(01-19-2020 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-19-2020 12:14 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 10:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 08:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 04:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Thanks for the link. Links to the actual text are always good. But the language doesn't really support your idea that it's limited to TV rights, and so the MWC can get around it by selling the games to a streaming service. Some things are very clearly stated.

Looking at section 3, "Television Rights" by sentence:
Sentences 2, 3. MWC has to sell the Boise STate package separately.
Sentence 4. Boise State and the MWC must mutually agree to the Boise State TV package.

So the MWC can't sell the Boise games to anybody without Boise's signature. And if they sell the games to a streaming service to get around that provision, the MWC is in breach because they're obligated to sell the Boise football TV rights.

Are you a lawyer?

Then please describe the point of section 5 which talks specifically about web streaming rights. You are applying the conditions specified for Broadcast Television rights to web video which is specifically described differently. Where by your read does broadcast TV stop and web streaming start.

Mountain West and Stadium want to stream Boise's football games under Section 5? Go ahead. As long as they are televised in accordance with Section 3.

Again are you a lawyer?

I’m a lawyer and I agree with johnbragg’s assessment. The streaming language in Section 5 is irrelevant with respect to the MWC’s obligations under Section 3. The MWC can sell Boise’s streaming rights all that they want under Section 5, but if they don’t sell a separate Boise television package under Section 3 (and television is very clearly distinct from streaming), then Boise gets the TV rights to its home games back from the conference... and that’s EVEN if Boise stays as a member of the MWC. Section 3 is dealing with the most valuable portion of “media rights” and it’s very specific. This is a pretty clear provision without much ambiguity.

Ultimately, Boise State has complete and 100% contractual leverage over the MWC here (in addition to their own real world market leverage over the MWC even if they didn’t have such a great contract in their favor here). I have zero idea why any MWC fan thinks they’re going to be better off fighting Boise State here (and once again, I have absolutely no dog in this fight).

How much in your opinion does the premise of the contract falls apart with the bonus system (that now has been tweaked) in regard that ESPN and other cable sports networks are below the 90 million household as stated in the contract?
At that time ESPN was in over 100 million households but in the past few years are now at 85 million.
If one can go by the letter of the term sheet, then nobody can get a bonus because the broadcast of that game wasn’t on a platform that met minimum of 90 million households.