(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?