and 'Bama will buy out our games in 3...2...

I'll put it out here right now

Anthony Grant, you don't have a hair on your ass if you don't play these games.
 
Isn't it up to us as to whether we allow them to buy out their game? I mean, they offer a buy out price and we either accept or decline. Is'nt that how it works?
 
dr-evil2.jpg


ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!
 
BradRamFan said:
Isn't it up to us as to whether we allow them to buy out their game? I mean, they offer a buy out price and we either accept or decline. Is'nt that how it works?

Yes, but if we decline and they say they're not playing, you're not going to find a judge in the country to force them to play us. we'd have to sue them for whatever amount we thought was appropriate and hope the courts agree.
 
xjohnx said:
BradRamFan said:
Isn't it up to us as to whether we allow them to buy out their game? I mean, they offer a buy out price and we either accept or decline. Is'nt that how it works?

Yes, but if we decline and they say they're not playing, you're not going to find a judge in the country to force them to play us. we'd have to sue them for whatever amount we thought was appropriate and hope the courts agree.
that doesn't makes any sense, judges have to enforce legally signed contracts. they'll either have to play us or pay us. and i believe there is a clause in grant's old contract that sets a specified buyout amount.
 
Half-baked Mcbride said:
dr-evil2.jpg


ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

Is that the equivalent of Saban's and Grant's contracts?
 
bobmonkeycool said:
xjohnx said:
BradRamFan said:
Isn't it up to us as to whether we allow them to buy out their game? I mean, they offer a buy out price and we either accept or decline. Is'nt that how it works?

Yes, but if we decline and they say they're not playing, you're not going to find a judge in the country to force them to play us. we'd have to sue them for whatever amount we thought was appropriate and hope the courts agree.
that doesn't makes any sense, judges have to enforce legally signed contracts. they'll either have to play us or pay us. and i believe there is a clause in grant's old contract that sets a specified buyout amount.

Actually it makes perfect sense... the remedy in a case like this would be money damages, not forcing a team to play against their will. You can get specific performance for somethings, like for a particular piece of real estate, or fine art, which are unique apart from any cash value, but otherwise they tend to calculate money damages for breached contracts.
 
Grant probably wasnt planning on playing the day after he left.
 
He's gotta worry about keeping his job. Losing to Cornell ain't gonna cut it.
 
Capel was a part of a lot of great wins at the Stu. Tonight he was able to be a part of one more. I am sure AG feels the same way.
 
artRAMinMN said:
Actually it makes perfect sense... the remedy in a case like this would be money damages, not forcing a team to play against their will. You can get specific performance for somethings, like for a particular piece of real estate, or fine art, which are unique apart from any cash value, but otherwise they tend to calculate money damages for breached contracts.
ok, i got you. i just didnt understand why he was talking about suing, since there is a set amount in the contract. if they dont want to play us, we shouldnt have to sue, they'll just pay us, because any judge would rule in our favor
 
bobmonkeycool said:
artRAMinMN said:
Actually it makes perfect sense... the remedy in a case like this would be money damages, not forcing a team to play against their will. You can get specific performance for somethings, like for a particular piece of real estate, or fine art, which are unique apart from any cash value, but otherwise they tend to calculate money damages for breached contracts.
ok, i got you. i just didnt understand why he was talking about suing, since there is a set amount in the contract. if they dont want to play us, we shouldnt have to sue, they'll just pay us, because any judge would rule in our favor

Sure, the odds are they would just voluntarily pay us the buyout if they wanted to avoid the game (I've got to assume that the buyout clause does not give us the choice of declining it, because otherwise it could be messy) and the only reason we'd have to sue is if they tried to stiff us, which seems very unlikely.
 
Back
Top