https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?...otball.pdf

Has this already been discussed? Boise State is suing the MWC for breaching the Re-Entry Agreement by not obtaining BSU's fully informed consent to the CBS/FOX agreement.

BSU also claims that the MWC has elected to cease certain contractual payments in 6 years.

WOW.

Yikes.

A lawsuit for 6 years in the future?

If the MW presidents decided to end the deal in 6 years, I guess BSU will be voted out of the conference by then.

They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments. And like pretty much all of these lawsuits, they filed it where they think the judges will be on their side.

So, this is not surprising at all.

Either the MWC wanted this to be fought out in court and they're getting their wish, or Thompson stepped in a big pile of doo-doo when he made those comments.

So yeah this part is really bad for the MWC if true

33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC
provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the
agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms,
including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be
distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the
MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material
terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the
agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agteement, before a
contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered
into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise
State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material
terms of the contract. (Ex. 1, !13.)

34. Because it lacked the required information on the CBS/Fox agreement's material
terms and because the MWC, based on the alternatives it presented during the Board of Directors
meeting, was not only trying to renege on its contractual obligation to pay Boise State the $1.8
million bonus, but also to deprive it of any proportionate share of the increased revenue generated
by the CBS/Fox agreement even though Boise State was admittedly the driving force behind that
agreement, Boise State (l) did not vote to approve or accept the CBS/Fox agreement; and (2)
opposed the termination of the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment's $1.8 million bonus

35. Based on these votes, and pursuant to the express terms ofthe Re-Entry Agreement
as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment, the MWC could not adopt either course of
action. Despite this fact, it accepted both, a course of action that was contrary to and in breach of
the MWC's contract with Boise State and in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied therein.

36. Upon information and belief, each individual director who participated in the votes
at the December 15 and 16, 2019 Board of Directors meeting knew that by his or her'!es" vote
on either issue (1) or (2), he was acting to cause the MWC to breach its contractual obligations to
Boise State to the ultimate detriment of both Boise State and the MWC.

37 . Upon information and belief, the MWC, its Commissioner, and individual directors
other than Dr. Tromp, agteed and conspired to negotiate terms ofthe CBS/Fox agreement, failed
to obtain Boise State's consent and, to its detriment, voted (1) in favor of the agreement, and (2)
in favor of terminating the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment's $1.8 million bonus, thereby
violating the MWC's contractual obligations to Boise State. ln fact, two directors voted against
any additional distribution to Boise State in the second vote, even for the six years of the CBSffox
agreement.

Dave Southorn

@davesouthorn
Boise State was seeking more than the $1.8 million it had been getting. That seems to be a major sticking point.

So Apparently, BSU was seeking to get double the amount of the rest of the conference like they were getting before. The MW presidents said no way.

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments.

I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials in a December meeting with the MW commissioner, but now the MW isn't going along, as to Boise's surprise that wasn't brought up at the subsequent MW Board meeting.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 14% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments.

I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials, but now the MW isn't going along.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 13% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

Yeah. I don’t see the rest of the conference going to allow for BSU to get double what the rest of the conference gets.

I hope Boise realizes that they aren’t just suing the conference but their fellow members also

Craig Thompson and the MWCs shadiness is going to bite them in the butt on this one. Allegedly he met with BSU and gave the impression that BSU would not only get to keep their bonus, but would get a proportional increase with the new deal. Then does a complete 180...

Boise State alleges that:
- The Re-Entry Agreement as amended...is a valid and enforceable contract that does not contain a set term limit.
- The Re-Entry Agreement expressly requires that the television rights to Boise State's home football games are to be sold as a separate package and, more importantly, that "Boise State and [the] MWC must mutually agree to whom such Boise State home football game rights are licensed and to the material terms of such license. . . ." (Ex. I, fl 3 .)
- The MWC materially breached the Re-Entry Agreement when it entered into the CBS/Fox agreement, which encompassed the television rights to Boise State's home football games, without Boise State's fully informed consent to its material terms.
- Although the MWC is still paying the $1.8 million bonus explicitly required by this contract, it inexplicably and improperly elected to cease such payments in six years. By electing to do so, again without Boise State's consent, and despite the fact the Re-Entry Agreement as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment does not have a termination date, the MWC anticipatorily repudiated one of the material obligations it owes to Boise State under that contract.

BYU knows these kind of dealings all too well (rebroadcast and 3rd tier TV rights for BYU games which were not picked up by TV partners)...which contributed to their departure from the conference.

(01-22-2020 03:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments.

I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials, but now the MW isn't going along.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 13% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

Yeah. I don’t see the rest of the conference going to allow for BSU to get double what the rest of the conference gets.

I hope Boise realizes that they aren’t just suing the conference but their fellow members also

But if the numbers in the suit are correct, they already do: Regular MW schools get about $1.1m a year from the current media deal while Boise gets about $2.8m. Boise's $1.8m bonus is considerably more than the value of a single school share of the media deal.

Boise seems to want that same logic applied to the new deal. If the new deal is worth $45m, more than triple the old deal, then they may want their bonus to triple or whatever as well. They don't give a number but do use the term "proportional".

Of course, we can all want what we want to want, doesn't mean we will get it.

I am no lawyer, but to me, given that the MW hasn't missed a $1.8m payment, and because the proportional bonus was never agreed to by the MW Board, which seems to be necessary for a deal to actually go through, the only real issue here is whether the MW has tried to ratify a contract that violates the terms of existing agreements, e.g. Boise claims that their re-entry agreement means the MW can't implement a new deal for Boise unless Boise agrees to it, and Boise is saying they never agreed to this new deal.

Looks like the rest of the MW is looking for a way to make Boise's pay equal to the rest of the conference, and the commissioner is in on it.

Boise will end up with another conference arrangement before this is through.

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials, but now the MW isn't going along.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 13% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

The immediate problem seems to be not only the bonus payment--but that Boise State was not provided the details regarding the sale of the rights to their home and away games as the re-entry agreement outlined. The MWC negotiated and agreed on the new TV deal without provided Boise State those details. So could they legally call into question the validity of the new TV deal--saying that the MWC didn't get consent of all parties as required before signing the deal? Using that as leverage to get what they feel they were promised in their re-entry contract...

(01-22-2020 02:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So yeah this part is really bad for the MWC if true

33. Prior to voting on whether to accept or reject the CBS/Fox agreement, the MWC
provided Boise State with only minimal information as to the basic proposed terms of the
agreement. It did not, however, disclose many of the proposed agreement's material terms,
including material monetary terms, such as how the revenue from the agreement would be
distributed, how bonuses would be paid or the agreement's cancellation terms. Essentially, the
MWC refused to provide Boise State with vital information on the proposed agreement's material
terms, and thereby deprived Boise State of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate whether the
agreement was acceptable or not. And, as expressly stated in the Re-Entry Agteement, before a
contract embracing the television rights to Boise State's home football games could be entered
into by the MWC, rights the CBS/Fox agreement unequivocally covered, both the MWC and Boise
State were required to agree to the company to whom those rights were sold and to the material
terms of the contract. (Ex. 1, !13.)

34. Because it lacked the required information on the CBS/Fox agreement's material
terms and because the MWC, based on the alternatives it presented during the Board of Directors
meeting, was not only trying to renege on its contractual obligation to pay Boise State the $1.8
million bonus, but also to deprive it of any proportionate share of the increased revenue generated
by the CBS/Fox agreement even though Boise State was admittedly the driving force behind that
agreement, Boise State (l) did not vote to approve or accept the CBS/Fox agreement; and (2)
opposed the termination of the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment's $1.8 million bonus

35. Based on these votes, and pursuant to the express terms ofthe Re-Entry Agreement
as amended by the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment, the MWC could not adopt either course of
action. Despite this fact, it accepted both, a course of action that was contrary to and in breach of
the MWC's contract with Boise State and in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied therein.

36. Upon information and belief, each individual director who participated in the votes
at the December 15 and 16, 2019 Board of Directors meeting knew that by his or her'!es" vote
on either issue (1) or (2), he was acting to cause the MWC to breach its contractual obligations to
Boise State to the ultimate detriment of both Boise State and the MWC.

37 . Upon information and belief, the MWC, its Commissioner, and individual directors
other than Dr. Tromp, agteed and conspired to negotiate terms ofthe CBS/Fox agreement, failed
to obtain Boise State's consent and, to its detriment, voted (1) in favor of the agreement, and (2)
in favor of terminating the Re-Entry Agreement Amendment's $1.8 million bonus, thereby
violating the MWC's contractual obligations to Boise State. ln fact, two directors voted against
any additional distribution to Boise State in the second vote, even for the six years of the CBSffox
agreement.

They can always choose to kick them out of the conference too. They can just tell the court that if Boise Community College wants to set their own deal then they can do so as an Independent.

(01-22-2020 03:19 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Looks like the rest of the MW is looking for a way to make Boise's pay equal to the rest of the conference, and the commissioner is in on it.

Boise will end up with another conference arrangement before this is through.

Yeah, they want to maintain favored nation status.
I wonder how much the Academics of this "school" would improve if they put the same amount of effort into education as they do for lawsuits and blue turf football?

(01-22-2020 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 02:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They have a contract. Boise State says the contract is important to them. The MWC commissioner said, "We are going to ignore this contract from now on." Presumably, lawyers told Boise State that if they just let those comments go, the MWC would take the position that Boise State agreed with Thompson's comments.

I don't think the MW statement about not paying the bonus after 2025 is the real issue here. Until the MW actually stops paying the bonus, those are just words and Boise has suffered no harm. It's like if I have a divorce settlement that calls for me to pay $2000 a month to my ex, and I tell her starting next month I'm not paying, she can't complain to the judge until i actually miss a payment. And so far, the MW hasn't missed a payment.

So I think the real issue is Boise's desire to get *more* than the $1.8m bonus in the new TV deal. If I read the suit correctly, Boise is saying that because the new deal is worth a lot more than the old deal, that Boise should get their bonus increased as well. Boise seems to be saying that this was agreed to by MW officials, but now the MW isn't going along.

Boise doesn't give an exact amount of an increase they want, but doing some math:

If the current deal is for $13m a year, and Boise gets $1.8m off the top and then everyone gets approximately $1.1m after that (including Boise), then Boise's bonus is about 13% of the value of the deal.

The new announced deal is for $45m annually, so 14% of that would be over $6m dollars! And that's just the bonus, Boise then would get a full regular share, same as every other MW school save Hawaii.

Boise might be thinking it deserves to be paid about $9m in media money from the new deal, with everyone else making around $3m.

Yeah. I don’t see the rest of the conference going to allow for BSU to get double what the rest of the conference gets.

I hope Boise realizes that they aren’t just suing the conference but their fellow members also

But if the numbers in the suit are correct, they already do: Regular MW schools get about $1.1m a year from the current media deal while Boise gets about $2.8m. Boise's $1.8m bonus is considerably more than the value of a single school share of the media deal.

Boise seems to want that same logic applied to the new deal. If the new deal is worth $45m, more than triple the old deal, then they want their bonus to triple or whatever as well.

Of course, we can all want what we want to want, doesn't mean we will get it.

I am no lawyer, but to me, given that the MW hasn't missed a $1.8m payment, and because the proportional bonus was never agreed to by the MW Board, which seems to be necessary for a deal to actually go through, the only real issue here is whether the MW has tried to ratify a contract that violates the terms of existing agreements, e.g. Boise claims that their re-entry agreement means the MW can't implement a new deal for Boise unless Boise agrees to it, and Boise is saying they never agreed to this new deal.

Boise winning this lawsuit would cause the contract to be voided and renegotiated. I imagine that the other schools would then band together against Boise CC.
Hopefully we can get Frank's two cents as well.

(01-22-2020 03:20 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  They can always choose to kick them out of the conference too. They can just tell the court that if Boise Community College wants to set their own deal then they can do so as an Independent.

If they kick Boise State out of the conference, wouldn't that jeopardize their conference TV deal because it specifically includes the home and away conference rights to Boise State's games--which they would not leave in the conference if they were given the boot. Otherwise the MWC pulled a bait and switch on the TV networks.

(01-22-2020 03:19 PM)f1do Wrote:  The immediate problem seems to be not only the bonus payment--but that Boise State was not provided the details regarding the sale of the rights to their home and away games as the re-entry agreement outlined. The MWC negotiated and agreed on the new TV deal without provided Boise State those details. So could they legally call into question the validity of the new TV deal--saying that the MWC didn't get consent of all parties as required before signing the deal? Using that as leverage to get what they feel they were promised in their re-entry contract...

I agree that's the immediate rub. Boise seems* to be saying that for a new TV contract to be valid Boise must consent to it in terms of stuff like who the network partner is and the money involved, and they did not vote to consent.

*Again, I am not a lawyer and may be misunderstanding Boise's claims in the lawsuit.

Boise State has read DavidSt's valuation of their national brand and is making big moves to elevate their program to where it belongs.

(01-22-2020 03:19 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Looks like the rest of the MW is looking for a way to make Boise's pay equal to the rest of the conference, and the commissioner is in on it.

Boise will end up with another conference arrangement before this is through.

And there's the rub.

Boise doesn't have many options other than the MWC.

Independence isn't a very attractive option for Boise. They're too remote.

The American might take Boise for football-only. But not for all-sports. And that's a problem.

Unlike BYU, Boise's basketball program isn't strong enough to attract interest from another conference. Unlike BYU, Boise isn't in a major airline hub that makes it easy to for non-revenue teams to fly in. Unlike BYU, Boise doesn't have a strong built-in fanbase that will tune in matter how bad they are.