eagle9903 {l Wrote}:does this mean 81 will come back
i think caddy still has him banned
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:does this mean 81 will come back
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.
pick6pedro {l Wrote}:DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.
meh. every recent exit fee negotiation has resulted in a lesser amount than contracted.
oh and gross.
Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.
Casey {l Wrote}:Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.
I've read the pleadings and briefs, and it's clear the ACC the ACC wasn't well counseled in how to raise the exit fee. Rather than simply hike the 5 fold with a clear intent to keep FSU in-Line (which looks like an unenforceable penalty), they should have built a record on how an early exit substantially disrupts tickets sales, gate revenue, TV negotiations, branding, marketing campaigns, futures schedules, etc. had they done that as a prelude to raising the fee, it would have been an iron clad, enforceable liquidated damages provision. Live and learn. Regardless, MD had the burden of proof to invalidate the contract term, which is extremely difficult to do when sophisticated parties are at issue. I think ACC wax 80%+ likely to win.
However the cost to defend MD's antitrust counterclaim is huge. Assume $1 million a month in legal bills over a 2-3 year period. Plus the ACC would have been obligated to turnover all of it's strategy docs and have each of it's AD's deposed, and several presidents. That's probably we felt comfortable leaving money on the table.
Also, the primary reason to enforce the exit fee (I.e., keep FSU from bolting) is gone, now that everyone signed a 14 full GOR.
This was a good deal, and the ACC was wise to preemptively withold MD's $31mil share ... MD knew they couldn't recover it without a clean win on all counts (which necessarily would have forced the Big 10 AD's to submit to the same type of extensive document/deposition requests). I think everyone realized it was best to pocket MD's $31 mil, and call a truce. MD still suffers the most, having to pay the ACC $31MM, the Big 10 a full buy-in, and limited revenue share for the first year or two. That's basically 3 without any money flowing into the MD AD. Ouch!!!
RegalBCeagle {l Wrote}:Casey {l Wrote}:Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:$19 million is a lot to leave on the table. I assume the ACC lawyers concluded there were some significant risks in convincing the judge the $50 million exit fee was not a simple penalty.
I've read the pleadings and briefs, and it's clear the ACC the ACC wasn't well counseled in how to raise the exit fee. Rather than simply hike the 5 fold with a clear intent to keep FSU in-Line (which looks like an unenforceable penalty), they should have built a record on how an early exit substantially disrupts tickets sales, gate revenue, TV negotiations, branding, marketing campaigns, futures schedules, etc. had they done that as a prelude to raising the fee, it would have been an iron clad, enforceable liquidated damages provision. Live and learn. Regardless, MD had the burden of proof to invalidate the contract term, which is extremely difficult to do when sophisticated parties are at issue. I think ACC wax 80%+ likely to win.
However the cost to defend MD's antitrust counterclaim is huge. Assume $1 million a month in legal bills over a 2-3 year period. Plus the ACC would have been obligated to turnover all of it's strategy docs and have each of it's AD's deposed, and several presidents. That's probably we felt comfortable leaving money on the table.
Also, the primary reason to enforce the exit fee (I.e., keep FSU from bolting) is gone, now that everyone signed a 14 full GOR.
This was a good deal, and the ACC was wise to preemptively withold MD's $31mil share ... MD knew they couldn't recover it without a clean win on all counts (which necessarily would have forced the Big 10 AD's to submit to the same type of extensive document/deposition requests). I think everyone realized it was best to pocket MD's $31 mil, and call a truce. MD still suffers the most, having to pay the ACC $31MM, the Big 10 a full buy-in, and limited revenue share for the first year or two. That's basically 3 without any money flowing into the MD AD. Ouch!!!
When passing oneself off as knowledgeable and intelligent, one should write coherent and proper English.
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:pick6pedro {l Wrote}:DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Wow, Maryland pooped diarrhea in the ACC's mouth.
meh. every recent exit fee negotiation has resulted in a lesser amount than contracted.
oh and gross.
Why do you have to be such a prick? Why can't you ever just agree with me?!? This ain't the way I wanted it. I can handle things. I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb. I'm smart and I want respect!
HJS {l Wrote}:http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12974161/southeastern-conference-distribute-record-435m-revenue-member-schools
Get ready for a new round of rumors about ACC schools leaving to follow the money.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You expect the ACC, which went up 50 million to $291 million because it was allowed to renegotiate due to expansion, to go up another $110 million this year, double the increase of last year and more than 33% of the total revenue?
I think the ACC will come in around 22-23 million a school.
dtwalrus {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You expect the ACC, which went up 50 million to $291 million because it was allowed to renegotiate due to expansion, to go up another $110 million this year, double the increase of last year and more than 33% of the total revenue?
I think the ACC will come in around 22-23 million a school.
Because you questioned the numbers I looked it up, and you were right: my estimate is off.
The difference between the 2014 payout and this 2015 payout will be primarily TV scheduled growth and the switch from the BCS to the playoffs. I initially saw that the ACC would bring in $83.7m from the playoff and lazily assumed this would be added to our 2014 total. However, the ACC (because we had two teams in the final year of the BCS) actually brought in $40.5m from the BCS in 2014 (base $27.8m + $6.3m(x2)). So, some simple math and $83.7m - $40.5m = $43.2m increase from Playoff. So:
$291m (2014 Payout) + $40.5mg (Playoff Bonus) = $330m = $23.5m/school
But then in addition to that, add the scheduled increase in TV contract (I've seen it estimated at a $1m/school/year, but no concrete numbers out there). Also add the increased NCAA tournament payouts (21 units this year vs. 14 units in expiring '09 year...plus the value of those units keep increasing from year to year),
$330m + $14m (TV contract growth) + 5m (NCAA payout growth) = $350m = $24.7m/school
Just a ballpark and there might still be room for a few surprises. But regardless, we're in the same ballpark as the baby rapists.
HJS {l Wrote}:Seems that the Great Cable Bubble has popped. Wonder how the conferences will adjust if the ESPN Cash Cow is no longer bidding against itself to triple Rights Fees?
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-mis ... fs-2015-10
claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx
found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal
claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx
found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal
HJS {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:half of the b1g CONTENT is getting gobbled up by fox, not all that surprising given the b1g network / fox connection
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... g-Ten.aspx
found it interesting that it was only a 6 year deal
That seems like a pretty decent deal for the Big Ten. However, it is looking like it will fall short of the huge game changers many were predicting with the addition of NY and DC markets. Specifically, it seems that the $250mm number is the high watermark if FOX is getting first pick on the games. I assume, that goes down proportionally to the amount of first choice games the other B10 package gets. Still... if you just double the deal in projecting the second deal, you get slightly north of $35mm per team per year. The BTN has been paying out $1mm per team per year. That number was projected to drastically increase with MD and RU, but (given the cord-cutting reality) will likely contract. While an all-in total of $35mm is fantastic, it would not represent a material uptick from what the B10 currently pays their schools (in 2015 they paid close to $33mm). If their second deal isn't as robust (or significantly drops the high-watermark of FOX's $250), you are looking at a potential drop in TV payouts... which would be unheard of.
eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland
the same way no one in boston cares about bc
angrychicken {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland
the same way no one in boston cares about bc
Billy Joel throws like a girl.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:angrychicken {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:No one in NYC cares about Rutgers the same way no one in DC cares about Maryland
the same way no one in boston cares about bc
Billy Joel throws like a girl.
that's why i thought it perfect in this instance
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests