Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Schedule
College Football Scores
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Sports Predictions
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Log in
Register
Toggle sidebar
Teams
CFB Schedule
HSFB Rankings
AP Poll
NIL Valuations
Team Recruiting Rankings
Search
New posts
Toggle sidebar
Menu
Install the app
Install
SEC considering restoration of transfer portal policy
How much Big Ten, SEC programs could gain from College Football Playoff expansion
Georgia's offensive line blends fifth-year wisdom and raw talent, but can it push around Alabama?
After Dana Altman's 'shock' retirement, Oregon prepares to move forward under Tony Stubblefield
Oklahoma OL Michael Fasusi doubtful for Red River Rivalry, latest on return
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129515390" data-attributes="member: 1459051"><p>No, it's completely true. The existing contract would be voided. I will agree with you that there is probably a clause which states that a new contract has to be reworked. However, that just proves my point. You said yourself:</p><p></p><p><em>What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is <u><strong>reduce the contract</strong></u>-</em></p><p></p><p>See, you just admitted what I was saying. If a team left Conference A, then the network would have the right to reduce the contract of Conference A. Then the network would be free to renegotiate a larger contract with Conference B.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the GOR, yes, you do have to offer proof. You haven't pointed out anything that makes the documents fake. You haven't pointed out an incorrect date, incorrect signature, incorrect terms, etc. You don't even offer circumstantial evidence they are fake. You just make the spurious conclusion that since no one else had printed it, therefore this copy is fake. Here's something you haven't considered. You linked to a story which said (paraphrasing) "within the contract is a grant of rights...". Ok, so tell me, how did the author of your link know that grant of rights was within the contract? If he can't see the contract, how does he know it's in there?</p><p></p><p>Another point. You linked to an article about the original GOR from the Big 12. Well, notice the date. That GOR was signed on 10/6/2011. Well, that was before the Big 12 signed its TV contract. The current TV contract was signed in 2012. The old contract was signed back in the mid 2000s. See the problem there? The GOR was created in between TV contracts, so it wasn't an actual part of either contract. That's because the GOR is between the conference and the schools, not the networks, as other posters and I have repeatedly told you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129515390, member: 1459051"] No, it's completely true. The existing contract would be voided. I will agree with you that there is probably a clause which states that a new contract has to be reworked. However, that just proves my point. You said yourself: [I]What they would do at some point if a conference loses members is [U][B]reduce the contract[/B][/U]-[/I] See, you just admitted what I was saying. If a team left Conference A, then the network would have the right to reduce the contract of Conference A. Then the network would be free to renegotiate a larger contract with Conference B. Regarding the GOR, yes, you do have to offer proof. You haven't pointed out anything that makes the documents fake. You haven't pointed out an incorrect date, incorrect signature, incorrect terms, etc. You don't even offer circumstantial evidence they are fake. You just make the spurious conclusion that since no one else had printed it, therefore this copy is fake. Here's something you haven't considered. You linked to a story which said (paraphrasing) "within the contract is a grant of rights...". Ok, so tell me, how did the author of your link know that grant of rights was within the contract? If he can't see the contract, how does he know it's in there? Another point. You linked to an article about the original GOR from the Big 12. Well, notice the date. That GOR was signed on 10/6/2011. Well, that was before the Big 12 signed its TV contract. The current TV contract was signed in 2012. The old contract was signed back in the mid 2000s. See the problem there? The GOR was created in between TV contracts, so it wasn't an actual part of either contract. That's because the GOR is between the conference and the schools, not the networks, as other posters and I have repeatedly told you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
×
Disable Video Player
On3
Latest
01
On3 Football
SEC considering restoration of transfer portal policy
02
College Football Playoff
How much Big Ten, SEC programs could gain from College Football Playoff expansion
03
On3 Football
Georgia's offensive line blends fifth-year wisdom and raw talent, but can it push around Alabama?
04
On3 Basketball
After Dana Altman's 'shock' retirement, Oregon prepares to move forward under Tony Stubblefield
05
On3 Football
Oklahoma OL Michael Fasusi doubtful for Red River Rivalry, latest on return
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
Top
Bottom