Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by InTheBuff, Sep 28, 2011.
golden handcuffs indeed...
or a golden shower.
So, 15 million?
So where is $40 million coming from? Is that another Chip Brown number?
If the bylaws require 90% forfeiture of the next two years of Big 12 TV money for a team giving more than 6 months but less than 1 year's notice, and the teams are getting $14-$16 million per year --- how does that add up to $40 million?
Plus - if Mizzou leaves I think the Big 12 probably folds it's tents and heads for greener pastures.
Unenforceable unless b12 folds IMO
They can just call WalMart.
As I understand it, it's not an exit fee but a forfeiture of expected future income, mostly from TV contracts as the good Lt. Col. explains. If Mizzou exits and the Big 12 is no more, the value of the TV income becomes significantly less if not zero. The ACC increased their exit fee, not potential future income. If Mizzou hasn't agreed to sign over their TV rights, it makes sense to make the move now if they really want to. I may be wrong. As seems to be the consensus here, keeping the big12 together keeps texas in their corral and the Pac at 12. Mizzou has sucked hind tit for a while and I think they are ready to cut the big12 cord.
Mizzou is desperate to leave at this point. It will be very interesting to see if they can find another home. They'd fit best in the Big 10, but the Big 10 moves even slower than the Pac does.
Should have got out while the gettin was good! That 7 million we had to forfiet to go to the Pac was the best 7 million we've spent on the program since they built Dal Ward.
Whatever the amount I"m sure that the Whorns and OU have already claimed ownership of 99% of any future exit fees to help ensure the stability of the conference.
Let's also remember that the Big Tex PR Machine[SUP]TM [/SUP]also had our exit fees estimated at $30+ million in news stories leading up to our settlement at around $7 million. I don't believe any number until it's real.
I remember when they said that CU's exit fee was going to enormous also. Ended up be a fraction of what they were saying.
Given the fact that each team's share of the Big 12 pie gets a little BIGGER when a team leaves, I can see where there is a decent argument that the teams of the league are NOT damaged when a team leaves.
given that the list of potential replacement teams for CU, NU, ATM, and possibly MU is pretty diluted and only gets thinner as the dominoes fall...i think keeping MU is a big deal for the XII-2-1. i'd also think OU, OSU, KU, and KSU would be working hard to keep Mizzou vs. the addition of a former SWC Texas team that has fealty to UT and the awesome powers of the Texas legislature. some semblance of a balance of power would be useful moving forward.
MU is a chronic underachiever but they consolidate KC media markets and basically give the whole state of Missouri as part of your footprint reaching east. no "State" team that's a BCS rival.
contrary to what sacky posted above, the 3-4 MU fans on another board i frequent seem pretty ambivalent about the whole thing. the idea of the SEC and being in the "premier" conference is appealing but also really like the trad rivalries with KU, KSU, OU etc. deep down, MU fan wants to be in the Big Ten but i don't think the Big Ten wants them.
Missouri and Kansas don't want to lose each other.
I'm kind of hoping that everyone in the Big 12 stays through the current media contract (2015, I think). At that point, if superconferences look like they're coming I'd love to see Larry Scott throw down the gauntlet and get KU and MU on board as our first move. They bring value and eliminate the Big 10 land bridge to Oklahoma. Most importantly, they put a ton of pressure on OU to consider coming without OSU while also reducing UT's options considerably.
Getting out of the same conference as Texas: Priceless.
Still, it's nothing like what it would take for a team to leave the Pac-12 (not that anyone would want to).
The withdrawal clause should be called the "Hotel California" clause: You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave ... :nod:
No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on October 21, 2010, and ending on November 30, 2020; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to November 30, 2020, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media rights of the member purporting to withdraw through July 1, 2023, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group.
I think that's kind of what the Big 12 is trying to do, but isn't having much success in putting it in place.
Yup, if I was those schools I would argue very hard that the damages don't come close to accurately reflecting the costs of htem leaving, which really boil down to the cost of keeping the league together... which, while a couple million due to all the flying around the higher ups are doing, is no where near 40 mil!
That is so definitely unenforceable, but it sounds scary as ****.
I would tend to think it's only unenforceable if there isn't consent. The Pac 12 membership has agreed to this, so I suspect it's enforceable. But, like Montana says, there isn't any incentive to leave anyway, so it's not much of an issue for us. For the Big 12 - yeah, it's an issue. If they can get everybody to sign off on the deal, it provides some good stability to the conference.
That P12 language won't keep Texas from trying to bend the ear of USC.
Isn't this one of the contract articles the Big Tex league drafted after the Buffs & Butthuskers left the conference to try and get the remaining schools to think twice about leaving?
You think UT is going to try to get USC to join the Big 12?
Not going to happen, but that would make for some funny drama.
Just saying that Texas has through 2020 to chew on USC's ear.
The other schools in the P12 is too leary of Texas to fall for their charms.
Enforceable or not it is a good clause as it demonstrates everyone's commitment. The reality of the clause is that if teams try to leave the PAC12, for whatever reason, it likely means the conference is falling apart. Then not so enforceable.
I'm not sure what schools like KU, ISU, KSU, Baylor, etc. have to gain by signing over their rights. They are not the ones wanting to leave.
Their rights aren't worth much, so signing them over isn't a big deal. It's a much bigger deal to OU and UT, but they're the ones who really want to keep the conference together. It may be time for OU and UT to realize that even though they're the big dogs, they still need the little pups.
They need those little pups in Lefty's signature pic?
Separate names with a comma.