We need Jim Adler on this.
“If you have a job without aggravations, you don’t have a job.”
Malcolm Forbes
Malcolm Forbes
SicEm365’s David Smoak shares updated information regarding the status of the departure from the Big 12 by the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas for the SEC and where there are legal hangups with the move.
Highlights From The Conversation
If Oklahoma and Texas make the departure of the Big 12 ugly and drags out legally, the $80 million exit will be a minor part of what will eventually be paid by the two universities.
The Texas hammer!!!Pecos 45 said:
We need Jim Adler on this.
bear2be2 said:The Texas hammer!!!Pecos 45 said:
We need Jim Adler on this.
What's Brian Loncar up to these days?
Dang. That is sad. I had no idea.Feel The Floyd said:bear2be2 said:The Texas hammer!!!Pecos 45 said:
We need Jim Adler on this.
What's Brian Loncar up to these days?
Sad situation, he is died a few years ago after a family tragedy.
https://www.fox4news.com/news/attorney-brian-loncar-the-strong-arm-found-dead-one-week-after-daughters-suicide
The Big 12 doesn't even have to pay hardball. It just has to play ball. The GoR deal is pretty ironclad here, and not in the deserters' favor.historian said:
Expect the Big 12 to play hardball and looked them for everything they can get.
That's right. And let's be clear-eyed about the situation here - these are huge nonprofits. All these UT donors have been waiting for years on their stockholder dividend checks from the UT athletic department, right? [sarcasm] What on earth good does more money into a huge nonprofit (already backed by the Permanent University Fund) do, if you already were the richest and you still weren't winning enough? It's silly. It's just a different way to keep score because they can't win. Pointless. Empty. Ultimately just adds to your frustration. Funny to watch, though.historian said:
No doubt there will be plenty of propaganda touting their advantages for switching, but their situation won't improve except maybe in terms of money & there are a lot of things more important than $$$$.
I believe you mean "nonprofits."Robert Wilson said:That's right. And let's be clear-eyed about the situation here - these are huge nonprofits. All these UT donors have been waiting for years on their stockholder dividend checks from the UT athletic department, right? [sarcasm] What on earth good does more money into a huge nonprofit (already backed by the Permanent University Fund) do, if you already were the richest and you still weren't winning enough? It's silly. It's just a different way to keep score because they can't win. Pointless. Empty. Ultimately just adds to your frustration. Funny to watch, though.historian said:
No doubt there will be plenty of propaganda touting their advantages for switching, but their situation won't improve except maybe in terms of money & there are a lot of things more important than $$$$.
There's no good reason to waive OUT's exit fees. They agreed contractually to the GoR deal, and they're going to be held to it. What you just proposed is a favor to three entities (the SEC, OUT and ESPN) that are owed no favors by the Big 12 here. And given that the Big 12 holds all of the leverage, there's no incentive whatsoever to concede anything.graygrantham said:
Just a thought... The Big 12 and SEC could kill a few birds with one stone. Problem
#1 is the sticky exit from the Big 12 for OU and UT. Probelm #2 is with ACC/Big10/PAC12 creating scheduling alliance their may be no P5/A5 preseason games for the SEC to schedule (loss of preseason $$$). Problem #3 potential loss of P5/A5 Status for Big 12 following 2025.
To solve all three of these issues in a mutually beneficial manner, the Big 12 and SEC should reach an agreement that OU and UT begin play in the SEC at their convenience with no exit penalties or fees. In exchange the SEC would gurantee support for the Big 12 maintaining P5/A5 status from 2025 - 2035. Additionally the SEC and Big 12 should agree to a scheduling alliance that gives each school in both conferences at least one game vs the other conference in weeks 1, 2 and 3. The value concessions for letting OU and UT exit the Big 12 at no cost could be recouped in home field scheduling concessions over 10 years.
Presumably the networks would value these games higher in broadcast $$$ than playing the traditional cupcakes and perhaps both conferences could bank more on these preseason home games.
bear2be2 said:There's no good reason to waive OUT's exit fees. They agreed contractually to the GoR deal, and they're going to be held to it. What you just proposed is a favor to three entities (the SEC, OUT and ESPN) that are owed no favors by the Big 12 here. And given that the Big 12 holds all of the leverage, there's no incentive whatsoever to concede anything.graygrantham said:
Just a thought... The Big 12 and SEC could kill a few birds with one stone. Problem
#1 is the sticky exit from the Big 12 for OU and UT. Probelm #2 is with ACC/Big10/PAC12 creating scheduling alliance their may be no P5/A5 preseason games for the SEC to schedule (loss of preseason $$$). Problem #3 potential loss of P5/A5 Status for Big 12 following 2025.
To solve all three of these issues in a mutually beneficial manner, the Big 12 and SEC should reach an agreement that OU and UT begin play in the SEC at their convenience with no exit penalties or fees. In exchange the SEC would gurantee support for the Big 12 maintaining P5/A5 status from 2025 - 2035. Additionally the SEC and Big 12 should agree to a scheduling alliance that gives each school in both conferences at least one game vs the other conference in weeks 1, 2 and 3. The value concessions for letting OU and UT exit the Big 12 at no cost could be recouped in home field scheduling concessions over 10 years.
Presumably the networks would value these games higher in broadcast $$$ than playing the traditional cupcakes and perhaps both conferences could bank more on these preseason home games.
The Big 12 will stay a power conference (for whatever that's worth going forward) with or without the SEC's help. If the SEC wants to create a mutually beneficial scheduling alliance, great. But there's no way that's worth what the league is contractually owed by the deserters. We can talk about exit strategies and scheduling once OUT pay the money they owe.
If The Alliance freezes out the SEC in noncon scheduling, Sankey may need some sort of scheduling agreement with the Big 12 to keep his team's nonconference schedules filled with something other than G5/FCS schools.historian said:
We already have the Big 12 SEC challenge in basketball (both MBB & WBB). Why not have something like that in football too? Some of us already have agreements with SEC teams that could be incorporated into an agreement: our home & home with Auburn, OSU has a home & home with Arkansas & another with Bama, Tech has Mississippi State & Arkansas, & W Virginia has a home & home with Alabama.
What basis would the courts have to void a legal, mutually-agreed upon business contract?ColoradoGRN&GLD said:
It's nice to think the B12 has all the leverage, but the reality is that OUUT do have a couple of cards to play. a GoR has never been tested in court. If they wanted to challenge the validity and constitutionality of a GoR it would take yrs of litigation and an unholy amount of $ in lawyer's fees. Worst case scenario is that the courts decide that GoR's are not legally binding and the B12 gets screwed and walks away with nothing. Best case is that the B12 wins, OUUT is forced to pay every penny, but the lawyers end up walking away with whatever they get.
There is also the scorched earth path where they claim Sovereign Immunity. TTU already did it to Leach when they fired him. Leach sued and lost. I've heard that SI doesn't apply in voluntarily entered contracts, but I have no idea if that is actually true.
There is just too much at stake to take a win/lose, either/or position so the most likely outcome is some sort of settlement for a reduced exit fee and/or speedier exit timeline. I appreciate that Bowlsby is finally backing the conference and has publicly taken such a strong position, but it's almost certainly posturing to set the league up in an advantageously desirable situation wrt it's leverage in negotiating the settlement.
ColoradoGRN&GLD said:
It's nice to think the B12 has all the leverage, but the reality is that OUUT do have a couple of cards to play. a GoR has never been tested in court. If they wanted to challenge the validity and constitutionality of a GoR it would take yrs of litigation and an unholy amount of $ in lawyer's fees. Worst case scenario is that the courts decide that GoR's are not legally binding and the B12 gets screwed and walks away with nothing. Best case is that the B12 wins, OUUT is forced to pay every penny, but the lawyers end up walking away with whatever they get.
There is also the scorched earth path where they claim Sovereign Immunity. TTU already did it to Leach when they fired him. Leach sued and lost. I've heard that SI doesn't apply in voluntarily entered contracts, but I have no idea if that is actually true.
There is just too much at stake to take a win/lose, either/or position so the most likely outcome is some sort of settlement for a reduced exit fee and/or speedier exit timeline. I appreciate that Bowlsby is finally backing the conference and has publicly taken such a strong position, but it's almost certainly posturing to set the league up in an advantageously desirable situation wrt it's leverage in negotiating the settlement.
I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Makes me feel a lot better in the B12s position.Robert Wilson said:
Problem with that the way this works the conference holds the money, so OUT have yo file suit. No sovereign immunity if the state institution is the one that files.
ColoradoGRN&GLD said:I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Makes me feel a lot better in the B12s position.Robert Wilson said:
Problem with that the way this works the conference holds the money, so OUT have yo file suit. No sovereign immunity if the state institution is the one that files.
As far as what basis would the courts have? I have no idea. I just know that judges are not infallible and there have been MANY court decisions that have puzzled me over the yrs.
No. No, they are not.MommaBear said:
So, is the SEC ok with Texas keeping their Longhorn channel after they move?
I can only add two things.ColoradoGRN&GLD said:I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Makes me feel a lot better in the B12s position.Robert Wilson said:
Problem with that the way this works the conference holds the money, so OUT have yo file suit. No sovereign immunity if the state institution is the one that files.
As far as what basis would the courts have? I have no idea. I just know that judges are not infallible and there have been MANY court decisions that have puzzled me over the yrs.
Quote:
1) it's in the hands of Big12s external legal counsel, so they likely just get an update across the board to all members. Which is to say that Bowlsby can't f it up. Basically it's a group email at this point.