lol. I've been saying $6-$12 million since the beginning....you've been saying $3 million. ROFL

I see you've changed your opinion.

Not everyone has the unfortunate advantage you do - entering every thread at absolute zero.

The article posted earlier indicated that yes, Mizzou had discussions w/ Slive regarding admission to the SEC when it appeared that the XII was going to dissolve and A&M was going to the PAC.

So yeah, MU would've been attractive to the SEC even without A&M as this was the exact contingency that was initially discussed.

MU would probably not have been enough to get the SEC to expand to 13 without the PAC expanding, but ultimately I don't really care.

He has said it so many times in this thread, it is now validated as gospel.

So $9,000,000 is the middle of your range. I'll take the under.

Likewise.

Ok, then I'll take the Over $3,000,000. We both win! Yay for us!

With or without a 2012 exit?

I'm thinking $8 million if they start SEC play in 2012. Around $2 million if they start in 2013.

Exit fees aren't "paid", they are withheld from media payments.

MU attended these "hippy handholding" sessions and by all accounts made no stink or move then about the membership changing, so you don't have any basis for using that as an excuse.

At least I, when I originally commented $6-$12 million, was referring to an exit next year.

Except that there were no actual binding results from said sandbox sessions.

You're the one citing reaffirmations (a legal term of art, by the way) and/or written contracts/novations that simply do not exist.

They can show up to as many of those meetings as they want and sing kumbayah all day - it doesn't mean shit when they start talking exit fees.

so you've been held hostage like Elizabeth Smart for the last 2 years? got it.

ah, so only what's on paper counts?

Uh...yes, actually.

This is not a contract of indefinite duration (it would have had a sunset date) and it would have taken more than 1 year to complete (they're not going to sign a 1 year 'reaffirmation'). As such, it is subject to the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing to be enforceable.

And that's still if there were even legitimate contact terms discussed, not just 'agreements to agree' as has been universally reported.

There are some theoretical estoppel arguments that could be raised, but those wouldn't activate any liquidated damages provisions, would require actual damages, and would be virtually impossible to establish/prove up.

Sweetheart - you're out of your league here.

and what's on paper points to about $25 million in fees, right?