(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 11:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:43 AM)otown Wrote:  So is this PAC contract that you can see gonna be more than $80 million per team compared to the Big 12?

You think Big12 is getting 80 million? I think both are about the same, maybe with UO and UW the PAC gets slightly more. So the question is why would anyone go thru exit and entry fees to join either? So more likely I see the PAC staying put and adding schools like SDSU and SMU

That is exactly my point. You stated that you can see ESPN offering the PAC a contract and even pull from the Big 12. Hence why I asked if the contract per member would make those Big 12 teams that jump and extra $80 million to offset their exit fee. Clearly it wont, so this nonsense of Big 12 teams going to either the PAC or even the ACC (with their current contract) is ridiculous. But here we are, time and time again, seeing people throw this on the wall. Its not just you, lots of posters are doing it and it makes zero sense, let alone there are zero sources linking Big 12 teams to jumping to the PAC.

B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 11:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  You think Big12 is getting 80 million? I think both are about the same, maybe with UO and UW the PAC gets slightly more. So the question is why would anyone go thru exit and entry fees to join either? So more likely I see the PAC staying put and adding schools like SDSU and SMU

That is exactly my point. You stated that you can see ESPN offering the PAC a contract and even pull from the Big 12. Hence why I asked if the contract per member would make those Big 12 teams that jump and extra $80 million to offset their exit fee. Clearly it wont, so this nonsense of Big 12 teams going to either the PAC or even the ACC (with their current contract) is ridiculous. But here we are, time and time again, seeing people throw this on the wall. Its not just you, lots of posters are doing it and it makes zero sense, let alone there are zero sources linking Big 12 teams to jumping to the PAC.

B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

Two separate entities. The exit fee is the exit fee as stibulated by the B12 conference. GOR is leaving early mid media contract and has its own repercussions

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 11:22 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  You think Big12 is getting 80 million? I think both are about the same, maybe with UO and UW the PAC gets slightly more. So the question is why would anyone go thru exit and entry fees to join either? So more likely I see the PAC staying put and adding schools like SDSU and SMU

That is exactly my point. You stated that you can see ESPN offering the PAC a contract and even pull from the Big 12. Hence why I asked if the contract per member would make those Big 12 teams that jump and extra $80 million to offset their exit fee. Clearly it wont, so this nonsense of Big 12 teams going to either the PAC or even the ACC (with their current contract) is ridiculous. But here we are, time and time again, seeing people throw this on the wall. Its not just you, lots of posters are doing it and it makes zero sense, let alone there are zero sources linking Big 12 teams to jumping to the PAC.

B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

the GOR is an agreement between the conference and conference members it has nothing to do with the media partners

it grants the media rights of each conference member to the conference for a specific period of time

the conference then sells those rights to the media partners

the GOR does not provide any compensation in terms of money for those rights.....some people say this is a way to attack the GOR because a contract needs to provide "consideration" for something given (media rights), but others can argue that the stability of being in a conference (and the schedule of annual games ect) is a "consideration" or the actual airing of the games is a "consideration" because a "consideration" does not have to be monetary

in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) there are then also contracts for conference membership (the one for the Big 12 signed in Sept of 2012 and that runs for 99 years

that spells out voting rights, member behaviors and expectations, compensation for being a member, how one can exit the conference, exit fees for doing so

but in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) the contract makes clear that even if a member leaves they are still subject to the GOR until it ends and their media rights are still the property of the conference, but they will no longer be getting conference distributions

which goes back to the "consideration" aspect of things....but of course in the separate GOR there can be a million ways to look at what "considerations" come from that GOR other than simply finances

the only real contract between a conference and media partners would be a third (or more for multiple media partners or perhaps different tiers of media rights) that would be between the conference and their media partners and most likely includes the members as signatories as well

so in the case of the Big 12 you are free to exit the conference any time you like and pay the exit fees, but your media rights stay with the conference unless you want to go to court and explain why you should be allowed to break a contract you willingly signed, you will be damaged for not taking your media rights with you, but your conference will NOT be damaged by any amount much less an amount equal or greater than the damages you are trying to claim for YOU breaking a contract

not really the strongest legal position to hold

(07-06-2022 01:35 PM)otown Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  That is exactly my point. You stated that you can see ESPN offering the PAC a contract and even pull from the Big 12. Hence why I asked if the contract per member would make those Big 12 teams that jump and extra $80 million to offset their exit fee. Clearly it wont, so this nonsense of Big 12 teams going to either the PAC or even the ACC (with their current contract) is ridiculous. But here we are, time and time again, seeing people throw this on the wall. Its not just you, lots of posters are doing it and it makes zero sense, let alone there are zero sources linking Big 12 teams to jumping to the PAC.

B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

Two separate entities. The exit fee is the exit fee as stibulated by the B12 conference. GOR is leaving early mid media contract and has its own repercussions

Thanks, now I understand. I thought they were one in the same for some reason.

(07-06-2022 01:44 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  That is exactly my point. You stated that you can see ESPN offering the PAC a contract and even pull from the Big 12. Hence why I asked if the contract per member would make those Big 12 teams that jump and extra $80 million to offset their exit fee. Clearly it wont, so this nonsense of Big 12 teams going to either the PAC or even the ACC (with their current contract) is ridiculous. But here we are, time and time again, seeing people throw this on the wall. Its not just you, lots of posters are doing it and it makes zero sense, let alone there are zero sources linking Big 12 teams to jumping to the PAC.

B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

the GOR is an agreement between the conference and conference members it has nothing to do with the media partners

it grants the media rights of each conference member to the conference for a specific period of time

the conference then sells those rights to the media partners

the GOR does not provide any compensation in terms of money for those rights.....some people say this is a way to attack the GOR because a contract needs to provide "consideration" for something given (media rights), but others can argue that the stability of being in a conference (and the schedule of annual games ect) is a "consideration" or the actual airing of the games is a "consideration" because a "consideration" does not have to be monetary

in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) there are then also contracts for conference membership (the one for the Big 12 signed in Sept of 2012 and that runs for 99 years

that spells out voting rights, member behaviors and expectations, compensation for being a member, how one can exit the conference, exit fees for doing so

but in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) the contract makes clear that even if a member leaves they are still subject to the GOR until it ends and their media rights are still the property of the conference, but they will no longer be getting conference distributions

which goes back to the "consideration" aspect of things....but of course in the separate GOR there can be a million ways to look at what "considerations" come from that GOR other than simply finances

the only real contract between a conference and media partners would be a third (or more for multiple media partners or perhaps different tiers of media rights) that would be between the conference and their media partners and most likely includes the members as signatories as well

so in the case of the Big 12 you are free to exit the conference any time you like and pay the exit fees, but your media rights stay with the conference unless you want to go to court and explain why you should be allowed to break a contract you willingly signed, you will be damaged for not taking your media rights with you, but your conference will NOT be damaged by any amount much less an amount equal or greater than the damages you are trying to claim for YOU breaking a contract

not really the strongest legal position to hold

That's what I was talking about when I made the indentured servant comment. It has to be a two-sided contract.

For example I had 3 consectutive contracts of 3 years each in the 90's. I couldn't leave for a competitor under contract without sitting out for one year. If a company hired me they would be held liable to the company I left in a court of law.

On the flip side, if the company I was under contract with fired me, they would have to pay me out for for the remainder of my contract. For example; if they let me go after one year, the company would have to pay me two years salary. A two sided contract. Both parties were protected.

The AAC GOR looks one sided to me. I don't see having the privilege of being in a conference as consideration. Seems very weak. What would happen if the conference wanted to kick out a member without cause? How is the member protected? Not a rhetorical question.

(07-06-2022 02:15 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:44 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:12 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  B12 teams that would want to go to the Pac could just wait it out like Texas and Oklahoma are doing. Couldn't they?

there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

the GOR is an agreement between the conference and conference members it has nothing to do with the media partners

it grants the media rights of each conference member to the conference for a specific period of time

the conference then sells those rights to the media partners

the GOR does not provide any compensation in terms of money for those rights.....some people say this is a way to attack the GOR because a contract needs to provide "consideration" for something given (media rights), but others can argue that the stability of being in a conference (and the schedule of annual games ect) is a "consideration" or the actual airing of the games is a "consideration" because a "consideration" does not have to be monetary

in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) there are then also contracts for conference membership (the one for the Big 12 signed in Sept of 2012 and that runs for 99 years

that spells out voting rights, member behaviors and expectations, compensation for being a member, how one can exit the conference, exit fees for doing so

but in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) the contract makes clear that even if a member leaves they are still subject to the GOR until it ends and their media rights are still the property of the conference, but they will no longer be getting conference distributions

which goes back to the "consideration" aspect of things....but of course in the separate GOR there can be a million ways to look at what "considerations" come from that GOR other than simply finances

the only real contract between a conference and media partners would be a third (or more for multiple media partners or perhaps different tiers of media rights) that would be between the conference and their media partners and most likely includes the members as signatories as well

so in the case of the Big 12 you are free to exit the conference any time you like and pay the exit fees, but your media rights stay with the conference unless you want to go to court and explain why you should be allowed to break a contract you willingly signed, you will be damaged for not taking your media rights with you, but your conference will NOT be damaged by any amount much less an amount equal or greater than the damages you are trying to claim for YOU breaking a contract

not really the strongest legal position to hold

That's what I was talking about when I made the indentured servant comment. It has to be a two-sided contract.

For example I had 3 consectutive contracts of 3 years each in the 90's. I couldn't leave for a competitor under contract without sitting out for one year. If a company hired me they would be held liable to the company I left in a court of law.

On the flip side, if the company I was under contract with fired me, they would have to pay me out for for the remainder of my contract. For example; if they let me go after one year, the company would have to pay me two years salary. A two sided contract. Both parties were protected.

The AAC GOR looks one sided to me. I don't see having the privilege of being in a conference as consideration. Seems very weak. What would happen if the conference wanted to kick out a member without cause? How is the member protected? Not a rhetorical question.

A equal share of the conference proceeds along with ownership in the ACC Network is the consideration. Evveryone understands that by giving media companies a guarantee that the same group of teams will provide content for the entire length of the deal----the media payout is larger. I dont think it could be challenged on the basis of consideration. On the other hand, duress might very well be a valid way to attack the agreement. I think you can at least make a cogent argument that some degree of duress is present when it comes to signing these GOR's in a period of realignment. Unfortunately, that argument becomes weaker when you consider that the group renewed and extended the GOR later during a period when realignment was not an immediate threat.

It's such a novel legal angle that it borders on evil genius.

As contract claims go, this would lend itself to being very granular, complex litigation. I just don't think anyone wants to be the first to test how thick the ice on the pond is.

(07-06-2022 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:15 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:44 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

the GOR is an agreement between the conference and conference members it has nothing to do with the media partners

it grants the media rights of each conference member to the conference for a specific period of time

the conference then sells those rights to the media partners

the GOR does not provide any compensation in terms of money for those rights.....some people say this is a way to attack the GOR because a contract needs to provide "consideration" for something given (media rights), but others can argue that the stability of being in a conference (and the schedule of annual games ect) is a "consideration" or the actual airing of the games is a "consideration" because a "consideration" does not have to be monetary

in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) there are then also contracts for conference membership (the one for the Big 12 signed in Sept of 2012 and that runs for 99 years

that spells out voting rights, member behaviors and expectations, compensation for being a member, how one can exit the conference, exit fees for doing so

but in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) the contract makes clear that even if a member leaves they are still subject to the GOR until it ends and their media rights are still the property of the conference, but they will no longer be getting conference distributions

which goes back to the "consideration" aspect of things....but of course in the separate GOR there can be a million ways to look at what "considerations" come from that GOR other than simply finances

the only real contract between a conference and media partners would be a third (or more for multiple media partners or perhaps different tiers of media rights) that would be between the conference and their media partners and most likely includes the members as signatories as well

so in the case of the Big 12 you are free to exit the conference any time you like and pay the exit fees, but your media rights stay with the conference unless you want to go to court and explain why you should be allowed to break a contract you willingly signed, you will be damaged for not taking your media rights with you, but your conference will NOT be damaged by any amount much less an amount equal or greater than the damages you are trying to claim for YOU breaking a contract

not really the strongest legal position to hold

That's what I was talking about when I made the indentured servant comment. It has to be a two-sided contract.

For example I had 3 consectutive contracts of 3 years each in the 90's. I couldn't leave for a competitor under contract without sitting out for one year. If a company hired me they would be held liable to the company I left in a court of law.

On the flip side, if the company I was under contract with fired me, they would have to pay me out for for the remainder of my contract. For example; if they let me go after one year, the company would have to pay me two years salary. A two sided contract. Both parties were protected.

The AAC GOR looks one sided to me. I don't see having the privilege of being in a conference as consideration. Seems very weak. What would happen if the conference wanted to kick out a member without cause? How is the member protected? Not a rhetorical question.

A equal share of the conference proceeds along with ownership in the ACC Network is the consideration. Evveryone understands that by giving media companies a guarantee that the same group of teams will provide content for the entire length of the deal----the media payout is larger. I dont think it could be challenged on the basis of consideration. On the other hand, duress might very well be a valid way to attack the agreement. I think you can at least make a cogent argument that some degree of duress is present when it comes to signing these GOR's in a period of realignment. Unfortunately, that argument becomes weaker when you consider that the group renewed and extended the GOR later during a period when realignment was not an immediate threat.

Good point. Teams may feel they have no other choice but to sign. I still feel like the term "consideration" is much too broad a term. Compensation (If I remember correctly) was used in my example. Which is specific to a payout.

(07-05-2022 02:02 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Nothing is happening for 30 days.

The PAC just submitted for media rights deals. Required to be done in 30 days.

Nobody in the PAC is moving until they hear what the deal would be staying in the PAC.

I think all of the PAC 10 members know the media rights deal will be worst than the one they have now. They are all negotiating behind the scenes because Oregon and Washington will be gone sooner rather than later imo. The Big12 is in a better position to poach and survive as a power conference than the PAC. But who knows...it a crazy time in college football.

(07-06-2022 02:52 PM)knightmite Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:02 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Nothing is happening for 30 days.

The PAC just submitted for media rights deals. Required to be done in 30 days.

Nobody in the PAC is moving until they hear what the deal would be staying in the PAC.

I think all of the PAC 10 members know the media rights deal will be worst than the one they have now. They are all negotiating behind the scenes because Oregon and Washington will be gone sooner rather than later imo. The Big12 is in a better position to poach and survive as a power conference than the PAC. But who knows...it a crazy time in college football.

I think that Oregon and Washington would love to go to the B1G but I don’t think they will be getting an invite any time soon. It will make sense for them to wait and see what kind of media deal the PAC can land and what adds could improve that figure (if any realistic additions can). If the media deal offered isn’t close to the Big XII’s then jump ship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(07-06-2022 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:15 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:44 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 01:16 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no "waiting it out" in exit fees and that includes for Texas and OU

the Big 12 GOR does not have exit fees and none of the similar GORs for the ACC or PAC 12 have them......this is done for a reason

The totally and completely separate Contract For Conference Membership that ends 99 years from Sept. 2012 for the Big 12 has an exit of an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions

it makes clear those exit fees apply without a separate GOR in place

Texas and OU are waiting out the Big 12 GOR not any elimination of exit fees because the contract with the exit fees goes on another 89 years

So the grant of rights is tied to the networks? This is so confusing.

the GOR is an agreement between the conference and conference members it has nothing to do with the media partners

it grants the media rights of each conference member to the conference for a specific period of time

the conference then sells those rights to the media partners

the GOR does not provide any compensation in terms of money for those rights.....some people say this is a way to attack the GOR because a contract needs to provide "consideration" for something given (media rights), but others can argue that the stability of being in a conference (and the schedule of annual games ect) is a "consideration" or the actual airing of the games is a "consideration" because a "consideration" does not have to be monetary

in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) there are then also contracts for conference membership (the one for the Big 12 signed in Sept of 2012 and that runs for 99 years

that spells out voting rights, member behaviors and expectations, compensation for being a member, how one can exit the conference, exit fees for doing so

but in the case of the Big 12 (and ACC) the contract makes clear that even if a member leaves they are still subject to the GOR until it ends and their media rights are still the property of the conference, but they will no longer be getting conference distributions

which goes back to the "consideration" aspect of things....but of course in the separate GOR there can be a million ways to look at what "considerations" come from that GOR other than simply finances

the only real contract between a conference and media partners would be a third (or more for multiple media partners or perhaps different tiers of media rights) that would be between the conference and their media partners and most likely includes the members as signatories as well

so in the case of the Big 12 you are free to exit the conference any time you like and pay the exit fees, but your media rights stay with the conference unless you want to go to court and explain why you should be allowed to break a contract you willingly signed, you will be damaged for not taking your media rights with you, but your conference will NOT be damaged by any amount much less an amount equal or greater than the damages you are trying to claim for YOU breaking a contract

not really the strongest legal position to hold

That's what I was talking about when I made the indentured servant comment. It has to be a two-sided contract.

For example I had 3 consectutive contracts of 3 years each in the 90's. I couldn't leave for a competitor under contract without sitting out for one year. If a company hired me they would be held liable to the company I left in a court of law.

On the flip side, if the company I was under contract with fired me, they would have to pay me out for for the remainder of my contract. For example; if they let me go after one year, the company would have to pay me two years salary. A two sided contract. Both parties were protected.

The AAC GOR looks one sided to me. I don't see having the privilege of being in a conference as consideration. Seems very weak. What would happen if the conference wanted to kick out a member without cause? How is the member protected? Not a rhetorical question.

A equal share of the conference proceeds along with ownership in the ACC Network is the consideration. Evveryone understands that by giving media companies a guarantee that the same group of teams will provide content for the entire length of the deal----the media payout is larger. I dont think it could be challenged on the basis of consideration. On the other hand, duress might very well be a valid way to attack the agreement. I think you can at least make a cogent argument that some degree of duress is present when it comes to signing these GOR's in a period of realignment. Unfortunately, that argument becomes weaker when you consider that the group renewed and extended the GOR later during a period when realignment was not an immediate threat.

the bold part above is not in the GOR....that is why the whole argument of "consideration" comes up

the ownership of any conference assets and a share of conference revenues is in the membership contract not in the GOR

as to the protections for a member to be removed that is also provided in conference contracts at least in the case of the Big 12.....so there are protections there

the popular refrain on this forum for a number of years was that Texas (and maybe OU) just went off to their playpen and had the GOR written up and then just told everyone in the Big 12 "here it is lets all sign it and we are locked in" while laughing at all the loopholes and easy escapes they had left for themselves......of course as time has gone on that has proven to be the thoughts of dunces

the reality is between internal and external legal counsel for the Big 12, for the conference members, some members law schools (though many law schools professors are not practicing and universities never rely on their own law school for actual contracts ect, but you know many still looked the GOR over and had comments), the counsel of major donors, former law school grads of those schools that are high powered practicing attorneys (the Big 12 schools each have many) there were probably 100 plus legal opinions given on the GOR and I would be quite certain that many discussions were had on "consideration" or any other way to break it and so far between the Big 12 for 11 years and the ACC for 10 years or so no one has been willing to take it to court to see

that does not mean one could not go to court tomorrow and get bounced out the next week, but so far no one seems to want to try it......probably because it is not as near as anyone wants to think it would be