Started By
Message
re: UO Game Off / Clemson Replacement
Posted on 10/24/14 at 1:37 pm to cardboardboxer
Posted on 10/24/14 at 1:37 pm to cardboardboxer
I know OS already answered but I got lost in his answer 
The Oregon series were the only games we have scheduled that were away when we were supposed to be HOME vs Arky. There shouldn't be any other games on our schedule that will need to be altered.
Some of the potential opponents being tossed out are probably no-go's at any point however. For instance, Nebraska will also have 5 away conf games in even years so they don't "fit" our schedule. They would not agree to play away on even years nor would we. So they are essentially off the table as a Non-conf game.
The Oregon series were the only games we have scheduled that were away when we were supposed to be HOME vs Arky. There shouldn't be any other games on our schedule that will need to be altered.
Some of the potential opponents being tossed out are probably no-go's at any point however. For instance, Nebraska will also have 5 away conf games in even years so they don't "fit" our schedule. They would not agree to play away on even years nor would we. So they are essentially off the table as a Non-conf game.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 1:38 pm
1
Posted on 10/24/14 at 2:28 pm to tmc94
By my count, that means from conferences that will be playing 9 games (in 2016 at least), we will have potential H/H's with:
B1G: (the East Division)
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
PAC-12:
Cal
Oregon State
Washington State
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA
Big 12:
Iowa State
Oklahoma*
TCU
Texas Tech
West Virginia
*OU plays 5 home games in even years but of course one of those is at the State Fair.
B1G: (the East Division)
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
PAC-12:
Cal
Oregon State
Washington State
Arizona
Colorado
UCLA
Big 12:
Iowa State
Oklahoma*
TCU
Texas Tech
West Virginia
*OU plays 5 home games in even years but of course one of those is at the State Fair.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 2:37 pm to FarmersFight
quote:
By my count,
CGSC HankFight
Posted on 10/24/14 at 2:40 pm to Farmer1906
As if I didn't hate Clem5on enough.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 4:10 pm to tmc94
I am sorry, but it does seem chickenshit to me. We had an obligation, and we chose not to honor it.
At least the AD was anticipating the conference move and left us a buyout, so we are not in breach ... we are probably just paying a hefty buyout/penalty.
I am not saying that we did not have the right to do what we did. Clearly, we had that right. I am not even saying that it is not in our best interest. Financially, the change is almost certainly in our best interest.
But it is wrong to say that honoring our commitment "wasn't an option." It just would not have been as profitable. It would certainly have been an "option" to keep the game and make less money. We chose not to select that option.
We had a contractual commitment. When contracts are signed with less than full information, sometimes they work to your advantage and sometimes they do not. In this case, it did not. We chose to bail.
At least the AD was anticipating the conference move and left us a buyout, so we are not in breach ... we are probably just paying a hefty buyout/penalty.
I am not saying that we did not have the right to do what we did. Clearly, we had that right. I am not even saying that it is not in our best interest. Financially, the change is almost certainly in our best interest.
But it is wrong to say that honoring our commitment "wasn't an option." It just would not have been as profitable. It would certainly have been an "option" to keep the game and make less money. We chose not to select that option.
We had a contractual commitment. When contracts are signed with less than full information, sometimes they work to your advantage and sometimes they do not. In this case, it did not. We chose to bail.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 5:41 pm to AggieHank86
are you a season ticket holder?
B/c I feel like A&M's obligations to giving me and the thousands of donors more than 6 home games in a year are much greater than keeping a two game series with Oregon or anyone else.
B/c I feel like A&M's obligations to giving me and the thousands of donors more than 6 home games in a year are much greater than keeping a two game series with Oregon or anyone else.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 5:54 pm to AggieHank86
You seem to be taking it as some sort of moral code we need to hold ourselves to, which comes across as childish naivete of the way the world works. Contracts by their very nature have no commitment to them beyond the contract itself.
There is no honor involved here. An out clause was written into the contract signed by both parties. We exercised that clause. Yet somehow that seems to offend your sense of nobility. That's....really weird and I have to be honest has me rather suspicious
There is no honor involved here. An out clause was written into the contract signed by both parties. We exercised that clause. Yet somehow that seems to offend your sense of nobility. That's....really weird and I have to be honest has me rather suspicious
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:06 pm to tmc94
I think it's cool we had that clause. I mean, that was for us. What conference would they move to?
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is wrong to say that honoring our commitment "wasn't an option."
Hold up.
We're talking contracts, which can be broken under certain arrangements that have nothing to do with ethics, not pinkie swearing
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:16 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
What conference would they move to?
yeah I have no idea
My guess is the language is just standard. Here's the contract. It's under 14.C and it appears there is no termination fee since we met that condition and there is no breach.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:48 pm to Dr RC
RC, yes. And I consider the vast majority of the overall cost of those tickets to be a donation to the athletic department. The ability to sit in the stadium and watch a football game is only, in my view, a small part of the purchase price.
Trust me, the seats are "worth" only a fraction of the check that I write.
Trust me, the seats are "worth" only a fraction of the check that I write.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 6:57 pm to tmc94
quote:
That's....really weird and I have to be honest has me rather suspicious
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:00 pm to tmc94
TMC, I am idiscussing that which is "right," versus that which is ""legal." I had thought that I made that distinction fairly clearly.
please try to remember that I am an attorney. I have a drafted contracts with analogous language (though certainly not exactly the same language or even parallel language). I have litigated on both sides of contracts having analogous language.
If a client comes to me for analysis of the factual situation surrounding a potential contract dispute, I provide an objective analysis of the clients' rights and I then ask them whether enforcement of one or more of those rights constitutes "the right thing to do."
I do the same thing in my own life.
I am older than most of you, but I am somewhat "old-fashioned" even for a person of my age. I was raised on a Texas ranch, where contracts worth as much as most people's homes are routinely done on nothing but a handshake. I was raised to believe that there is very little in this world more important than one's word, including ones financial well-being.
I certainly understand your position that this sort of "morality" may be outdated. I simply disagree. I have no doubt that in the minds of some of the youngsters on this board, this makes me some sort of "alter" or "troll."
With all that being said, I was responding to YOUR post. YOU said that honoring the obligation "wasn't an option." You are wrong. It WAS an option. It was simply an option that YOU felt should not be exercised. Do not get upset with me because you wish you had worded your post differently.
please try to remember that I am an attorney. I have a drafted contracts with analogous language (though certainly not exactly the same language or even parallel language). I have litigated on both sides of contracts having analogous language.
If a client comes to me for analysis of the factual situation surrounding a potential contract dispute, I provide an objective analysis of the clients' rights and I then ask them whether enforcement of one or more of those rights constitutes "the right thing to do."
I do the same thing in my own life.
I am older than most of you, but I am somewhat "old-fashioned" even for a person of my age. I was raised on a Texas ranch, where contracts worth as much as most people's homes are routinely done on nothing but a handshake. I was raised to believe that there is very little in this world more important than one's word, including ones financial well-being.
I certainly understand your position that this sort of "morality" may be outdated. I simply disagree. I have no doubt that in the minds of some of the youngsters on this board, this makes me some sort of "alter" or "troll."
With all that being said, I was responding to YOUR post. YOU said that honoring the obligation "wasn't an option." You are wrong. It WAS an option. It was simply an option that YOU felt should not be exercised. Do not get upset with me because you wish you had worded your post differently.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:02 pm to TbirdSpur2010
I was simply raised to believe that something which is "legal" is not always (necessarily) "Right."
If another person simply does not understand that belief, nothing I say on this message board will ever change that opinion.
If another person simply does not understand that belief, nothing I say on this message board will ever change that opinion.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:03 pm to AggieHank86
This boy ain't right
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:06 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Succeed where I have failed, stroke
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:24 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Apparently, your personal code of behavior boils down to "financial self-interest," combined with an element of "anything I can get away with, without facing significant negative consequences."
You are in the majority. I fully understand that I am in the minority, in that I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard. Perhaps it makes me odd. So be it.
You are in the majority. I fully understand that I am in the minority, in that I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard. Perhaps it makes me odd. So be it.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Apparently, your personal code of behavior boils down to "financial self-interest," combined with an element of "anything I can get away with, without facing significant negative consequences."
You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Exercising a clause in a contract isn't "getting away" with anything. It's something that both parties agree to well in advance, knowing that circumstances may change down the road.
quote:
I fully understand that I am in the minority, in that I hold myself to a somewhat higher standard. Perhaps it makes me odd. So be it.
No, it makes you ignorant and condecending on this matter.
This post was edited on 10/24/14 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:44 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
No, it makes you ignorant and condecending on this matter.
Hey! Don't talk to me that way...I mean my alter...I mean...frick!
Posted on 10/24/14 at 7:47 pm to AggieHank86
Yowsa! Contract termination clauses are written with these sorts of contingencies in mind. Choosing not to avail yourself of such consideration is simply beyond dumb and has zero to do with morals. If you didn't want the clause, you didn't need to agree to it in the first place. It's part of the contract
In this case, absolutely unambiguous language was agreed upon that addresses this exact situation. No interpretation is necessary and there is no moral ambiguity. Suggesting it wasn't "the right thing to do" illustrates you lack a basic understanding of contracts.
In this case, absolutely unambiguous language was agreed upon that addresses this exact situation. No interpretation is necessary and there is no moral ambiguity. Suggesting it wasn't "the right thing to do" illustrates you lack a basic understanding of contracts.
Page 3 of 5
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News