BC Backpedal

[KaiserUEO]

I was called an idiot without merit I may been a little extreme, for that I apologize but when somebody without cause insults my intelligence I will defend myself. I am not saying people without law degrees can't offer legal opinions at all. Hell one of the best Supreme Court Justices Benjamin Cardozo never graduated from law school. I never inferred I was smarter than anybody other than the guy who attacked me, but if somebody says I am addressing a definite possible legal issue and I have no clue what I am talking I won't take that.

Add-on I should say the only person I will take it from is Kaiser because truthfully he is right almost 100% of the time.

maybe its me, but i like the way this kid thinks.....

 

[OrangeHeel]

maybe its me, but i like the way this kid thinks.....

You're right, but for totally different reasons. (LOL)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IthacaBarrel]

maybe its me, but i like the way this kid thinks.....

What I don't get is why SU people are getting so wrapped up in this nonsense, the game is over for Syracuse fans. The rest is semantics.. I suggest everyone go fishing off a dock, when you get a sunny or a perch on the line, reel it and let it sit on the dock for a minute, in fact catch two. When the two fish begin to flop around uncontrollably and our gasping to get back in the water, picture UCONN and Rutgers, do what you want with them at that point because they right now are completely irrelevant because your boat is gased and ready to head out on the lake. After that, load up your coooler, get in your 21 foot Whaler, open it up, get out to the middle the deepest part of the lake, open up a beer and put your pole in the water, wait it may take a while hopefully not 27 months probably won't, it's not like catching those perch off the dock that my 5 year old daughter reeels in with a hot dog as bait... When you see the pole begin to bend uncontrollaby start reeling it in... When you see a nice healthy lake trout on the other end that would be Syracuse, if its a musky well damit that is U Florida but those are very rare and you need to be very deep, if you lose the trout on the line, go back and think of those perch or sunny's fighting for their lives back on shore and open up another beer.. because you already caught the trout the day before and you weren't drunk, it actually happened...

I was thinking of this on Lake Champlain this weekend... It all happened other than the musky. Of course the perch had swallowed the hook and died whatever that means, I couldn't save it and my kids were not happy, maybe they are closet Rutgers fans? and the Whaler is my neighbors, great boat by the way

 

[Townie72]

Hope this helps

. Generally, as between themselves, partners are fiduciaries. The fiduciary duties include the following:
1)Accounting: Every partner must account to the partnership for any profits derived from the formation, conduct or liquidation of the partnership or from any use of partnership property, unless he or she acted with the consent of the partnership.
2)Competing with the Partnership: A partner may not compete with the partnership without the consent of all other partners. They must disclose the other partnerships and the parties give consent.
3)Assets: A partner who purchases or holds partnership assets in his own name does so as a trustee for the partnership and can be compelled to account to the partnership for the assets or their value.
Partners’ fiduciary duties to one another are loyalty, care and good faith and fair dealing.
1)Duty of Loyalty: A partner must be loyal to his partners and make a full and fair disclosure to other partners of all information that may be of value to the partnership.
a.Not all self-interested transactions violate the duty of loyalty. The question is whether the partnership or the other partners are harmed.
b.Duty not to compete
c.Duty to handle partnership opportunities appropriately
d.Refrain from aiding adverse parties when winding up the partnership.
2)Duty of Care: The partner must refrain act how a reasonable person would in a similar situation and refrain from gross negligence, reckless conduct, intentional misconduct or knowing violation of the law in: 1) the conduct of partnership business; and 2) the winding up of the partnership
3)Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Partners must discharge the duties of loyalty and care in good faith and fair dealing.
a.Partnership is a fiduciary relationship, and partners may not take advantages for themselves at the expense of the partnership. Thus a partner who seeks a business advantage over another partner bears the burden of showing complete good faith and fairness to the other.
b.One way a self-interested partner may meet this burden is to have disinterested partners ratify its actions.

How are the Big East and ESPN "partners"? With just some Business Law courses and a bunch of experience as support, I just don't see a "partnership" here. The "partnership" with a"fiducary duties" and all that refers to how a business is organized and owned.

These are two seperate entities doing business with one another under the terms and conditions of a contract. It's a buyer and a seller, not a partnership. The Big East is the seller of TV rights and ESPN is the buyer. There is no "Partnership" here. You buying stuff from me doesn't make us partners.

So all that stuff you wrote about the duties of partners may apply to "Sam and Izzies Dry Cleaning" but not to the Biig East and ESPN. Unless, I would guess, the contract they signed has provisions that address these behaviors.

 

[rrlbees]

The original idea was to add SU and UConn. That may have been ESPN's advice. But Swofford ran into resistance to this within his own membership.

People have to keep that in mind. If ESPN said SU & UConn then why didn't the ACC go with that? Because they didn't want to. So ESPN did not tell them who to add, otherwise it would be SU & UConn.

 

[javadoc]

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

The Big East's existing contract is not affected, as far as I know. And they just turned down an offer for a renewed contract. As long as the existing contract is not harmed, and there are not serious ongoing negotiations on a new contract, I don't see any problem with what has transpired.

I forget, is there even an incorporated entity known as the "Big East" which can bring suit now?

 

[sufan]

People have to keep that in mind. If ESPN said SU & UConn then why didn't the ACC go with that? Because they didn't want to. So ESPN did not tell them who to add, otherwise it would be SU & UConn.

-----------------

The Defilippo article adds only a little light regarding the ACC decision to add Pitt instead of whoever.

All it does is spotlight what Defilippo was thinking: that he didn't want UConn because he was/is rightly afraid that UConn as a large state university would overshadow BC in the New Engand region for media attention and recruits. It also sheds light as to how amazingly non-professional Defilippo is to imply ESPN was anything more than a provider of information about the media potential of potential adds.

The decision makers were the 12 ACC Presidents, including football schools like FSU, Clemson and so on; FSU shortly before the ACC add announced it was forming or thinking about forming an expansion committee to explore its options. Defilippo himself said that this was a football decision. He also highlighted the rumors that the Big 12 might consider offering Pitt among other Big East schools and the ACC felt PA was an important market area. No doubt there were other considerations.

The idea that UConn was somehow vetoed by Defilippo largely resides in his overactive imagination.

 

[Townie72]

Townie I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me where ESPN gets in "hot water" is:

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

Mark;

These are not contract "partners". These are "parties" to a contract. Big difference. There isn't some sort of special relationship that is created that requires one party to always have the back of the other. The contract spells out the duties and responsibilities.

 

[Orangemen]

Townie I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me where ESPN gets in "hot water" is:

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

I don't think this is any issue at all. Wasn't there just a report out of Mizzou stating that the SEC did an investigation and stood to get $29M per team if they renegotiated with Mizzou on board?

This happens all the time in realignment, it has to.

The Big Ten took Nebraska last year based largely on the fact that they are a national brand who will bring in TV ratings (2 primetime national TV games in the last 2 weeks). Do you think they just guessed that Nebraska would help their financial situation? I think it's clear they present hypotheticals to their television partners and say tell us which you like best.

Flipper's comment was really just poorly worded. I'm sure ESPN didn't call the ACC out of the blue and say take SU and Pitt. The ACC came up with options, and their television partner (ESPN) simply gave them their opinion on the strongest one. The ACC then went after that scenario.

From UConn's point of view, though, they are screwed. They will look for any angle they can get to force their way through the door, and if they can't do that, they're gonna make sure they get their pound of flesh instead.

Flipper's comment was dumb, and played into UConn's desperation. Nothing will probably ever come of it, but it's good enough for UConn to use to make a lot of noise, and cause a few headaches.

 

[Alsacs]

Mark;

These are not contract "partners". These are "parties" to a contract. Big difference. There isn't some sort of special relationship that is created that requires one party to always have the back of the other. The contract spells out the duties and responsibilities.

http://www.bigeast.org/AbouttheBIGEAST/Television.aspx
The Big East calls ESPN its television partner.

 

[Townie72]

I don't think this is any issue at all. Wasn't there just a report out of Mizzou stating that the SEC did an investigation and stood to get $29M per team if they renegotiated with Mizzou on board?

This happens all the time in realignment, it has to.

The Big Ten took Nebraska last year based largely on the fact that they are a national brand who will bring in TV ratings (2 primetime national TV games in the last 2 weeks). Do you think they just guessed that Nebraska would help their financial situation? I think it's clear they present hypotheticals to their television partners and say tell us which you like best.

Flipper's comment was really just poorly worded. I'm sure ESPN didn't call the ACC out of the blue and say take SU and Pitt. The ACC came up with options, and their television partner (ESPN) simply gave them their opinion on the strongest one. The ACC then went after that scenario.

From UConn's point of view, though, they are screwed. They will look for any angle they can get to force their way through the door, and if they can't do that, they're gonna make sure they get their pound of flesh instead.

Flipper's comment was dumb, and played into UConn's desperation. Nothing will probably ever come of it, but it's good enough for UConn to use to make a lot of noise, can cause a few headaches.

That could turn out to be a very expensive "pound of flesh" given the price UConn is still paying for their 2004 legal addventure. I doubt if UConn and Pitt, WVU and VT would have ever thought of that lawsuit were it not for the CT Attorney General, a poitical opportunist of the highers order.

The State of Ct had just spent a ton of money to upgrade facilites in anticipation of joining the Big East that included Miami. They were horrified and embarrassed when they discovered that the contract allowed schools to leave. How's that for due diligence prior to spending public money.

So to cover their tracks --- and to garner headlines --- they sued everybody claiming all sorts of conspiracies and evil intent.

The big winners were the Wall Street law firms that had the Big East as a client. They billed millions of dollars of legal fees.

 

[Townie72]

http://www.bigeast.org/AbouttheBIGEAST/Television.aspx
The Big East calls ESPN its television partner.

Calling a goose a duck doesn't make it one.

You are the lawyer here. Is this a "partnership" as envisioned in all that stuff you lectured us on above? Or is this a business relationship between a vendor and a buyer that they are calling a "partnership" because they like the sound of it?

I'm not a lawyer. But I know what a "partnership" is and unless ESPN and the Big East formed some sort of organization then this isn't now and never was a "partnership" in the legal sense of the word. You're the lawyer --- capable of kicking any one's azz in the knowledge of the law --- so how is this a real "partnership"

I spent years in manufacturing firms in which we called other companies our marketing partners. But these weren't "partnerships". When we wanted to have a real partnership, we created another organizational entity ... a joint venture or a new company in which we both owned stock. And these were seperate corporations and not real legal partnerships.

At this point in the conversation, it would be OK if you admitted that this really isn't a "partnership" and all that stuff you wrote that applies to real partnerships really doesn't apply to this situation.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't think this is any issue at all. Wasn't there just a report out of Mizzou stating that the SEC did an investigation and stood to get $29M per team if they renegotiated with Mizzou on board?

This happens all the time in realignment, it has to.

The Big Ten took Nebraska last year based largely on the fact that they are a national brand who will bring in TV ratings (2 primetime national TV games in the last 2 weeks). Do you think they just guessed that Nebraska would help their financial situation? I think it's clear they present hypotheticals to their television partners and say tell us which you like best.

Flipper's comment was really just poorly worded. I'm sure ESPN didn't call the ACC out of the blue and say take SU and Pitt. The ACC came up with options, and their television partner (ESPN) simply gave them their opinion on the strongest one. The ACC then went after that scenario.

From UConn's point of view, though, they are screwed. They will look for any angle they can get to force their way through the door, and if they can't do that, they're gonna make sure they get their pound of flesh instead.

Flipper's comment was dumb, and played into UConn's desperation. Nothing will probably ever come of it, but it's good enough for UConn to use to make a lot of noise, can cause a few headaches.

This isn't about UConn or any other individual school within the Big East. Its about the fact ESPN is not suppose to be telling a conference to pillar another conference. I agree with a lot of your points, and this truthfully has no effect on Syracuse University in any way shape or form unless as part of a settlement we were forced to schedule some Big East teams. All Flipper had to say was we had the ability to re-negotiate with ESPN and by expanding we chose that option, but instead he said ESPN told us what to do, and that was totally clueless.

 

[Alsacs]

Calling a goose a duck doesn't make it one.

You are the lawyer here. Is this a "partnership" as envisioned in all that stuff you lectured us on above? Or is this a business relationship between a vendor and a buyer that they are calling a "partnership" because they like the sound of it?

I'm not a lawyer. But I know what a "partnership" is and unless ESPN and the Big East formed some sort of organization then this isn't now and never was a "partnership" in the legal sense of the word. You're the lawyer --- capable of kicking any one's azz in the knowledge of the law --- so how is this a real "partnership"

I spent years in manufacturing firms in which we called other companies our marketing partners. But these weren't "partnerships". When we wanted to have a real partnership, we created another organizational entity ... a joint venture or a new company in which we both owned stock. And these were seperate corporations and not real legal partnerships.

At this point in the conversation, it would be OK if you admitted that this really isn't a "partnership" and all that stuff you wrote that applies to real partnerships really doesn't apply to this situation.

What is the Big East network that syndicates the football game of the week we are on about 3 times a year, and all the basketball games not on ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU?