|
|
Post by gocoaztec on Apr 27, 2023 17:43:44 GMT -8
Does this mean the presidents/chancellors voted us in? BA said a while back we were extended a "term sheet." That is binding and would come with penalties if one party, that being the PAC, did not perform. I will also give kudos to de la Torre who evidently made a great case for SDSU academics in front of the PAC presidents. There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 27, 2023 18:03:08 GMT -8
BA said a while back we were extended a "term sheet." That is binding and would come with penalties if one party, that being the PAC, did not perform. I will also give kudos to de la Torre who evidently made a great case for SDSU academics in front of the PAC presidents. There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. That's true, a "Term Sheet" is simply and agreement on the "deal points", which allows the parties to spend time and money on the "real" deal, the Contract, which is binding. There would also have to be a time certain, and ending date, whereupon if certain things don't happen the Term Sheet expires and become moot. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Apr 27, 2023 18:12:15 GMT -8
“Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” In 1-2-3, the anti postulate posters attack? |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Apr 27, 2023 21:13:41 GMT -8
I'm confused. What does did not perform mean? I sign LOIs for retail space which leads to lease agreements. Sometimes those LOIs have language about “not performing” for example I decide not to sign the lease and or the company decides to not lease to me… there may be penalties… I understand your logic, but if it works in our behalf then no complaints. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 27, 2023 22:32:20 GMT -8
Do you have a link to where he turned down and offer for $32M? And, please tell me a reason why whomever offered that wouldn't do the same now? It was widely reported awhile back: “The PAC-12 could turn back to ESPN/ABC, but the deal that was once on the table — the same $31 million per year per team that the Big 12 got — is no longer there. If the Pac-12 returns to ESPN, it will likely mean it is willing to take less money in exchange for exposure. At this point, a deal with ESPN is not close,” the New York Post’s Andrew Marchand reported Monday morning.“ Well, we will know in the next 60 days whether Marchand, whose connections are with ESPN, is correct. Perhaps Apple has offered more than ESPN was willing to put up. Ever think of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 27, 2023 22:37:29 GMT -8
BA said a while back we were extended a "term sheet." That is binding and would come with penalties if one party, that being the PAC, did not perform. I will also give kudos to de la Torre who evidently made a great case for SDSU academics in front of the PAC presidents. I'm confused. What does did not perform mean? Did not follow through with what was presented in the term sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 27, 2023 22:48:06 GMT -8
BA said a while back we were extended a "term sheet." That is binding and would come with penalties if one party, that being the PAC, did not perform. I will also give kudos to de la Torre who evidently made a great case for SDSU academics in front of the PAC presidents. There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. I am not saying that the Presidents didn't vote to authorize a preliminary agreement with SDSU. That isn't the same as saying they voted for admission. If the PAC thought there was a risk that the B12 would sign SDSU out from under them them and didn't want that to happen they would want to do something to solidify their intentions - in this case adding SDSU. SDSU would be stupid to sign something binding them to the PAC right now without knowing what the final media rights deal will be. But, the fact that we have an offer (based on the statements of some rather established posters on here) from the B12 and have not signed seems to indicate that the PAC deal will be to our liking. The PAC wants SDSU and I am sure that we are getting updates to the contract negotiations as if we were already a member of the conference. Sorry, I know you want SDSU to be in the B12 with BYU, but that is unlikely to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by AZTEC4LIFE1992 on Apr 28, 2023 0:20:10 GMT -8
There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. That's true, a "Term Sheet" is simply and agreement on the "deal points", which allows the parties to spend time and money on the "real" deal, the Contract, which is binding. There would also have to be a time certain, and ending date, whereupon if certain things don't happen the Term Sheet expires and become moot. I don’t see SDSU blindly agreeing to a term sheet without knowing what the figures will be and I don’t see the PAC guaranteeing SDSU money without have a good grasp on the final tv number. Maybe a verbal nod or handshake, but not a signed letter of intent. There are too many variables right now |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 5:29:54 GMT -8
The BIG10 deal wasn't finalized until 2 months after it was announced. I would expect the same. Announcement and expansion, then about 2 months later everyone signs on the dotted line once everything is finalized. That makes total sense but what happens if the PAC announces that you are in, you resign from the MWC -- incurring millions in exit fees -- the PAC schools can't agree to the grant of rights and the whole thing falls apart (meaning 3 schools go to the Big 12)? Maybe you know something that I don't know but I'd be awfully reluctant to give notice to the MWC before the Grant of Rights is signed. The same crew, both inside the University and external support, that got Snapdragon done as well as all the other awesome things going on in the Athletic Department as well as University wide are deeply involved with what is going on… they know the offers from the P12 and the B12 amd they are acutely aware of what is about to happen… I have full confidence in what they are about to do… State!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 28, 2023 5:55:00 GMT -8
Congratulations on what you all seem to think is an offer from the PAC. Meanwhile, as to the TV deal, there are several reports that it is 80% streaming -- the only linear being the ESPN Saturday night game. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_wCIl_4zXo |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 6:41:55 GMT -8
Do you have a link to where he turned down and offer for $32M? And, please tell me a reason why whomever offered that wouldn't do the same now? It was widely reported awhile back: “The PAC-12 could turn back to ESPN/ABC, but the deal that was once on the table — the same $31 million per year per team that the Big 12 got — is no longer there. If the Pac-12 returns to ESPN, it will likely mean it is willing to take less money in exchange for exposure. At this point, a deal with ESPN is not close,” the New York Post’s Andrew Marchand reported Monday morning.“ That deal was for everything… |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 6:42:57 GMT -8
BA said a while back we were extended a "term sheet." That is binding and would come with penalties if one party, that being the PAC, did not perform. I will also give kudos to de la Torre who evidently made a great case for SDSU academics in front of the PAC presidents. There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. Believe what you will |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 6:44:44 GMT -8
There is no way that a binding offer sheet could exist unless the presidents have already voted, as it would be in violation of the P12 bylaws: 2. New Members. Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA. Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner. New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group. Since every interview of a high ranking PAC official has made it clear that no vote has taken place, there is no binding deal. Still, I’d love to know what JD’s game is - I’m hoping that he’s priming the pump for the acceptance of an offer to join the B12. That's true, a "Term Sheet" is simply and agreement on the "deal points", which allows the parties to spend time and money on the "real" deal, the Contract, which is binding. There would also have to be a time certain, and ending date, whereupon if certain things don't happen the Term Sheet expires and become moot. There are many different types of “term sheets” MOUs and LOIs… some of which also include penalties for certain actions or inactions… I have been party to many of these. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 6:45:56 GMT -8
That's true, a "Term Sheet" is simply and agreement on the "deal points", which allows the parties to spend time and money on the "real" deal, the Contract, which is binding. There would also have to be a time certain, and ending date, whereupon if certain things don't happen the Term Sheet expires and become moot. I don’t see SDSU blindly agreeing to a term sheet without knowing what the figures will be and I don’t see the PAC guaranteeing SDSU money without have a good grasp on the final tv number. Maybe a verbal nod or handshake, but not a signed letter of intent. There are too many variables right now Don’t assume either are blind |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 6:46:21 GMT -8
Congratulations on what you all seem to think is an offer from the PAC. Meanwhile, as to the TV deal, there are several reports that it is 80% streaming -- the only linear being the ESPN Saturday night game. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_wCIl_4zXoEnjoy the MWC |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 28, 2023 6:48:59 GMT -8
That's true, a "Term Sheet" is simply and agreement on the "deal points", which allows the parties to spend time and money on the "real" deal, the Contract, which is binding. There would also have to be a time certain, and ending date, whereupon if certain things don't happen the Term Sheet expires and become moot. There are many different types of “term sheets” MOUs and LOIs… some of which also include penalties for certain actions or inactions… I have been party to many of these. Yes of course, and I have been involved in many myself, but none that I recall, had anywhere near the "bite" of a "contract". Not saying they don't exist, just that I've never seen one. This one is particularly odd, since it seems to have a sloppy or non-specific "closing" or ending date---which also weakens its "status" as binding. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 28, 2023 6:58:43 GMT -8
Thanks. I'm sure that at least one of us will. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Apr 28, 2023 7:11:14 GMT -8
There are many different types of “term sheets” MOUs and LOIs… some of which also include penalties for certain actions or inactions… I have been party to many of these. Yes of course, and I have been involved in many myself, but none that I recall, had anywhere near the "bite" of a "contract". Not saying they don't exist, just that I've never seen one. This one is particularly odd, since it seems to have a sloppy or non-specific "closing" or ending date---which also weakens its "status" as binding. True… usually they only have one or two “items” with any force and to be fair, it would usually be difficult to litigate if the other party didn’t perform. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 28, 2023 7:50:04 GMT -8
Yes of course, and I have been involved in many myself, but none that I recall, had anywhere near the "bite" of a "contract". Not saying they don't exist, just that I've never seen one. This one is particularly odd, since it seems to have a sloppy or non-specific "closing" or ending date---which also weakens its "status" as binding. True… usually they only have one or two “items” with any force and to be fair, it would usually be difficult to litigate if the other party didn’t perform. But hey, at least we have "something", which is more than we've EVER had in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Apr 28, 2023 8:01:48 GMT -8
True… usually they only have one or two “items” with any force and to be fair, it would usually be difficult to litigate if the other party didn’t perform. But hey, at least we have "something", which is more than we've EVER had in the past. IMHO we also have something substantially more important than a LOI…….momentum. |
|
