i only stayed at a super 8 last night, but i don't think that matters. if they can find e-mails showing they discussed this, i wouldn't imagine it matters who made the first contact.
It's only a matter of time before we're talking about a spunk stain belonging to Mike Slive on Bowen Loftin's bowtie.
Sure - but the SEC/A&M TI case is based in some way on the SEC luring A&M away - in other words, interfering with the current contracts. In the other TV contract scenario, ESPN/FOX wouldn't be interfering in anything - they would just be reacting to whatever happens by other parties.
Or... ESPN is the puppetmaster. They have a deal with the Big12 that reportedly has a 10-team stipulation. Once it drops to 9 (which it obviously would were A&M to leave), ESPN could legally void the contract. "And hey! Lookey at what we just found, newly-expanded SEC: $65M dollars! Here ya go...." By having a TV deal with all the big conferences, ESPN is smack in the middle of all this and very much in the crosshairs. Did the coerce A&M to leave so that they could funnel the Big12 money to the more lucrative SEC contract?... (That's the theory, anyway.)
conversations AFTER the contract in question was signed. The law, itself. The key question being asked is, does BU, KU, K-State, etc. have a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss. I can't answer that without more detail...but the notion that A&M making first contact would matter in that discussion is just wrong. Yes, as with any case, you can assert a defense. The Plaintiffs have to prove tortious interference by a preponderance of the evidence (not a reasonable doubt standard - much more generous standard for plaintiffs). There will be a long period of discovery where the plaintiffs will be entitled to review SEC and A&M documents including emails, travel schedules, calendars, credit card receipts, etc. over the last year or so. They will go in to a jury and make this case: "do any of you honestly think A&M would leave the Big 12 if the SEC hadn't already made assurances to them?" Reasonably good argument if you ask me. If the conference holds together and the media deals stay in place, no damages...no lawsuit. That's why BU, Iowa State, K-State and KU are saying that if OU will commit, they'll release the claims against the SEC....and once they release, they can't bring a suit.
Everything I read is all over the place. Some "inside sources" seem to think OU is definitely on the Pac16 train and would have to be turned around. Others seems to be sure that it's a negotiating ploy to extract concessions from the Big12 (Texas?). But it's unclear what those concessions might be - they already get unequal revenue share and they aren't likely to get any LHN money. Seems like there's no incentive at all for OU to make a longterm Big12 commitment, but who really knows.
one commitment they're seeking is revenue sharing in a way that stabilizes the conference so they can actually go attract other schools here. also some concessions with respect to LHN, as i understand it...but i'm not entirely clear on either of those, frankly.
Reading this over and over again...and it's just not right: Meanwhile A&M is angling for this sudden solution to its 11th-hour problem: A fed-up SEC accepts A&M unconditionally, on the premise that Baylor doesn't own solid ground for a lawsuit, considering Big 12 laws allow schools to exit provided the sides agree to an exit fee (see Nebraska and Colorado last year). Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/...withdraws-condition-2162174.php#ixzz1XTFDixSK It doesn't matter. Tortious interference does not require a breach of contract by A&M. It doesn't require the plaintiff to prove that A&M did something wrong at all.
I'm guessing what might be lost in that article is that the exit fee includes a waiver of rights to sue? Essentially, paying them off.
So the Fox deal, which "saved" the Big12, right? So any overatures made last year are off the table? But isn't that TI in a nutshell? A third-party actively interferring with a contract between two other parties? If A&M asked for their release from the conference (which they did); if the Big 12 granted them their release (which they did); if the SEC issued a "We're good for now" statement (which they did); if A&M began negotiations with the SEC only after both the SEC issued its statement and the Big12 issued theirs ("We won't sue")... I know there are all kinds of gray areas here (how gray? Charcoal.) - but just so I understand TI, putting aside very relevant, "Yeah, but..." arguments and discovery, etc. - just based on the letter of the law, if it all went down that way... is there TI? (BTW, you're not charging me for all this legal advice, are you?) So does this mean Baylor could file the TI suit and *hope* something comes out in discovery? Or will they only file if they know they've got something?
doesn't matter at all. you can waive rights against A&M all you want...that doesn't work as a release of claims with respect to the SEC.
Aggy sould sue baylors for tortaus interference and claim the damages as diff between SEC and Big 12 income
This is so crazy. I think I should one of our rival companies who stole one of my company's employees late last year. Losing him cost us real revenue and potential revenue and hurt my salary directly. I didn't realize that I could sue despite there being nothing requiring him to stay here! I'm gonna get rich!
Yeah, that's a key point - A&M is *not* asking for waivers; they're free and clear, so far as I can tell (legally). The only potentially liable party (as far as Baylor is concerned, TV networks aside) is the SEC. The only party that could go after A&M is the Big12, who have already stated that they won't.
The LHN part would be interesting. The equal revenue sharing still bothers me. I doubt FOX redoes their big deal if teams like BYU and Louisville/WVU/UH/SMU/etc were added. Only BYU brings any real big media value, and that would simply offset the A&M departure. So not only would OU be giving up some of their current unequal share, but they'd be back to sharing the pie with 12 schools instead of 10? That just seems like a big hit to take at this point if they have any interest all down the line in the Pac12. Because not only would they be taking a revenue hit, but there is likely going to be a demand for an ironclad commitment to stay - so OU would be sacrificing revenue and future flexibility to stabilize the conference? I can't speak for them, but if I were them and didn't want to leave right now, I would just say "we're committed to staying for at least 2 more years in the current setup if FOX agrees not to cut our TV deal". If that happens, they keep their future flexibility and now they get to share revenues 9 ways instead of 10, making even more money. And they have a nice nonconference schedule lined up, so they don't have to worry about a crappy schedule.
I guess..other deals out there, including the commitment to the conference from A&M, I suppose. That's why I keep saying, I don't understand how these sports reporters can make definitive statements on the claims until they understand the contracts at issue and the other facts. A few of them now are starting to ask lawyers' opinions. Here's a tip if you're a reporter and you're reading this: send an open records request to A&M for all communications, electronic or otherwise, between A&M and any SEC representative or a representative of any SEC member institution since June 1, 2010. See what you get. [Ric]But isn't that TI in a nutshell? A third-party actively interferring with a contract between two other parties?[/Quote] Go back and read what I posted in the part you didn't quote. I answered that directly. You don't have to be the first party to make contact to intefere with a contract. I explained how I've seen seen that directly with first hand experience. It is not a requisite for a TI claim. Who knows?? That's my point, Ric. We don't decide cases like this. You hand it over to a jury and let them decide whether there was interference. You show them documents/communications; you let them listen to witnesses; you make an argument with inferences....they take all that in and make a decision. There are some open/shut cases one way or the other...but the vast majority are not that way. You carry with you into trial the risk that a jury doesn't see it your way. Personal question you don't have to answer: are you an engineer? I represent a few of those guys (I do a fair amount of construction litigation and construction law, generally), and they ask questions the same way. They live in a world of numbers and absolutes...it either is or is not acceptable...this will either work or it will not work. They get frustrated with the legal process because it does not work that way. There aren't easy answers. Some thought Texaco didn't tortiously interfere with Pennzoil's deal...in that case, there wasn't even a written contract. Jamail argued that, in the Texas he grew up in, a handshake still meant there was a deal. Texaco said, "how could we interfere with a contract..that wasn't really a contract!" Guess who the jury agreed with. What? I'm totally charging you for this. Your assistant said I should post it to the Underhill account. Could go either way....you can file on information and beilef. I think it's very reasonable to infer that A&M would not have left the conference without some assurances from the SEC that they had a spot there.
