|
Replies: 6
| visibility 951
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
for those that say "we signed the contract"... could you explain to me the ACC's
4
Mar 21, 2024, 10:18 AM
|
|
contractual obligation?
If it's merely a point of "we signed it, so we are screwed"... what would our recourse if we are locked in a GoR, and the ACC signs a deal that essentially is a threat to the existence of member institutions financially?
Let's say a new CFP negotiation takes place, and the ACC agrees to give the B1G and SEC 80%, and the ACC gets 20%. Do member institutions have recourse to challenge that? That would be an existential threat to each university's athletic programs.
Its seems this is the argument Clemson is making. Given the changing landscape, if we can't get a fair valuation, we open ourselves up to be liable to our stakeholders.
|
|
|
|
 |
Standout [311]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 231
Joined: 11/17/16
|
Re: for those that say "we signed the contract"... could you explain to me the ACC's
4
Mar 21, 2024, 11:01 AM
|
|
The member that brought it up has problems with child-like thinking.
Contracts aren’t some morally binding decree sent down from the heavens.
You sign a contract to legally protect your interests in a transaction between parties. As soon as conditions change to where your own interests are jeopardized, you find any legal way out of that contract. You don’t just honor the original on your way towards oblivion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9128
Joined: 8/31/15
|
Re: for those that say "we signed the contract"... could you explain to me the ACC's
Mar 21, 2024, 11:05 AM
|
|
Yep if we stay as is, we die a slow death in the grand scheme of the current landscape of college football.
Said poster thinks Brownell is a great coach so you kind of know what you are dealing with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [768]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 1739
Joined: 1/12/19
|
Re: for those that say "we signed the contract"... could you explain to me the ACC's
1
Mar 24, 2024, 1:33 PM
|
|
The ACC is us and the other conference members...it's not the communist party...they derive power from numbers of us working together for the good of the members...what are you understanding...if everyone leaves 'we' are no more! Everything was hunky dorey until the SEC & BIG got bigger deals...now CCC & the renegades are unhappy... we think that we should get more money! Maybe 'we' should but not the conference as a whole...I would not give you 50cents to watch Louisville, or Syracuse or BC or WF or VT or GT unless they were playing...would not pay to watch the mercenaries at FSWTC! Until they leave they are still US...CCC tends to own them in games!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1932]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2520
Joined: 6/18/01
|
Re: for those that say "we signed the contract"... could you explain to me the ACC's
Mar 24, 2024, 1:46 PM
|
|
No matter what anybody says it was stupid to sign the GOR without any stipulations included which would break it. Like say you only make half what some other Conference gets. Short sighted, Cowardly, and stupid. I don't know if we can break it but what an idiotic move to sign it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1534]
TigerPulse: 55%
Posts: 1326
Joined: 10/1/06
|
The ACC's obligation is to execute the terms of the contract
Mar 24, 2024, 1:56 PM
|
|
that the contract assigns to them. TMK, the financial terms of the GOR contract, and
any escalators, were agreed to by all signatories at the time of signing.
In many ways, a contract is a bet. Both parties are betting the terms of the contract are in their own best interest. Sometimes that turns out to be the case and sometimes it doesn't.
Mortgages have been a frequent example on TNet of "well, just refinance your mortgage". The only reason that is possible is that most mortgage contracts do not have a prepayment penalty. Refinancing isn't a given: in order to do it, both parties in the mortgage contract have to have agreed to that possibility upfront.
Another example is a life insurance contract. These are huge bets made by two parties, each assuming that the terms are favorable to them. The majority of the time, the terms are favorable to the insurance company or else there would be no such thing as life insurance. Neither party can midway thru the contract say "just kidding" - unless there are preexisting terms agreed to upfront that allow for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9184]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2/23/23
|
Todays world of college athletics shows contracts are meant to be broke
1
Mar 24, 2024, 2:26 PM
|
|
When this much money is on the line…. For example, the CFP had a contract for only 4 teams through 2028. The contract argument is for people who don’t understand contracts or economics .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 6
| visibility 951
|
|
|
50
