|
Post by rick7g on Jan 7, 2013 23:31:54 GMT -8
You make a lot of bold statements and assumptions. 1). How do you know that the mwc knows how much the BSU home games would sell for? Situations change with time and with them so does the $ value of a contract. The B.E. knew that they would get over $160 mill per season for their tv rights so they rejected ESPN's offer, how did that work out? Besides, your asking us to believe that the brain trust that signed the current below market contract knows what they are doing? If they knew what they were doing They bonus provision would have contained a percentage of the net tv payout and not specific dollar figures. This would have ensured that the conference would not lose $. If you think the MWC didn't check with the networks as to how much they could expect for the BSU package, then there is not much more to discuss with you. From the lead sports writer of the Idaho Statesman "Non-conference road games and bowl games would likely not qualify for the bonus since the Mountain West doesn't control the TV rights. Same thing with neutral site games, such as Virginia Tech (2010) and Georgia (2011). Boise State said last week the bonus covers all games (home and road, conference and nonconference). The Mountain West said it covers only games for which the conference owns the television rights, meaning Boise State nonconference games at Washington and at BYU in 2013 would not be eligible for the bonus. “We have agreed to what that is,” Thompson said, while declining to disclose what the agreement is. He said the entire membership would discuss it at meetings in March and June. “We are in no rush to say definitively. We are in agreement and in sync.” I will bet that BSU does not get paid bonuses for those road games.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuballer on Jan 7, 2013 23:39:34 GMT -8
Any word yet?
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Jan 7, 2013 23:48:08 GMT -8
1). The "brain trust" would be foolish not to have checked and much like the old B.E., they may think the know what they would get, but without a signed contract locking in the $ values the values can change up or down in the future. Can you show a signed contract for BSU home games? Of course not, so don't assume that the tv contacts will cover the expense of the bonus. Again, if it is a sure thing, explain why BYU is expressing concern about the MWC using NCAA credits to pay the bonus?
2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Jan 8, 2013 0:31:50 GMT -8
Look at Boise's home schedule for next year: There's not a whole lot there that would be all that desireable. At best they'll maybe get one national TV game (Nevada maybe), and maybe ESPNU will pick up a couple, and that doesn't qualify for the bonus. The SDSU game will be here in SD. They play CSU Fresno in Fresno. Their OOC slate has games @washington and @byu. I don't think Southern Miss will be a huge draw, unless they put it on a Wed. or Thurs. night. In 2014, thus far they only have BYU at home. Kill the UT St. game since it'll be a conference game now anyway. And then Washington at home in 2015. They may see a big payday in 2014, but not next year and not in 2015 given where they play their conference games those years. more naivete Boise could stonewall and say we're playing on ESPN or we're not turning our key of the dual keys that allow the contract to go forward. They could even take less than the bonuses payout to achieve that. Just wait until they announce that boise games are being sold for the next 8 years, which will be coming. It must really suck to be afraid of your own shadow.....
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 8, 2013 3:53:59 GMT -8
more naivete Boise could stonewall and say we're playing on ESPN or we're not turning our key of the dual keys that allow the contract to go forward. They could even take less than the bonuses payout to achieve that. Just wait until they announce that boise games are being sold for the next 8 years, which will be coming. It must really suck to be afraid of your own shadow..... So you're trusting of comments like "we'll work that out later" "we'll talk about that at our meetings in March and June" and somehow trust that CBS won't exercise an exclusive option for a three year extension they just negotiated? Really? That isn't being afraid of ones shadow, that is the vast majority of folks here expecting out AD and president to do their full due diligence rather than rely on some major "trust us" comments from the worst league front office and their business partner. CBS will solely act in their own best interest. Solely. If they determine the pain of exercising the extension is worth it from a business stand point, they'll do so and the league is shackled with an albatross of a TV deal that limits growth and fosters an imbalance to Boise's favor until 2020. Afraid of shadows, right.... Afraid of Thompson's incompetence and CBSs business advantage because of it? Yes. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Jan 8, 2013 7:54:32 GMT -8
There will be 17 thread about it when the decision finally comes out. ..Sent from my GS3..
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 8, 2013 7:56:25 GMT -8
1). The "brain trust" would be foolish not to have checked and much like the old B.E., they may think the know what they would get, but without a signed contract locking in the $ values the values can change up or down in the future. Can you show a signed contract for BSU home games? Of course not, so don't assume that the tv contacts will cover the expense of the bonus. Again, if it is a sure thing, explain why BYU is expressing concern about the MWC using NCAA credits to pay the bonus? 2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss? For the MWC to keep offering to dish out bonuses as bribes to get new members, WHERE are they going to get the money to do that? They've already committed their soul to Boise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 8:00:52 GMT -8
Sorry I missed it. Gotta stop having any semblance of a working life and just be 24/7 on these boards until this chit's finalized, I guess. Make that quasi-finalized. Until SDSU either gets into the Pac or drops football, it will never be over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 8:06:20 GMT -8
Without controlling "The Mtn", just where is MWC planning on getting this buttload of money it's pretending to spread around? Did they get a piece of the trillion dollar coin? This is the MWC for fscks sake! Financially,what's changed? IIRC, Jan. 11 is the supposed date by which Houston can rescind its acceptance of the BE's offer of membership without having to pay a financial penalty. But I agree Houston isn't coming to the MWC. One, the MWC can only self-ream to one member and that's Boise's. (Double entendre intended.) You can bet YOUR butt that SDSU has already asked for special treatment like that and the fact we haven't said we're returning speaks volumes about how receptive Hairball has been. Then there's the fact SMU is going to the BE no matter what. As I keep saying, is Houston really going to send its Oly sports 1,000+ miles to all MWC games? Really? As least once Jan. 12 rolls around if we hear nada from Houston, we'll know for sure all the talk about them joining the MWC was nothing more than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 8:13:28 GMT -8
CBS will solely act in their own best interest. Solely. To me, therein lies the WORST part of staying in the MWC. CBS has bled the MWC dry for 7.5 years now while doing next to nothing to grow the conference's brand. Folks may hate ESPN and for good reason but ESPN does the opposite. It busts its rear to publicize its partners' activities.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 8, 2013 10:51:37 GMT -8
more naivete Boise could stonewall and say we're playing on ESPN or we're not turning our key of the dual keys that allow the contract to go forward. They could even take less than the bonuses payout to achieve that. Just wait until they announce that boise games are being sold for the next 8 years, which will be coming. It must really suck to be afraid of your own shadow..... more great analysis from you
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 8, 2013 10:54:13 GMT -8
It must really suck to be afraid of your own shadow..... So you're trusting of comments like "we'll work that out later" "we'll talk about that at our meetings in March and June" and somehow trust that CBS won't exercise an exclusive option for a three year extension they just negotiated? Really? That isn't being afraid of ones shadow, that is the vast majority of folks here expecting out AD and president to do their full due diligence rather than rely on some major "trust us" comments from the worst league front office and their business partner. CBS will solely act in their own best interest. Solely. If they determine the pain of exercising the extension is worth it from a business stand point, they'll do so and the league is shackled with an albatross of a TV deal that limits growth and fosters an imbalance to Boise's favor until 2020. Afraid of shadows, right.... Afraid of Thompson's incompetence and CBSs business advantage because of it? Yes. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Anyone that sees this boondoggle for what it is is scared of their shadow. We should just blithely skip through the meadow and lack any understanding of the real world, contracts, and business.
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on Jan 8, 2013 10:57:08 GMT -8
So you're trusting of comments like "we'll work that out later" "we'll talk about that at our meetings in March and June" and somehow trust that CBS won't exercise an exclusive option for a three year extension they just negotiated? Really? That isn't being afraid of ones shadow, that is the vast majority of folks here expecting out AD and president to do their full due diligence rather than rely on some major "trust us" comments from the worst league front office and their business partner. CBS will solely act in their own best interest. Solely. If they determine the pain of exercising the extension is worth it from a business stand point, they'll do so and the league is shackled with an albatross of a TV deal that limits growth and fosters an imbalance to Boise's favor until 2020. Afraid of shadows, right.... Afraid of Thompson's incompetence and CBSs business advantage because of it? Yes. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Anyone that sees this boondoggle for what it is is scared of their shadow. We should just blithely skip through the meadow and lack any understanding of the real world, contracts, and business. Yes the MGC can promise money that it currently does not have on the books. Its a great deal as long as we can take roadies to WY. Oh wait no travels for BB games, especially in conference.
|
|
|
Post by rick7g on Jan 8, 2013 10:58:55 GMT -8
2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss?
"Nothing ?, that is not the way I read it. Also, must look at it in context, obviously intent was dealing with bonus payments out of proceeds MWC receives. If that is not the case, all of the teams in the MWC will try to set up more "fodder" games with the big schools to get their guarantee payment from the big school and then also get the bonus payment from the MWC. Doesn't make sense to interpret provision that way.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 8, 2013 11:05:31 GMT -8
There is no context of money the MWC receives. It says regular season game. Why doesn't it say conference game, or mwc controlled game? The context in fact says the opposite: any game played nationally during the regular season.
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Jan 8, 2013 11:32:21 GMT -8
2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss?
"Nothing ?, that is not the way I read it. Also, must look at it in context, obviously intent was dealing with bonus payments out of proceeds MWC receives. If that is not the case, all of the teams in the MWC will try to set up more "fodder" games with the big schools to get their guarantee payment from the big school and then also get the bonus payment from the MWC. Doesn't make sense to interpret provision that way.
Really? I thought that you read the actual language in a legal document and not try to infer what the parties meant? The language in the terms of agreement is shoddy at best and each parties duties and obligations should have been spelled out. The plain langauge states clearly that any MWC member playing in a nationally televised game on NBC, CBS or ESPN. That is pretty plain and simple. As I stated previously, the language in the terms of agreement should have included language stating it must be a MWC controlled game. Additionally, they should have never obligated themselves to pay $500k to each member game that fullfills the bonus structure requirements. Should have been a % of the net up to $500k. This would ensure we don't take a loss.
The problem with dealing with the parties intent is that it is often difficlut to ascertain what the parties intent actually was. in the matter at hand, If the intent was so clear why would BSU and the MWC have differnt opinions regarding the payments?
Again, how can you continue to trust the MWC decision makers if this is the final product?
|
|
|
Post by rick7g on Jan 8, 2013 11:43:17 GMT -8
2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss? "Nothing ?, that is not the way I read it. Also, must look at it in context, obviously intent was dealing with bonus payments out of proceeds MWC receives. If that is not the case, all of the teams in the MWC will try to set up more "fodder" games with the big schools to get their guarantee payment from the big school and then also get the bonus payment from the MWC. Doesn't make sense to interpret provision that way. Really? I thought that you read the actual language in a legal document and not try to infer what the parties meant? The language in the terms of agreement is shoddy at best and each parties duties and obligations should have been spelled out. The plain langauge states clearly that any MWC member playing in a nationally televised game on NBC, CBS or ESPN. That is pretty plain and simple. As I stated previously, the language in the terms of agreement should have included language stating it must be a MWC controlled game. Additionally, they should have never obligated themselves to pay $500k to each member game that fullfills the bonus structure requirements. Should have been a % of the net up to $500k. This would ensure we don't take a loss. Again, how can you continue to trust the MWC decision makers if this is the final product? Is language ambigous and could have been better written, yes, so intent and context do come into play. Paragraph 3 of Agreement states " BSU shall provide the MWC the exclusive television broadcast rights to its intercollegiate athletic events, including but not limited to home football games." Paragragph 4 states " in return for grant of tv rights in paragraph 3 the MWC will provide (bonus payments) Clearly the context is that the bonus payments are in return for the tv money. If you want to get very technical, is BSU providing the MWC the exclusive television rights to its road games, that it agreed to do in paragraph 3? NO. A reasonable reading of the agreement and the intent of the parties... the MWC position will be the end result.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jan 8, 2013 11:51:01 GMT -8
2) nothing in any of your quoted material states that BSU or any other MWC conference ember, will not get a bonus for an OOC road game. It simply says that we have an agreement and the membership will discuss it later. If BSU is not getting a bonus or other consideration what is their to discuss? "Nothing ?, that is not the way I read it. Also, must look at it in context, obviously intent was dealing with bonus payments out of proceeds MWC receives. If that is not the case, all of the teams in the MWC will try to set up more "fodder" games with the big schools to get their guarantee payment from the big school and then also get the bonus payment from the MWC. Doesn't make sense to interpret provision that way. Really? I thought that you read the actual language in a legal document and not try to infer what the parties meant? The language in the terms of agreement is shoddy at best and each parties duties and obligations should have been spelled out. The plain langauge states clearly that any MWC member playing in a nationally televised game on NBC, CBS or ESPN. That is pretty plain and simple. As I stated previously, the language in the terms of agreement should have included language stating it must be a MWC controlled game. Additionally, they should have never obligated themselves to pay $500k to each member game that fullfills the bonus structure requirements. Should have been a % of the net up to $500k. This would ensure we don't take a loss. Again, how can you continue to trust the MWC decision makers if this is the final product? Is language ambigous and could have been better written, yes, so intent and context do come into play. Paragraph 3 of Agreement states " BSU shall provide the MWC the exclusive television broadcast rights to its intercollegiate athletic events, including but not limited to home football games." Paragragph 4 states " in return for grant of tv rights in paragraph 3 the MWC will provide (bonus payments) Clearly the context is that the bonus payments are in return for the tv money. If you want to get very technical, is BSU providing the MWC the exclusive television rights to its road games, that it agreed to do in paragraph 3? NO. A reasonable reading of the agreement and the intent of the parties... the MWC position will be the end result. Rain, mist and fog, with absolutely no substance. Those proficient in Taro cards and ouiga boards shall apply for new openings in MWC legal department.
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Jan 8, 2013 11:54:30 GMT -8
Rick,
If the intent was to only cover the home games then why did they put in the modifier "included, but not limited to"? If they only meant to include home games, then there is no need for the qualifier.
In the end I think you are right that the MWC would not have to pay a bonus for a road OOC game, however it should have never been left to chance and further goes to show how incompetent the MWC is. This only strengthens my previous points.
It is time to move on
|
|
|
Post by rick7g on Jan 8, 2013 12:18:57 GMT -8
Rick, If the intent was to only cover the home games then why did they put in the modifier "included, but not limited to"? If they only meant to include home games, then there is no need for the qualifier. In the end I think you are right that the MWC would not have to pay a bonus for a road OOC game, however it should have never been left to chance and further goes to show how incompetent the MWC is. This only strengthens my previous points. It is time to move on I was partly playing devil's advocate to show that if you just take the exact language without context or intent that you can come up with interpretations that do not make sense. By the way, I don't think adding "but not limited to" changes the meaning at all"
|
|