CockyTalk

CockyTalk (http://www.cockytalk.com/index.php)
-   The Cock Pit (http://www.cockytalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club (http://www.cockytalk.com/showthread.php?t=205577)

Lonnie 04-02-2014 01:38 PM

SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
and for Gamecock fans. Ruled the addition of PSL fees were breech of Contract.

http://www.thestate.com/2014/04/02/3...ml?sp=/99/181/

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opin...s/SC/27372.pdf

Roosterboy 04-02-2014 01:48 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
I wonder if the ruling only counts towards Gamecock Club members who were donors prior to the institution of the PSL fee. If so, I'm guessing all club members prior to 2008 will be exempt from the PSL fee.

All Gamecock Club members who joined AFTER the PSL fees were instituted I imagine will still have to pay.

kick_ball 04-02-2014 01:49 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
i think it applies just to that one guy right?

Quote:

George M. Lee III, a longtime member of the Gamecock Club who once agreed to take out a $100,000 life insurance policy with USC as the sole beneficiary


Lonnie 04-02-2014 01:50 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roosterboy (Post 4126786)
I wonder if the ruling only counts towards Gamecock Club members who were donors prior to the institution of the PSL fee. If so, I'm guessing all club members prior to 2008 will be exempt from the PSL fee.

I think it only applies to a few big donors who ponied up the big time funds ($100K+ to be "lifetime" donors (who locked themselves into lifetime season tickets).

3MTA3 04-02-2014 01:57 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

George M. Lee III, a longtime member of the Gamecock Club who once agreed to take out a $100,000 life insurance policy with USC as the sole beneficiary
Wait, say what?
What did Mr. Lee receive in return for this?

Please dont tell me he got season tickets for life or some other locked-in, no longer have to pay benefit in return of some future-dated payout to the university...

If so, then DAMN...I knew we had some horrible athletics departments in the past, but this is over the top.

I sure hope I'm just reading the article wrong. (btw, whats up with The State not specifying what Mr. Lee received in return for the insurance policy? bush league journalism there, Cloninger...)

gamecockhub 04-02-2014 02:26 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
The Lifetime membership was offered in the Mid-1980s. For purchasing a $100,000 life insurance policy with the university as beneficiary (I think the cost was $5000) in return you were guaranteed never again to have to pay anything but the cost of season tickets for up to either 6 or 8 seats and that lifetime membership is willable. Have to remember at the time the maximum donation level was a silver spur at about $1300. I would have bought one but had just graduated and could not afford it. I believe there were 25 people who bought the lifetime membership and this ruling shows that those members were correct and Hyman and crew were wrong at least in how they chose to deal with the lifetime members.

So yes, they were given lifetime rights to their tickets for only the yearly cost of those 6 to 8 seats and cannot be charged anything else, no donation, no YES and at the time it included parking too. Basketball was also included.

Roosterboy 04-02-2014 02:38 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonnie (Post 4126792)
I think it only applies to a few big donors who ponied up the big time funds ($100K+ to be "lifetime" donors (who locked themselves into lifetime season tickets).

So this ruling could apply to those few donors I guess.
Thanks for the clarification.

ReadR00ster 04-02-2014 03:34 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Must be doing it increase his profit margin for these tickets on resale. $5000 gives him first-refusal for lifetime tickets? He's probably made hundreds of thousands on these seats already. Seems like a retirement fund to me.

BlueHerons 04-02-2014 03:52 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gamecockhub (Post 4126826)
The Lifetime membership was offered in the Mid-1980s. For purchasing a $100,000 life insurance policy with the university as beneficiary (I think the cost was $5000) in return you were guaranteed never again to have to pay anything but the cost of season tickets for up to either 6 or 8 seats and that lifetime membership is willable. Have to remember at the time the maximum donation level was a silver spur at about $1300. I would have bought one but had just graduated and could not afford it. I believe there were 25 people who bought the lifetime membership and this ruling shows that those members were correct and Hyman and crew were wrong at least in how they chose to deal with the lifetime members.

So yes, they were given lifetime rights to their tickets for only the yearly cost of those 6 to 8 seats and cannot be charged anything else, no donation, no YES and at the time it included parking too. Basketball was also included.

There has to be more than 25 people who bought these because I know of at least 8 families who have them. They've had them for YEARS and many bought multiple tickets. I know of one family who bought at least five sets of seats.

gamecockhub 04-02-2014 04:18 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHerons (Post 4126921)
There has to be more than 25 people who bought these because I know of at least 8 families who have them. They've had them for YEARS and many bought multiple tickets. I know of one family who bought at least five sets of seats.

Possibly but they used to list them in the football program and it was just a couple dozen and the mid 1980s would mean that they have had them for YEARS(approx. 30). The number 25 still sounds right but it was way less than 50. There was a seat limit too and I believe it was 8 max but it could have been 10. That was a long time ago. But that 1985-87 time frame was the first time they offered the lifetime membership and sometime around 1990-1993 they quit offering them if I recall correctly.

roosterdude21 04-02-2014 04:43 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
wow, that isn't even a lot of money for the 80's; especially considering that the team was pretty good in those days. Whoever took advantage of that was very smart to do so. The only part that blows is how much the school is now out of for agreeing to such a stupid idea. These poor rich people and their families having to pay the YES prices and parking, etc... glad they will just pass the cost on to the rest of us so they'll get their much needed financial break.

Nureye 04-02-2014 04:54 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
This is the perfect example of OLD Carolina.

Those morons (Bob Marcum) back in the 80's gave these sweetheart deals to a few folks that bought 100K annuities, and in return got a lifetime exemption from Gamecock club dues.

Yes, you are reading that right. Then, Hyman tried to institute the PSL on these folks and decided it would be worth it to fight them in court. I think justice has been done...but DAMN was our leadership stupid back in the day.

ccured 04-02-2014 05:05 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHerons (Post 4126921)
There has to be more than 25 people who bought these because I know of at least 8 families who have them. They've had them for YEARS and many bought multiple tickets. I know of one family who bought at least five sets of seats.

I had heard the number 28 somewhere before but for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that. Was it just one generation transferable or was it able to be willed for generations?

gamecockhub 04-02-2014 06:16 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ccured (Post 4127031)
I had heard the number 28 somewhere before but for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that. Was it just one generation transferable or was it able to be willed for generations?

Permanent willability based on the literature that they sent out at the time.

It really doesn't matter if it was a bad deal or not for USC( and it mostly was)they created the level and set the conditions and benefits. Those who bought the lifetime memberships were guaranteed those benefits and the university and Hyman should have lived up to the agreement that was made. Justice has been served and those who bought the lifetime membership will get what they were promised as should have been done in the first place.

Bottom line is if you make an agreement and sign a contract, you have to live up to it even if future administrations find it to be not in their benefit.

Lonnie 04-02-2014 06:22 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gamecockhub (Post 4127091)
Bottom line is if you make an agreement and sign a contract, you have to live up to it even if future administrations find it to be not in their benefit.

/thread.

ReadR00ster 04-02-2014 06:33 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
I wonder if they still get seats if we get a new stadium.

GregoryHouse 04-02-2014 06:33 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
the willable part is what kills me.

ReadR00ster 04-02-2014 06:40 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gamecockhub (Post 4127091)
Permanent willability based on the literature that they sent out at the time.

It really doesn't matter if it was a bad deal or not for USC( and it mostly was)they created the level and set the conditions and benefits. Those who bought the lifetime memberships were guaranteed those benefits and the university and Hyman should have lived up to the agreement that was made. Justice has been served and those who bought the lifetime membership will get what they were promised as should have been done in the first place.

Bottom line is if you make an agreement and sign a contract, you have to live up to it even if future administrations find it to be not in their benefit.

However, a party in a contract can opt to breach it and pay damages if they they think performance of the agreement cost them more than the damages. My question would be. Don't the price of the seats vary from seat to seat? Can't they just raise this guy's seat price to cover the difference?

gamecockhub 04-02-2014 06:45 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster (Post 4127100)
I wonder if they still get seats if we get a new stadium.

Not sure but this is lifted from the decision and it would seem that he would:

As long as Lee performs his contractual obligations, the University must provide him with the "opportunity to purchase" season tickets to University athletic events as described in the Agreement. The Agreement contains no limitations or conditions on this contractual right.


Also from the decision the original cost was $8000 and later due to interest rates not yielding projections both parties mutually agreed that if Lee paid $500 a year the Lifetime Full Scholarship and all benefits would remain intact.

ReadR00ster 04-02-2014 06:59 PM

Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GH (Post 4127101)
the willable part is what kills me.

I say make his great great great great great grandchildren sit in section 506. Then, we'll see how much those tickets are worth to him. :lol:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.