(12-24-2018 04:19 PM)franzeal’' Wrote:  I'm under the impression Blacksburg was also affected and canceling events they were hosting that same weekend.

True.

Florida International has 3 OOC games scheduled so far for 2019:

@Tulane on 08/31
home vs FCS/New Hampshire on 09/14
home vs UMass on 10/05

Exact dates for conference games not yet announced, but FIU gets Old Dominion and Charlotte at home next year. So, a hypothetical FIU-at-ECU game on 09/21 would give FIU and ECU six home games each, and would not require FIU to make two road games to the same region.

Thoughts?

(12-24-2018 11:55 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 09:55 AM)DowdyPirate2 Wrote:  

(12-23-2018 07:45 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  It's pretty clear that Virginia Tech doesn't want to play ECU. In my opinion that should end it. Why be that guy that it continues to hang around and hang around .. hoping.. when it's clear that you're not wanted? Are they going to need a restraining order:-)

What are you talking about? If VT wants to cancel the games they can pay the buyout.

Really? I bet not one person posting in this thread has even read the contract. Until then this sounds like what I described --- Virginia Tech doesn't want you in their life anymore and ECU is sitting on the couch crying -- asking in a tearful voice "Why, ... why, ...why."

I’m not sure how a Memphis fan knows how ECU fans must feel? Maybe you can let us know. I can assure you no one at ECU is crying over this. We are simply pointing out we don’t like how VT is spinning the cancelation of the series.

VT is not like playing Alabama or somebody. Geez I’m sure we will get over not having them on the schedule if it doesn’t get resolved.

Maybe you are comparing this to Tennessee not wanting to play Memphis.

(12-24-2018 10:12 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Even if a court found that ECU was in breach---the remedy would not be allowing VTech to opt out of multiple Greenville games of the series leaving just the games where ECU travels to the Hokies. The typical court remedy would likely be an extra home game for the Hokies being added to the series--or cash--or perhaps both. I cant imagine there is any clause in that deal that allow VTech to "opt out" of the road games but keep the home ECU games on the schedule. The VTech reaction seems so punitive and vindictive that it almost appears they are spoiling for a court battle.

Where Babcock steps in it is in saying that they will still host ECU of they want to. If they are indeed in breach of the contract, then declare the contract null and void and move on. By unilaterally canceling the away games he has imposed an non contractual remedy on ECU. If there is no buyout in the contract then the return game in 2019 would be understood as payment for the 2018 game.

Where ECU got too cute by half was playing NC State instead of VT. They got paid for that buy game and likely made a nice payday. Depending on how the negotiations went, it could be deemed that they were bargaining in bad faith. Don't be shocked if VT's insurance company doesn't sue ECU to recover their losses. If ECU had played VT at the end of the season, we wouldn't be here now. The time line of the NC State negotiations will determine a lot of the outcome.

At the end of the day, both sides are wrong to some extent and any court judgment would reflect that. Babcock should have just announced that they are in breach of contract and therefore VT was freed from the contract by their breach. Overall ECU has lost a regional game that was good for their school and their fan base. However it turns out, this is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. Even if you win, the losses are not worth the victory.

I still contend that ECU never breached due to act of god/nature. However, even if ECU did breach it doesn't mean that the entirety of the contract is void. Contracts like this one have contingency clauses that stipulate remedies. What VT AD is proposing is not called for under the contract. Again, ECU can put up a good case that there was no breach on their behalf. Either way, ECU can show non-speculative damages that substantially outweigh any nominal loss suffered by VT this year. I honestly wonder why their AD even wanted to drop this news right before Xmas. What a grinch.

(12-24-2018 12:21 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:23 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 09:59 AM)DowdyPirate2 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 03:23 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Even if a court found that ECU was in breach---the remedy would not be allowing VTech to opt out of multiple Greenville games of the series leaving just the games where ECU travels to the Hokies. The typical court remedy would likely be an extra home game for the Hokies being added to the series--or cash--or perhaps both. I cant imagine there is any clause in that deal that allow VTech to "opt out" of the road games but keep the home ECU games on the schedule. The VTech reaction seems so punitive and vindictive that it almost appears they are spoiling for a court battle.

We just went through this with Miami, ended up in court.

What we got out of the arbiter is that claiming an act of god for a game that's nowhere near the actual hurricane is very shaky ground, but there are enough safety concerns that the two sides could argue about it for a while, and spend more on lawyers than what they'd win We ended up settling for like two/thirds of the buyout.

My guess is that VTU watched that case and is playing the odds that ECU won't go to court because the case isn't the strongest to begin with. They are assuming that ECU will just cancel the rest of it and the two sides be done with each other. The only major difference here is that there is actually a history between the two sides.

Greenville was destroyed by the hurricane. ECU’s ability to travel is very much affected by that. ECU was evacuated at the time that Vt wanted to make a decision. VT was completely unrealistic and they did so purposely to try and get out of a contract without paying a buyout.

You are completely ignoring the fact that there was an opportunity to make up the game at the end of the season and you chose to play NC State instead. If Greenville was evacuated why not evacuate to Blacksburg? If the football team was evacuated as a group by the university, it lessens your argument.

The issue at hand was ECU's unilateral decision to cancel the game, followed by their failure to reschedule for the end of the year when they could have. They chose to play NC State instead. I get the political considerations of playing an in state school vs VT. Were there mitigating circumstances? We will find out as the story unfolds.

There is nothing clear cut here at all. Both sides are responsible to differing degrees. ECU has lost a region scheduling partner that was good for the school and good for the fan base.

For that is holy, please take the time to read,

https://247sports.com/college/east-carol...126767714/

I read it before I wrote this reply. It admits that ECU unilaterally canceled the game. It also confirms that the game with NC State was announced barely 2 weeks after the canceled game. Furthermore, your legal counsel’s wording did not specifically cite any contract language. Instead they prattled on about the relationship Yada Yada. That was worded for the court of public opinion not a legal proceeding.

I am not disputing the decision to cancel on Sep 15. Your failure to make it up at the end of the season is where you are liable. Announcing the game with NC State 16 days after the canceled game with VT makes it dubious that you tried very hard to honor the commitment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(12-24-2018 11:56 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I read it before I wrote this reply. It admits that ECU unilaterally canceled the game. It also confirms that the game with NC State was announced barely 2 weeks after the canceled game. Furthermore, your legal counsel’s wording did not specifically cite any contract language. Instead they prattled on about the relationship Yada Yada. That was worded for the court of public opinion not a legal proceeding.

I am not disputing the decision to cancel on Sep 15. Your failure to make it up at the end of the season is where you are liable. Announcing the game with NC State 16 days after the canceled game with VT makes it dubious that you tried very hard to honor the commitment.

Since you know what their commitments were, would you care to share the contract with those of us who haven't read it? I've only seen what I take to be excerpts.

(12-25-2018 12:04 AM)franzeal Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 11:56 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I read it before I wrote this reply. It admits that ECU unilaterally canceled the game. It also confirms that the game with NC State was announced barely 2 weeks after the canceled game. Furthermore, your legal counsel’s wording did not specifically cite any contract language. Instead they prattled on about the relationship Yada Yada. That was worded for the court of public opinion not a legal proceeding.

I am not disputing the decision to cancel on Sep 15. Your failure to make it up at the end of the season is where you are liable. Announcing the game with NC State 16 days after the canceled game with VT makes it dubious that you tried very hard to honor the commitment.

Since you know what their commitments were, would you care to share the contract with those of us who haven't read it? I've only seen what I take to be excerpts.

VT didn't give ECU a clue weather they wanted to make up the game or not and wanted ECU to wait to see if they needed the game to become bowl eligible. Just because ECU was compelled by a hurricane to cancel the game doesn't mean VT has ECU by the balls and can string the administration a long till the end of the season. ECU had to implement a contingency plan. VT AD is the one that has breached and his institution will be the entity held accountable. Just wait and watch it unfold.

(12-24-2018 04:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 04:19 PM)franzeal’' Wrote:  I'm under the impression Blacksburg was also affected and canceling events they were hosting that same weekend.

True.

Florida International has 3 OOC games scheduled so far for 2019:

@Tulane on 08/31
home vs FCS/New Hampshire on 09/14
home vs UMass on 10/05

Exact dates for conference games not yet announced, but FIU gets Old Dominion and Charlotte at home next year. So, a hypothetical FIU-at-ECU game on 09/21 would give FIU and ECU six home games each, and would not require FIU to make two road games to the same region.

Thoughts?

If Miami and FIU are both available, I'd prefer the Hurricanes. But I'd rather have FIU than an FCS school.

(12-24-2018 11:55 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 09:55 AM)DowdyPirate2 Wrote:  

(12-23-2018 07:45 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  It's pretty clear that Virginia Tech doesn't want to play ECU. In my opinion that should end it. Why be that guy that it continues to hang around and hang around .. hoping.. when it's clear that you're not wanted? Are they going to need a restraining order:-)

What are you talking about? If VT wants to cancel the games they can pay the buyout.

Really? I bet not one person posting in this thread has even read the contract. Until then this sounds like what I described --- Virginia Tech doesn't want you in their life anymore and ECU is sitting on the couch crying -- asking in a tearful voice "Why, ... why, ...why."

Again, what are you talking about? Who is talking about forcing VT to play games? You are confused.

(12-24-2018 02:24 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 09:59 AM)DowdyPirate2 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 03:23 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Even if a court found that ECU was in breach---the remedy would not be allowing VTech to opt out of multiple Greenville games of the series leaving just the games where ECU travels to the Hokies. The typical court remedy would likely be an extra home game for the Hokies being added to the series--or cash--or perhaps both. I cant imagine there is any clause in that deal that allow VTech to "opt out" of the road games but keep the home ECU games on the schedule. The VTech reaction seems so punitive and vindictive that it almost appears they are spoiling for a court battle.

We just went through this with Miami, ended up in court.

What we got out of the arbiter is that claiming an act of god for a game that's nowhere near the actual hurricane is very shaky ground, but there are enough safety concerns that the two sides could argue about it for a while, and spend more on lawyers than what they'd win We ended up settling for like two/thirds of the buyout.

My guess is that VTU watched that case and is playing the odds that ECU won't go to court because the case isn't the strongest to begin with. They are assuming that ECU will just cancel the rest of it and the two sides be done with each other. The only major difference here is that there is actually a history between the two sides.

Greenville was destroyed by the hurricane. ECU’s ability to travel is very much affected by that. ECU was evacuated at the time that Vt wanted to make a decision. VT was completely unrealistic and they did so purposely to try and get out of a contract without paying a buyout.

You just listed Miami's exact argument against us. They claimed since the city was evacuated, traveling was going to be too difficult, and the time frame to make a call was too tight.

When it got to court, Miami had to basically admit they could have traveled, but chose not to out of safety and financial concern. In the end, they had to pay.

I would expect, if push comes to shove, you'd be looking at the same situation here. Court's would say "Yes, ECU has to pay for the cancelled game" but then they'd also declare that by VTU cancelling the game in Greeneville, they effectively cancelled the contract for the series, and both of you walk away with nothing.

Two completely different situations. Miami was hardly impacted by Irma. Greenville was under water for a week.