Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[pissclams]

if it were me, i'd sue for a lot more than a reasonable amount of money.  i'd start by holding their asses to the 10 years they agreed to last summer, we could negotiate down from there.  ultimately, they have a contractual obligation to their b12 partners, walking away because they're butthurt over the LHN doesn't really do much to absolve them of that commitment.  

[wabash909]

What am I missing, why are we suing OU now?

[kstater]

What am I missing, why are we suing OU now?

Unfair recruiting advantage with all the casino money.

[Gooch]

What am I missing, why are we suing OU now?

Unfair recruiting advantage with all the casino money.

And gorgeous coaches

[Trim]

Why are any of these retards worried about being sued anyway?

yeah, I don't get it either.  all a lawsuit means (if it even gets to the courts) is a future settlement for probably a reasonable amount.  but it wouldn't preclude a team from leaving.  it's not like the court would say "hey, A&M/OU/OSU, you have to go back to a nonexistent big 12" in 2 years when this thing is actually settled.  

Plaintiffs:  This isn't fair.  We all looked each other in the eyes and promised to be together forever.  And A&M lied and ran off with the SEC.

SEC: Yeah,

A&M: Yeah, so

Judge: So, A&M walked out of a agreement that you all made by looking each other in the eyes and found a new spot that was OK with taking them on?

Plaintiffs:  YEAH!

Judge: Huh, next time, make an actual contract instead of looking each other in the eyes and moving on to handing out backpacks to the media.

[Trim]

The reason is that the SEC's offer hinges on the pretty arbitrary hypothetical lawsuit.

If SEC ponied up and said "alright losers, sue us" this would all be over.

I was including the SEC among the retards.  I mean, if they actually want A&M and can make money by bringing them in, which I presume is true given they unanimously voted to bring them in.  If A&M brings value to them, a little HAHAHAHA YOU WILL ALL BE SUED shouldn't be much of a factor.

[FP TC etc.]

What am I missing, why are we suing OU now?

I think it's more like setting the precedence of "if you try to leave we will sue you" kind of deal.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why are any of these retards worried about being sued anyway?

yeah, I don't get it either.  all a lawsuit means (if it even gets to the courts) is a future settlement for probably a reasonable amount.  but it wouldn't preclude a team from leaving.  it's not like the court would say "hey, A&M/OU/OSU, you have to go back to a nonexistent big 12" in 2 years when this thing is actually settled.  

Plaintiffs:  This isn't fair.  We all looked each other in the eyes and promised to be together forever.  And A&M lied and ran off with the SEC.

SEC: Yeah,

A&M: Yeah, so

Judge: So, A&M walked out of a agreement that you all made by looking each other in the eyes and found a new spot that was OK with taking them on?

Plaintiffs:  YEAH!

Judge: Huh, next time, make an actual contract instead of looking each other in the eyes and moving on to handing out backpacks to the media.

Is the agreement somehow binding if it were captured in minutes from that meeting?

[Trim]

Why are any of these retards worried about being sued anyway?

yeah, I don't get it either.  all a lawsuit means (if it even gets to the courts) is a future settlement for probably a reasonable amount.  but it wouldn't preclude a team from leaving.  it's not like the court would say "hey, A&M/OU/OSU, you have to go back to a nonexistent big 12" in 2 years when this thing is actually settled.  

No but a judge could issue an injunction that says A&M you have to play in the Big 12 until all of this is settled and SEC you can't expand until this is settle.  Not likely, but SEC is basically saying they don't want to mess with that risk.

Yeah, no.  The suit would happen after the move is made and would be for damages.  

[Trim]

Why are any of these retards worried about being sued anyway?

yeah, I don't get it either.  all a lawsuit means (if it even gets to the courts) is a future settlement for probably a reasonable amount.  but it wouldn't preclude a team from leaving.  it's not like the court would say "hey, A&M/OU/OSU, you have to go back to a nonexistent big 12" in 2 years when this thing is actually settled. 

Plaintiffs:  This isn't fair.  We all looked each other in the eyes and promised to be together forever.  And A&M lied and ran off with the SEC.

SEC: Yeah,

A&M: Yeah, so

Judge: So, A&M walked out of a agreement that you all made by looking each other in the eyes and found a new spot that was OK with taking them on?

Plaintiffs:  YEAH!

Judge: Huh, next time, make an actual contract instead of looking each other in the eyes and moving on to handing out backpacks to the media.

Is the agreement somehow binding if it were captured in minutes from that meeting?

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

[wabash909]

What am I missing, why are we suing OU now?

I think it's more like setting the precedence of "if you try to leave we will sue you" kind of deal.

Oh, well then, by all means let's sue them.  Sue me, sue you, sue everybody.

[SleepFighter]

Why are any of these retards worried about being sued anyway?

yeah, I don't get it either.  all a lawsuit means (if it even gets to the courts) is a future settlement for probably a reasonable amount.  but it wouldn't preclude a team from leaving.  it's not like the court would say "hey, A&M/OU/OSU, you have to go back to a nonexistent big 12" in 2 years when this thing is actually settled. 

Plaintiffs:  This isn't fair.  We all looked each other in the eyes and promised to be together forever.  And A&M lied and ran off with the SEC.

SEC: Yeah,

A&M: Yeah, so

Judge: So, A&M walked out of a agreement that you all made by looking each other in the eyes and found a new spot that was OK with taking them on?

Plaintiffs:  YEAH!

Judge: Huh, next time, make an actual contract instead of looking each other in the eyes and moving on to handing out backpacks to the media.

Is the agreement somehow binding if it were captured in minutes from that meeting?

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

You'd like to think that, but pretty much everybody involved in this thing seems like a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[catzacker]

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

isn't there some thing where, like, if both/all parties act as though a signed contract is in place, even though there isn't one, then you essentially have a binding "contract"?  I dunno.  Kathy Seeberger would be ashamed of me that I can't remember this from Bus Law II.

[Trim]

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

isn't there some thing where, like, if both/all parties act as though a signed contract is in place, even though there isn't one, then you essentially have a binding "contract"?  I dunno.  Kathy Seeberger would be ashamed of me that I can't remember this from Bus Law II.

Yes, but obviously they didn't act in that manner.  A&M, and maybe OU bounced right away.

[FP TC etc.]

JaredtheCougrFn: Breaking: MWC commish left 2 msg ystrday w/ BU & IA St. The legal threats against aTm came w/in 15 mins of those calls.

lol

[catzacker]

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

isn't there some thing where, like, if both/all parties act as though a signed contract is in place, even though there isn't one, then you essentially have a binding "contract"?  I dunno.  Kathy Seeberger would be ashamed of me that I can't remember this from Bus Law II.

Yes, but obviously they didn't act in that manner.  A&M, and maybe OU bounced right away.

over the course of the last year, they did.  if they cashed a check from any tv money or contract money, they would have.  I dunno.  I'm pre-med, not pre-law.

[PowercatPat]

JaredtheCougrFn: Breaking: MWC commish left 2 msg ystrday w/ BU & IA St. The legal threats against aTm came w/in 15 mins of those calls.

lol

Pffft

[Trim]

If I remember Currie's description of things from 2 Catbackers' Bashs ago, and I was admittedly super-pak'd, the "agreement" was on how to split up $.  The "we're BFFs" was just a trust thing, and by his logic, not making it a binding contract was an example of their love and trust.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, I still say who gives a eff?  So years from now, A&M and the SEC has to pay $20 million.  Big deal.  They're not bringing in A&M just for the hell of it without knowing it will make them plenty of money.

isn't there some thing where, like, if both/all parties act as though a signed contract is in place, even though there isn't one, then you essentially have a binding "contract"?  I dunno.  Kathy Seeberger would be ashamed of me that I can't remember this from Bus Law II.

Yes, but obviously they didn't act in that manner.  A&M, and maybe OU bounced right away.

over the course of the last year, they did.  if they cashed a check from any tv money or contract money, they would have.  I dunno.  I'm pre-med, not pre-law.

Right, but I seem to recall vividly that the contract/agreement/whatever would be the subject of a suit was about $ distribution.  The commitment to stay for the foreseeable future was just a feel-good press release about how they were committed.  And A&M was committed for around a year until they weren't.

I don't know.  I have people threaten to sue or counter-sue me on a near-daily basis, and it doesn't mean crap.  Usually I'm bbs'n simultaneously during the threat and struggle to refrain from actually responding with the word "LOL".  Maybe A&M/SEC know there's something pretty mumped up about the whole deal and that a lawsuit would be devastating.  If that was the case, I don't know how it got this far.

[theKSU]

420 and the Big 12 is still intact.   

[nicname]

Would love to back door A&M. Baylor holds up A&M move to SEC, OU/UT/OSU provide smokescreen with PAC-16 talk, KU/MU/KSU provide smokescreen with Big East rumors, all the while the "remaining 9" secure three new schools to get back to 12. SEC goes and gets 2 new schools besides A&M because it's tired of waiting on for Baylor to sign the release. Big 12 says "oops we thought you wanted to leave? Let's call it even and we won't charge you exit fees. Have fun being independent."

   This would be so awesome

[MadCat]

420 and the Big 12 is still intact.   

[scottwildcat]

sooooooooooo OU still thinks they are leaving 

[Katpappy]

420 and the Big 12 is still intact.   

??????

[Boom Roasted]

 

<<<<< Still lost but  

[doom]

sooooooooooo OU still thinks they are leaving 

Link?