There seems to an inherent contradiction in these arguments.

A) We're so valuable that the B12 chose us and only us.
B) We're so worthless that the conference is no worse off without us so we should not have to pay to leave early.

So, now we're gonna argue that the exit fee as a whole is wrong. Good idea, with one flaw, you're still breaking a contract. And in this sometimes great country of ours you simply can't do that.

I mean, we have to pay AWFUL coaches a buyout just TO FIRE THEM!

It's like a divorce, someone has to pay alimony. If you want I guess you could argue that the conference should pay the schools an exit fee, but that would be.... hmm.

How about this the exiting schools new conference must pay a relocation fee, based on what they feel the new teams would bring to their new conference. (FWIW, hopefully this post sends this thread on a whole new and exciting trajectory.)

(05-21-2022 08:44 AM)Golden Jedi Knight Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 05:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 09:45 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 10:03 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  Again, that has nothing to do with this. Future contract revenues are irrelevant. That is covered after 27 months and the $10 million. We are arguing what above and beyond that $10 million covers "damages" by leaving in 22 months instead of 27. And the AAC would have a very had time making that case in court.

A full season early.

Sounds a lot different than the "5 months" spin, doesn't it?

I mean its a full football season, not a full athletic season. And the point remains. The AAC has already publicly come out and said the leftover 8 will not receive a cut in income through that time. So what "damage" are we causing by not playing the 2023 season?

IMO, the AAC should let the departing three leave at no cost, no exit fees at all. To me, they are conceptually unjustified, even though yes, we are entitled to something by the contractual terms.

I just don't see any basis for charging any of these schools, to me, as long as a school gives about nine months notice, time enough for a conference to adjust its upcoming athletic schedules (which they already have done) they should be free to go at no cost, save that the AAC should retain any future earnings that belong to the conference, like NCAA tournament credits earned while they were here.

To me, the slate between UCF/UH/Cincy and the AAC is already clean - the AAC provided them a platform to get better, and these schools helped the AAC by excelling and drawing TV ratings and making the NY6, bringing in more money to the conference. If anything, they contributed more to the AAC than they AAC did for them.

I don't think UCF, UH, and UC should leave for free. Maybe there's an argument that the exit fees should be lower. However, the American, in my opinion, deserves to get something back because they're taking a loss financially, at least in the short term. The three departing schools are going to see huge jumps in their revenue by going to a "Power 5" (I hate that label, by the way) conference. I'm a UCF fan, but . . . we need to pay the American a fair price for leaving ("fair" meaning whatever amount of money that all sides involved in the deal decide is the right amount).

I just don't agree with this. It's like If you are a good salesman at work, and you decide to take a better job with a new company. Should your old company be allowed to extract money from you as you leave, on the grounds that well, you were a good salesman so they will lose the income you used to earn once your leave? Or on the grounds that well, you will be earning a much higher salary at the new place so can afford to leave us a parting gift?

Not IMO.

im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

the absolutely serve no purpose anymore, and it is supposed to be a deterrent to jumping conference, it doesn't deter anything, but if it was like a 14month wait and 5 million...to me thats acceptable

a 3 year wait, and a 10mil baseline, is honestly just absurd, and a punishment for teams finding themselves in a better position.. the point of these rules is a determent to movement and giving the conference enough times to find a replacement ..it does neither... it does not take the aac 3 years to find a replacement, and we are only leaving for p5 invites, and big exit fees wont deter that...

and a combination of both things is that its just a way to extort leaving teams because everyone who leaves will want to leave earlier than 3 years and they forced a basseline starting point negotiation at 10 mill

what ironic about this whole thing is that the aac/c-usa6 asked c-usa for an extension on the exit notice for free...(shorten their notice time) but tried to charge the aac leaving teams 45mil each to leave 4months early on 27 month notice

(05-21-2022 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 08:44 AM)Golden Jedi Knight Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 05:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 09:45 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:04 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  A full season early.

Sounds a lot different than the "5 months" spin, doesn't it?

I mean its a full football season, not a full athletic season. And the point remains. The AAC has already publicly come out and said the leftover 8 will not receive a cut in income through that time. So what "damage" are we causing by not playing the 2023 season?

IMO, the AAC should let the departing three leave at no cost, no exit fees at all. To me, they are conceptually unjustified, even though yes, we are entitled to something by the contractual terms.

I just don't see any basis for charging any of these schools, to me, as long as a school gives about nine months notice, time enough for a conference to adjust its upcoming athletic schedules (which they already have done) they should be free to go at no cost, save that the AAC should retain any future earnings that belong to the conference, like NCAA tournament credits earned while they were here.

To me, the slate between UCF/UH/Cincy and the AAC is already clean - the AAC provided them a platform to get better, and these schools helped the AAC by excelling and drawing TV ratings and making the NY6, bringing in more money to the conference. If anything, they contributed more to the AAC than they AAC did for them.

I don't think UCF, UH, and UC should leave for free. Maybe there's an argument that the exit fees should be lower. However, the American, in my opinion, deserves to get something back because they're taking a loss financially, at least in the short term. The three departing schools are going to see huge jumps in their revenue by going to a "Power 5" (I hate that label, by the way) conference. I'm a UCF fan, but . . . we need to pay the American a fair price for leaving ("fair" meaning whatever amount of money that all sides involved in the deal decide is the right amount).

I just don't agree with this. It's like If you are a good salesman at work, and you decide to take a better job with a new company. Should your old company be allowed to extract money from you as you leave, on the grounds that well, you were a good salesman so they will lose the income you used to earn once your leave? Or on the grounds that well, you will be earning a much higher salary at the new place so can afford to leave us a parting gift?

Not IMO.

If your not violating a contract fine and dandy.

We have contractual non-compete agreements to protect ourselves once we invest resources, time, training, and benefits in our sales team.

Comparable to what the AAC has done for the Big 3. Since there is a contract the conference does deserve compensation if broken.

(05-21-2022 09:16 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  There seems to an inherent contradiction in these arguments.

A) We're so valuable that the B12 chose us and only us.
B) We're so worthless that the conference is no worse off without us so we should not have to pay to leave early.

Not saying we are worthless. We are saying our contractual obligation is for $10 million to cover the loss and then any extra to cover the "damages" of leaving before the 27 month notice. I just don't think the AAC has a leg to stand on to prove those damages that would incur in the 2023 season.

(05-21-2022 12:38 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:16 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  There seems to an inherent contradiction in these arguments.

A) We're so valuable that the B12 chose us and only us.
B) We're so worthless that the conference is no worse off without us so we should not have to pay to leave early.

Not saying we are worthless. We are saying our contractual obligation is for $10 million to cover the loss and then any extra to cover the "damages" of leaving before the 27 month notice. I just don't think the AAC has a leg to stand on to prove those damages that would incur in the 2023 season.

That's what Maryland said, but paid the ACC $32M.

(05-21-2022 02:17 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 12:38 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:16 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  There seems to an inherent contradiction in these arguments.

A) We're so valuable that the B12 chose us and only us.
B) We're so worthless that the conference is no worse off without us so we should not have to pay to leave early.

Not saying we are worthless. We are saying our contractual obligation is for $10 million to cover the loss and then any extra to cover the "damages" of leaving before the 27 month notice. I just don't think the AAC has a leg to stand on to prove those damages that would incur in the 2023 season.

That's what Maryland said, but paid the ACC $32M.

Everything is relative. That's a completely different conference with P5 finances that are exponentially more than the AAC.

(05-21-2022 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

Maybe your leadership should have thought about that before agreeing to the terms of conference affiliation and the Grants of Rights.

(05-21-2022 02:48 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

Maybe your leadership should have thought about that before agreeing to the terms of conference affiliation and the Grants of Rights.

2013 was a wild time...its easy to say this now. these exit fees and wait time made sense in the dissolution of the big east that had lost 85% of it member and rumored to lose more ... it stopped making sense after the aac stabilized ... but the rule was in place by then

(05-21-2022 02:31 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 02:17 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 12:38 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:16 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  There seems to an inherent contradiction in these arguments.

A) We're so valuable that the B12 chose us and only us.
B) We're so worthless that the conference is no worse off without us so we should not have to pay to leave early.

Not saying we are worthless. We are saying our contractual obligation is for $10 million to cover the loss and then any extra to cover the "damages" of leaving before the 27 month notice. I just don't think the AAC has a leg to stand on to prove those damages that would incur in the 2023 season.

That's what Maryland said, but paid the ACC $32M.

Everything is relative. That's a completely different conference with P5 finances that are exponentially more than the AAC.

Yes, it is relative. That's why Aresco says the Big 3 leaving are non comparable to UCONN. One horrible football program versus losing 3 good ones at one time. You and he have a very good point.

(05-21-2022 02:58 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 02:48 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

Maybe your leadership should have thought about that before agreeing to the terms of conference affiliation and the Grants of Rights.

2013 was a wild time...its easy to say this now. these exit fees and wait time made sense in the dissolution of the big east that had lost 85% of it member and rumored to lose more ... it stopped making sense after the aac stabilized ... but the rule was in place by then

I see this no different than buying a home on variable rate than a fixed rate. You do a fixed rate you're know what you're gonna pay over 15 or 30 yrs. Sign a loan with a variable rate and you don't know what your mortgage payments will be five years from now. But homeowners take that chance with variable rates because that 2.2% interest rate sounds real good right now but sucks when the rate hits 4.5% five years later.

(05-21-2022 02:48 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

Maybe your leadership should have thought about that before agreeing to the terms of conference affiliation and the Grants of Rights.

There is no Grant of Rights. If there was, we would be stuck like Oklahoma and Texas because those have yet to be challenged and broken.

I hope UC wires the 10m liquidated damages payment and tells Aresco to sue if he thinks the conference is owed more. Written discovery would be a hoot having the AAC state with specificity the additional compensatory damages they claimed to have suffered.

(05-21-2022 03:22 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 02:48 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:39 AM)pesik Wrote:  im fine with exit fees..and exit protocols
they just need to be reasonable

Maybe your leadership should have thought about that before agreeing to the terms of conference affiliation and the Grants of Rights.

There is no Grant of Rights. If there was, we would be stuck like Oklahoma and Texas because those have yet to be challenged and broken.

Gotcha!

Who cares what happens? It's not like any of the money goes into our bank accounts. LOL.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(05-21-2022 05:37 PM)b2b Wrote:  Who cares what happens? It's not like any of the money goes into our bank accounts. LOL.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

lets not act like any of our programs are rich.... even the richest aac is poor in the large scheme of things

we are talking money that is the difference between major facility upgrades

dooley was in interview saying he had to pay for basketball equipment out of his own mony... Schwartz just a a week ago said ecu basketball lacked some fundamental things that he hopes are upgraded (there isnt a basketball film room in ecu)..every thing ecu lacks on a fundamental basis is likely less than just 3million , to go above an beyond and become a bball program with elite facilities than out draws p5, that is likely 20-30 mil...
now imagine the aac asking for 45million to leave 4 months earlier than expected..

its easy to say you dont care if you dont care about the well being of your program

I am just going to assume after ECU runs the table this year every league will be beating down our door .

Odd timing for UCF to announce they are moving forward with $125M football campus upgrades.

Right in the middle of the exit fee negotiation.

I don't really think the exit fee matters anymore. UCF can afford whatever price ends up being.

AAC still at an impasse

Quote: Is there an overlap between the three AAC teams joining the Big 12 and Texas and Oklahoma leaving for the SEC? Could we really see Cincinnati at Oklahoma or Texas at UCF as league games in two seasons? — Barry F.

We very well could. The AAC is still at an impasse with Cincinnati/Houston/UCF regarding an exit fee for 2023, commissioner Mike Aresco told me recently. Most people around the situation expected it to be resolved weeks ago. At this point, I still expect them to be in the Big 12 in 2023. As for Texas/Oklahoma, it is a massive cost to get out early, and the Big 12 is going to hold on as long as it can. There is a real chance that we could see Texas travel to Houston for a conference game once again, or Oklahoma travel to UCF, and I would love to see that

https://theathletic.com/3341788/2022/05/...-of-5-mac/