Online Now 1255

Inside the Bubble

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

Online now 425
Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside the Bubble

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

6th Street

The place for off topic discussion on Hookem

Reply

SEC Approves A&M Application 10-2 / Hold the phone!

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    I'm ignorant to the lawsuit end of all this. What's are the grounds for a lawsuit specifically aimed at the SEC?

    tortious interference with contractual relationship...see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766

    "One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract … between another and a third person, by preventing the other from performing the contract or causing his performance to be more expensive and burdensome, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to him."

    layman's - The SEC is interfering with a contract b/w Baylor and a&m regarding the BIG12...by taking a&m into the SEC a&m cannot fulfill its obligation to the BIG12

  • njohnson12 said... (original post)

    Give me a break. A&M went behind everyone's back and starting cooking up plans with Slive the second after it agreed to terms with the new Big XII. I get why you want to make the move and everything, but don't call out Baylor when your own school has been just as shady/two-faced.

    The second? Come on man, that timeline is pretty weak. This whole thing didn't start back up until this summer. Why would we start talking to the SEC "the second" after agreeing to stay in the Big XII when there were serious opportunities to bolt last summer?

    This whole thing was a process. Regardless of how the LHN went down, that was a large impetus for us to pick back up negotiations. Unfair advantage or not our administration made a decision to move on. Was some gentlemens agreement violated when A&M decided to jump ship? Any AD with half a brain would get out from under that. I know that Texas is much more of a national brand than A&M. We don't appeal to the masses the way you guys do. So trying to compete on that level is impossible. I'm ok with that. Why do you think OU is starting to look around instead of hanging tight with you guys?

  • Pretty evident based on that clause that noone wants to be the bad guy that destroys conferences and starts the Super Conference melee.

    9 and 4 at Texas sucks! - Jeff Howe

  • Didn't Bryne or Silve say in a public statement that they had been in discussions since January? I can't remember exactly... anyone recall?

    signature image signature image
  • Scharnell said... (original post)

    tortious interference with contractual relationship...see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766

    "One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract … between another and a third person, by preventing the other from performing the contract or causing his performance to be more expensive and burdensome, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to him."

    layman's - The SEC is interfering with a contract b/w Baylor and a&m regarding the BIG12...by taking a&m into the SEC a&m cannot fulfill its obligation to the BIG12

    But isn't there a clause stating that if a team leaves they have to give advance notice? That assumes breaking the contract is an option. If A&M was contractually unable to leave due to a contract then why did the Big XII outline everything we needed to do in order to leave? That's the part I don't get.

    In response to the post above this one, what is it that's immoral about following set guidelines for breaking a contract?

  • MartiMar said... (original post)

    Didn't Bryne or Silve say in a public statement that they had been in discussions since January? I can't remember exactly... anyone recall?

    They said they've spoken, but not regarding anything specifically. Everything I've seen said the overtures to leave began in July and originated from A&M.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    The second? Come on man, that timeline is pretty weak. This whole thing didn't start back up until this summer. Why would we start talking to the SEC "the second" after agreeing to stay in the Big XII when there were serious opportunities to bolt last summer?

    It's been stated that A&M's talks with Slive never ceased after it agreed with the new Big XII. Like I said, I get why you want to make the move, but your school has been shady as hell in doing so. Calling out Baylor for reneging on the no lawsuit stuff is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.

  • njohnson12 said... (original post)

    It's been stated that A&M's talks with Slive never ceased after it agreed with the new Big XII. Like I said, I get why you want to make the move, but your school has been shady as hell in doing so. Calling out Baylor for reneging on the no lawsuit stuff is absolutely hilarious and hypocritical.

    I'd love to see a link to that. What are you calling talks?

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Was some gentlemens agreement violated when A&M decided to jump ship?

    No - there was an actual, written agreement that was violated. You seem to think the one-year notice period is some sort of contractual out that happily lets any party to leave with sufficient notice. The "out" is actually a two-year notice period before the end of a term, and the next term ends July 1, 2016. To leave in accordance with the contract, A&M would have to stay until then and give notice of its intent to leave by July 1, 2014. By leaving before then, A&M is in breach of the agreement. The one-year notice clause is simply a liquidated damages provision that apportions the payment they must give for their breach.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    But isn't there a clause stating that if a team leaves they have to give advance notice?

    Yes. It says that the members are locked in to rolling 5-year commitment periods and must give notice 2 years before the end of such a term. The current one started July 1, 2011. A&M would be violating the notice provision and commitment provision by leaving one year from now.

  • MajorTexasFan said... (original post)

    No - there was an actual, written agreement that was violated. You seem to think the one-year notice period is some sort of contractual out that happily lets any party to leave with sufficient notice. The "out" is actually a two-year notice period before the end of a term, and the next term ends July 1, 2016. To leave in accordance with the contract, A&M would have to stay until then and give notice of its intent to leave by July 1, 2014. By leaving before then, A&M is in breach of the agreement. The one-year notice clause is simply a liquidated damages provision that apportions the payment they must give for their breach.

    Fair enough then. We're in breach of the contract and going to pay the penalty. Is it immoral to break a lease if you're willing to pay the fee agreed upon in the lease to leave early?

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    I'd love to see a link to that. What are you calling talks?

    Haha I'm not going to waste my time researching this for you. It's been stated in various places. I've heard that there's this really cool website called google where you can search for stuff on the internet. Give it a shot.

    Your denial and (unsuccessful) attempts to try and paint A&M in some innocent/noble light, are hilarious. Keep trying though. Can't beat free entertainment.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Fair enough then. We're in breach of the contract and going to pay the penalty. Is it immoral to break a lease if you're willing to pay the fee agreed upon in the lease to leave early?

    No - but A&M fans seem to think Baylor is acting immorally by simply changing their mind (and not even breaking a contract). A&M is doing what it thinks is in its best interest. Baylor is too, and is in a far worse (and more blameless) position than A&M.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MajorTexasFan 3 years ago

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    But isn't there a clause stating that if a team leaves they have to give advance notice? That assumes breaking the contract is an option. If A&M was contractually unable to leave due to a contract then why did the Big XII outline everything we needed to do in order to leave? That's the part I don't get.

    In response to the post above this one, what is it that's immoral about following set guidelines for breaking a contract?

    a&m leaving the conference and the interference by the SEC are two different things. Baylor cannot sue a&m for leaving the conference due to the "out clause," however, if a&m elected to leave the conference because the SEC came calling, there can still be a claim of interference.

    Notice, tortious interference does not contain the phrase "breach of contract" at all...I believe you are stating that since a&m did not breach its contract with the BIG12 there cannot be an interference claim against the SEC. Additionally, if the SEC initiated the "contingent" notice, another argument could arise.

    I am not saying Baylor has a valid argument at all, but the threat of litigation, and the cost for the SEC to defend the suit is enough to stop them from jumping straight into bed with a&m. The cost of litigation this mess could be more than the additional money the SEC expects to get in its new TV contract.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Fair enough then. We're in breach of the contract and going to pay the penalty. Is it immoral to break a lease if you're willing to pay the fee agreed upon in the lease to leave early?

    no, and that's exactly why the liquidated damages provision is in there....however, it does not stop litigation against the SEC, which is what we are dealing with here.

  • njohnson12 said... (original post)

    Haha I'm not going to waste my time researching this for you. It's been stated in various places. I've heard that there's this really cool website called google where you can search for stuff on the internet. Give it a shot.

    Your denial and (unsuccessful) attempts to try and paint A&M in some innocent/noble light, are hilarious. Keep trying though. Can't beat free entertainment.

    Glad I can help you out. It's funny how you read all this stuff, but don't know where it was said. I try not to say things I can't back up. Your profs at texas let you turn stuff in without citing it? I would expect more from a top notch institution. You made the statement, but you won't back it up. You want so bad for us to have done something immoral in all this when we're following the guidelines of the contract.

    There are penalties for breach of contract written into most contracts. If we're using that to our advantage where is this horrible thing that's happened.

  • Scharnell said... (original post)

    no, and that's exactly why the liquidated damages provision is in there....however, it does not stop litigation against the SEC, which is what we are dealing with here.

    Good explanation. So Baylor is looking to try and sue the SEC for interference. They'd be in the position of trying to prove that the SEC came calling (and not the other way around). My understanding was that A&M withdrew from the Big XII for that very reason, to avoid this type of situation. By withdrawing from the conference, there is no longer a contractual obligation.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Glad I can help you out. It's funny how you read all this stuff, but don't know where it was said. I try not to say things I can't back up. Your profs at texas let you turn stuff in without citing it? I would expect more from a top notch institution. You made the statement, but you won't back it up. You want so bad for us to have done something immoral in all this when we're following the guidelines of the contract.

    There are penalties for breach of contract written into most contracts. If we're using that to our advantage where is this horrible thing that's happened.

    Haha, this is an internet message board. I didn't know I was required to submit a works cited page.

    Here's an excerpt from one of Chip Brown's articles a month or 2 ago. I'm sure that there are a lot more. Took me all of about 10 seconds to find:

    "Sources say the Aggies' nine-member regents board is leaning toward leaving the Big 12 and are being fueled by a lack of confidence in the current configuration of the league - i.e. the relationship between Texas and ESPN (the Longhorn Network) and how it could negatively impact the rest of the members.

    There's growing concern in the Big 12 that A&M is already well down the road toward joining the SEC.

    According to multiple sources close to the situation, Aggies' president Bowen Loftin met with SEC officials prior to an Aug. 1 meeting among Big 12 athletic directors in Dallas to discuss how to co-exist with Texas and its Longhorn Network (LHN).

    Loftin apparently aired A&M's grievances against LHN to SEC officials during the meeting. Cook said he wasn't aware of any such meeting.

    "I think this is pretty far along," one administrator at a Big 12 school said of A&M's courtship with the SEC.

    One of A&M's concerns - LHN airing high school games - was eliminated on Thursday when the NCAA ruled no high school games would be allowed to be shown on school or conference networks.

    But it didn't appear the NCAA's ruling would have much bearing on A&M's momentum toward the SEC, sources said.

    The SEC has been eerily quiet about all the speculation surrounding Texas A&M. But sources said SEC commissioner Mike Slive and Texas A&M president Bowen Loftin have formed a relationship since Slive visited College Station last June during the Big 12 Missile Crisis."

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Good explanation. So Baylor is looking to try and sue the SEC for interference. They'd be in the position of trying to prove that the SEC came calling (and not the other way around). My understanding was that A&M withdrew from the Big XII for that very reason, to avoid this type of situation. By withdrawing from the conference, there is no longer a contractual obligation.

    conversation were on-going with a&m and the SEC prior to a&m's withdrawal, e.g. interference with an existing contract. It went as far as the SEC 'taking no action' in a vote once this potential litigation raised its ugly head to cover their ass.

    If a&m and the SEC would have just waited until a&m withdrew to have the 'public' conversations, this mess would be a lot cleaner...but now, it is what it is, and both parties would like a do-over.

  • Scharnell said... (original post)

    conversation were on-going with a&m and the SEC prior to a&m's withdrawal, e.g. interference with an existing contract. It went as far as the SEC 'taking no action' in a vote once this potential litigation raised its ugly head to cover their ass.

    If a&m and the SEC would have just waited until a&m withdrew to have the 'public' conversations, this mess would be a lot cleaner...but now, it is what it is, and both parties would like a do-over.

    Apparently it's now being reported that Baylor is giving reassurances it's not going to sue. I see what you're saying though. Any conversation A&M had with the SEC prior to leaving the Big XII could be construed as interference with the contract since we will end up in the SEC.

  • njohnson12 said... (original post)

    Haha, this is an internet message board. I didn't know I was required to submit a works cited page.

    Here's an excerpt from one of Chip Brown's articles a month or 2 ago. I'm sure that there are a lot more. Took me all of about 10 seconds to find:

    "Sources say the Aggies' nine-member regents board is leaning toward leaving the Big 12 and are being fueled by a lack of confidence in the current configuration of the league - i.e. the relationship between Texas and ESPN (the Longhorn Network) and how it could negatively impact the rest of the members.

    There's growing concern in the Big 12 that A&M is already well down the road toward joining the SEC.

    According to multiple sources close to the situation, Aggies' president Bowen Loftin met with SEC officials prior to an Aug. 1 meeting among Big 12 athletic directors in Dallas to discuss how to co-exist with Texas and its Longhorn Network (LHN).

    Loftin apparently aired A&M's grievances against LHN to SEC officials during the meeting. Cook said he wasn't aware of any such meeting.

    "I think this is pretty far along," one administrator at a Big 12 school said of A&M's courtship with the SEC.

    One of A&M's concerns - LHN airing high school games - was eliminated on Thursday when the NCAA ruled no high school games would be allowed to be shown on school or conference networks.

    But it didn't appear the NCAA's ruling would have much bearing on A&M's momentum toward the SEC, sources said.

    The SEC has been eerily quiet about all the speculation surrounding Texas A&M. But sources said SEC commissioner Mike Slive and Texas A&M president Bowen Loftin have formed a relationship since Slive visited College Station last June during the Big 12 Missile Crisis."

    First of all, that's like me quoting our rivals site and expecting you to believe it. Almost as bad as Wikipedia. Secondly, there isn't anything other than "prior to August 1st." My point was everyone knew conversations were taking place in July 2011, but you stated they went as far back as January.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    First of all, that's like me quoting our rivals site and expecting you to believe it. Almost as bad as Wikipedia. Secondly, there isn't anything other than "prior to August 1st." My point was everyone knew conversations were taking place in July 2011, but you stated they went as far back as January.

    January? Never said anything about January.

    That article states there's been a relationship there since last summer. There were meetings that occurred before A&M met with other Big XII officials. If you want to be naive and think that A&M has been completely aboveboard with everything, that's your prerogative.

    Even if A&M didn't have a single talk with Slive about anything SEC related until this summer, as you state, A&M still made a 10 year commitment to the Big XII, only to back out a year later. As I've stated several times, I get the decision, and I don't have a problem with you backing out (that's the nature of the business), I just find it hilarious that you're calling out Baylor for an action that is similar to your own. It's hypocritical. And funny.

    Been fun chatting.

  • BigBadHenry said... (original post)

    Apparently it's now being reported that Baylor is giving reassurances it's not going to sue. I see what you're saying though. Any conversation A&M had with the SEC prior to leaving the Big XII could be construed as interference with the contract since we will end up in the SEC.

    Heard same RT @billyliucci: Contrary to reports, Baylor has not yet fallen in line with original B12 agreement. ... http://tmi.me/fF5ue

  • Scharnell said... (original post)

    Heard same RT @billyliucci: Contrary to reports, Baylor has not yet fallen in line with original B12 agreement. ... http://tmi.me/fF5ue

    That would make sense... what's in it for Baylor to fall in line? They just hasten their ascent into Conference USA, or worse.

    signature image signature image
  • "By withdrawing from the conference, there is no longer a contractual obligation."

    ***

    Wow, This guy is Stupid (capital 'S') - reason to be glad there is no law school at A$M.

    aggy would make a terrible lawyer!

    This above all: to thine own self be true - Shakespeare