't just not pay them.

But IANAL, and as you say, courts will decide all of this in the end.

I wrote some stuff, googled to check, and Sony does pay Marvel 5% (before the Disney-Sony deals made to bring Spider-Man into the MCU). But there are deals where the Valuable Consideration is a lump sum paid initially and that's it--that's what I thought the Sony-Marvel deal from the 90s was.

But I don't think that applies here--the Valuable Consideration is that the Big 12 TV contract is arguably more lucrative than it would be without a GOR. That's pretty thin beer.

I agree that's thin beer. And beyond that, it really is only an issue for the media company. That is, if the Big 12 really did get a bigger media deal thanks to the GOR, and then the GOR is broken, the Big 12 only suffers losses if the media company then tries to reduce the payments because there is no longer a GOR. So as long as the media companies (FOX and ESPN) don't try to reduce the payments - which IMO is very unlikely, heck we basically know ESPN wouldn't - there is no loss that I can think of to justify not paying TX and OU their share of the media revenue.

(09-14-2021 08:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not calling it an exit fee doesn't make it not an exit fee. And a court is going to have questions about how the exit fee is larger because Texas and Oklahoma gave more notice (four years vs two years).

Yeah, in terms of what a court will find "reasonable", that's a hard one for me to swallow too. It seems like in other business domains, more notice is better than less notice. Like I think it is standard that if you are going to quit your job, your employer wants more notice rather than less. Less notice means the party being left is caught more off-guard and thus has to scramble more to adjust. More notice allows for more planning and better adjustments.

IMO we even have evidence of that in this case - the extra notice has meant the L8 have been able to expand with new schools, and in such a way that the new schools have plenty of time to settle their own affairs with their existing conferences and media partners to allow for a very orderly move in to the L12, whereas if TX and OU had given notice in July 2023, it might be that those new invitees would not be able to join by the time TX and OU left in July 2025.

So I think a court is likely to cast a cold eye on an attempt to enforce a provision that calls for a larger buyout amount when more notice, not less, is given.

And heck, as I've said before, I'm not even sure it is clear that bylaws call for that. IMO it's fuzzy. Yes, they do say withholding begins once notice is given. But they also seem to contemplate a two-year period of withholding. IIRC, in the version of the bylaws I read, under the "Buyout Amount" section it says the BA is a sum equal to the final two years of distribution. So I think it likely when the bylaws were written it was kind of assumed that schools would give two years notice and so there would be two years withholding. But anyway, maybe we shall see.

(09-14-2021 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not calling it an exit fee doesn't make it not an exit fee. And a court is going to have questions about how the exit fee is larger because Texas and Oklahoma gave more notice (four years vs two years).

Yeah, in terms of what a court will find "reasonable", that's a hard one for me to swallow too. It seems like in other business domains, more notice is better than less notice. Like I think it is standard that if you are going to quit your job, your employer wants more notice rather than less. Less notice means the party being left is caught more off-guard and thus has to scramble more to adjust. More notice allows for more planning and better adjustments.

IMO we even have evidence of that in this case - the extra notice has meant the L8 have been able to expand with new schools, and in such a way that the new schools have plenty of time to settle their own affairs with their existing conferences and media partners to allow for a very orderly move in to the L12, whereas if TX and OU had given notice in July 2023, it might be that those new invitees would not be able to join by the time TX and OU left in July 2025.

So I think a court is likely to cast a cold eye on an attempt to enforce a provision that calls for a larger buyout amount when more notice, not less, is given.

And heck, as I've said before, I'm not even sure it is clear that bylaws call for that. IMO it's fuzzy. Yes, they do say withholding begins once notice is given. But they also seem to contemplate a two-year period of withholding. IIRC, in the version of the bylaws I read, under the "Buyout Amount" section it says the BA is a sum equal to the final two years of distribution. So I think it likely when the bylaws were written it was kind of assumed that schools would give two years notice and so there would be two years withholding. But anyway, maybe we shall see.

In other business domains, it varies. Sometimes, employers want more notice; sometimes less. In some situations, they want to stop paying an exorbitant contract immediately or they can't stand the employee and want them gone forthwith. In other situations, what you say is accurate.

In this situation, it is not clear that the invitees have plenty of time to settle their affairs. The AAC supposedly requires 27 months notice; that will not be available assuming a move by July 2023 and they will owe more money (in theory, because that is negotiable). And, because UT is inherently untrustworthy, "everyone" knows that they really want to leave ASAP; despite what they've said. The article in the OP more or less assumes this and asserts that "everyone" is working towards 2022. So, the *real* notice was less than a year.

Having said all this, I think we're looking at 2023 as a mutually negotiated exit date for all parties. With 2 years of withholdings (as you assert and as was anticipated) and a GOR component of an unknown amount and possibly including other inducements. A UT scheduling agreement with Tech; a negotiated extension of the Sugar Bowl tie-in; being made "whole" as to the existing TV arrangements; an OU scheduling agreement with OSU (although OSU has been balking at this); further games between SEC teams and other Big 12 schools; verbal assurances of a new deal(s) beyond 2025; basketball games; other bowl tie-ins between the 2 conferences; assurances of support for continuing A5 status; assurances of support for continuing inclusion in equal CFP monies are all possibilities. The Big 12 wants stability and continuing status - all are within the realm of ESPN, Fox, the SEC, UT and OU to at least partially deliver (or give non-legally-binding verbal assurances of such). If "everyone" is working towards this, then it could be done. That would be $80 million (each) plus a GOR component and other stuff (which may or may not be disclosed). I'm not convinced that "everyone" is working for this (and definitely not for 2022) as yet, but it may be where we're heading. And no courts would have to be involved.

Waiting for the NCAA to have the conference changing transfer portal for schools to prevent all this lame duck stuff.

(09-14-2021 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  5. If by the end of this year the B12 fails to pay OU and UT the contract is broken unless OU and UT have announced that they will be playing in the SEC in 2022. At that point the withheld revenue becomes an exit fee. And, the B12's claim upon the rights and revenue derived from it would be the court issue and if it was determined that state schools are not covered under Sovereign Immunity then they (B12) would receive that revenue until the end of June 2025 (while paying OU and UT a B12 share) and if OU and UT are covered under Sovereign Immunity then OU and UT owe nothing more to the Big 12, and state schools everywhere would be escaping their GOR's and private schools wouldn't.

Sovereign Immunity means that a state entity can't be sued in state courts. It doesn't mean they automatically win lawsuits. I don't think UT's or OU's Sovereign Immunity compels the Big 12 to keep mailing checks to Austin or Norman.

Sovereign immunity means that, if Texas leaves for the SEC in 2023 and gets a court ruling somehow freeing them from the Grant of Rights, the Big 12 can't sue UT.

Very likely UT and OU would be the ones going to court to do something about the Grant of Rights after an early exit from the Big 12.

"Very likely" is kind of an overstatement, I think the most likely outcomes are
1. Deadlock, UT and OU spend 4 years in the Big 12, riding out the Grant of Rights, with lawsuits mosey-ing their way through the courts as to whether the exit fee, ahem, Buyout Amount, is $80M or $160M
2. Negotiated settlement where OU and UT leave in 2023, Big 12 keeps the TV rights to the UT and OU home games through 2025, and money gets moved around so that OU and UT effectively pay around $80M. Maybe OU and UT agree to not challenge the GOR and take no TV money for 2024 and 2025, and in return they get their 2022 and 2023 Big 12 money.
3. Fight it out in court, with a number of possible outcomes.

(09-14-2021 10:05 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-14-2021 08:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not calling it an exit fee doesn't make it not an exit fee. And a court is going to have questions about how the exit fee is larger because Texas and Oklahoma gave more notice (four years vs two years).

And heck, as I've said before, I'm not even sure it is clear that bylaws call for that. IMO it's fuzzy. Yes, they do say withholding begins once notice is given. But they also seem to contemplate a two-year period of withholding. IIRC, in the version of the bylaws I read, under the "Buyout Amount" section it says the BA is a sum equal to the final two years of distribution. So I think it likely when the bylaws were written it was kind of assumed that schools would give two years notice and so there would be two years withholding. But anyway, maybe we shall see.

That is my reading as well, Quo. And that's how I expect a court to read it.
Which means, in real big-boy lawyer terms, that would be the starting point for negotiations on that point--it's the most likely outcome of lengthy litigation.

Quote:In this situation, it is not clear that the invitees have plenty of time to settle their affairs. The AAC supposedly requires 27 months notice; that will not be available assuming a move by July 2023 and they will owe more money (in theory, because that is negotiable).

Well, nobody leaving the Big East / AAC stayed more than 12-18 months, so the 27 month requirement is kind of a dead letter. If UCF/Houston/Cincinnati are leaving for the 2023-24 year, I think they could probably pay "list price" ($10M) and win the day in court.

Or maybe not, court is risky and the AAC contract is likely to take a haircut, so maybe the AAC could prove damages from leaving on July 1, 2023 vs July 1 2024.

Quote:And, because UT is inherently untrustworthy, "everyone" knows that they really want to leave ASAP; despite what they've said. The article in the OP more or less assumes this and asserts that "everyone" is working towards 2022. So, the *real* notice was less than a year.

That's dumb. No court is going to weight rumors in the press and anonymous sources over public declarations and certified letters to the parties involved. And the public announcements say 2025. They might negotiate for an earlier exit, but there is no evidence that UT is plotting to jailbreak the Big 12 bylaws for a 2022 exit. Your anti-UT paranoia doesn't count as evidence.

HEck, I went back and actually read Blaudschun's article the OP linked. It doesn't say anything about schools WILL move for 2022. He just thinks they should move, that lame duck years are bad and the money is only money. (It's not HIS money, of course)

Quote:Having said all this, I think we're looking at 2023 as a mutually negotiated exit date for all parties. With 2 years of withholdings (as you assert and as was anticipated) and a GOR component of an unknown amount and possibly including other inducements. A UT scheduling agreement with Tech; a negotiated extension of the Sugar Bowl tie-in; being made "whole" as to the existing TV arrangements; an OU scheduling agreement with OSU (although OSU has been balking at this); further games between SEC teams and other Big 12 schools; verbal assurances of a new deal(s) beyond 2025; basketball games; other bowl tie-ins between the 2 conferences; assurances of support for continuing A5 status; assurances of support for continuing inclusion in equal CFP monies are all possibilities. The Big 12 wants stability and continuing status - all are within the realm of ESPN, Fox, the SEC, UT and OU to at least partially deliver (or give non-legally-binding verbal assurances of such). If "everyone" is working towards this, then it could be done. That would be $80 million (each) plus a GOR component and other stuff (which may or may not be disclosed). I'm not convinced that "everyone" is working for this (and definitely not for 2022) as yet, but it may be where we're heading. And no courts would have to be involved.

If that means that the Big 12 holds on to OU and UT's TV rights for 2024-25, then your sketched out agreement is a lot worse for OU and UT than Plan B, which is "screw you, we're leaving, see you in court."

The most reasonable reading of the Big 12 bylaws is 2 years conference distributions. UT and OU aren't going to sign a negotiated agreement where they give up 4 years of distributions, counting their TV money. That's the worst possible outcome if they go to court and lose. Why would they agree to that voluntarily?