CockyTalk

Welcome to Cockytalk!

Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks!

Go Back   CockyTalk > Gamecocks Sports > The Cock Pit

Today's Top 10
Posters (by posts)Threads (by views)Newest Posts Gamecock Headlines 
b381l
johnnyb
spareparts
Aggie96
jebodiah
SuperCockMaster
Spurticus
Master Bedroom
75CarolinaFan
Spurrier_Superior_On
Devonte Holloman Ret (2766)
I have not bought in (1267)
JD & DJ Getting (1246)
Article on Shaw & (1234)
Aggie looking forwar (1189)
Cockaboose Owners (1070)
and the #1 2014 acc (1007)
SEC East QB's Ranked (900)
I'm thinking we're g (834)
Clemson OT to transf (660)
Watch ESPN app on Xbox On
First "Carolina Call
I have not bought into ou
SEC East QB's Ranked
JD & DJ Getting Love
The bane of our season
2014 Ultimate Tailgate --
Really excited to visit t
Spurrier: Davis May Not B
***2014 Carolina Panthers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2014, 11:45 PM   #121
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by yazoo View Post
Yes, exactly right! This is one view of contractual rights. They are amoral tools of the businessman.

However, this is also exactly the same reason a few CEOs have cited as justification when they are caught lying, obstructing, committing perjury, and cheating customers and people harmed by those actions. They are justified (in their minds) because the sole purpose of the CEO is to maximize profits. Therefore, all manner of crimes and immoral acts are within the scope of the corporate executive.

It is a sick, sick world we live in that this has now become the predominant viewpoint in the major corporate boardrooms in America. But I guess corporations really are not American (unless claiming to be so will help the bottom line) because screwing over countrymen has to be justified so that we can maximize our corporate profits. Corporations are really not human but only exist for making profit and we are the helmsmen. It is only coincidental that we are also personally getting rich at the same time. Oh, yea, let's get some subsidies on the backs of taxpayers while we're at it so we can factorize our profits.

Ironically, honorable companies are at a competitive disadvantage since they unilaterally keep their word. Yep, the old Carolina is dead.
Stop being such a drama queen about it. It's not worse than when players think they worth more so the decide not to play until their contract is renegotiated. Or when coaches take another job somewhere else while they are still under contract. Yeah, there is a little grumbling that goes on, but there reputation doesn't get trashed for it. Have you never broken a lease because you found an apartment in a better neighborhood, or because you got a job out of town? Have you canceled an appointment, because "something came up?" You are making it out to be some kind of moral travesty of justice that is not. USC has held up there end of their agreement for 30 years. And they tried to get a $325 a seat from him because that is what everyone else is paying and he sued the school he is supposed to be supporting. Sorry if I don't feel sorry him.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 11:49 PM   #122
DJCatfish
Recruit
 
DJCatfish's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 185
CockyCash: 4400
DJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his combDJCatfish is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

This seems like it has gotten mighty personal. Sometimes people have a legitimate dispute. I'm surprised by the number of people throwing the Gamecock Club under the bus as intentionally breaking an obligation. I think it's completely legitimate that they honestly thought they were in the right, and if so, they had an obligation -- just like Mr. Lee -- to stand up for their rights.

I agree with Mr. Lee's position generally, like most on this board. However, I don't think the contract was clear cut at all. The trial judge agreed with the Gamecock Club. What nobody thus far has bothered to mention, the Supreme Court's opinion was NOT unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion. As Mr. Lee himself noted, "All of the justices on our Supreme court are very well versed in all aspects of the law." One of those well-versed justices thought the contract was clearly against Mr. Lee.

The argument is pretty straight-forward. Mr. Lee purchased the right to be a "lifetime full scholarship member" and enjoy all the benefits. The implementation of the YES program applied to all full scholarship members, and thus no part of his deal was broken -- he got all the same privileges and benefits of being a full scholarship member without having to pay the annual membership fee.

Furthermore, no one disputes that the GC could have just raised ticket prices $375 a piece. But because they structured the price increase (let's be honest, that's what it was) as a "seat licensing fee" in order to gain tax advantages for members, does it follow that the lifetime members don't have to pay the same ticket price? So the GC could get around this adverse ruling by getting rid of the seat license and raising ticket prices $375 for everyone, but no one would be better off other than the fisc? How does that make sense?

That said, I see the other side of the issue. Mr. Lee signed up for a contractual right to buy tickets, and the contract wasn't sufficiently well drafted to specify what that means. A majority of the State Supreme Court concluded that meant buy tickets at the season ticket rate, and so now the University should concede the point to Mr. Lee.

I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong in the legal dispute. My point is only to say that both sides have a legitimate argument. Put yourself in USC's shoes -- the administrators have a duty to enforce their rights for the benefit of the school. The issue wasn't clear cut, so just like Mr. Lee shouldn't roll over, neither should they. This is a consequence of doing a crappy job drafting a contract. Both parties here had a reasonable argument, so it's not fair to call anyone amoral (USC, Hyman specifically) or accuse anyone of bribery (Mr. Lee).
DJCatfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 12:12 AM   #123
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJCatfish View Post
This seems like it has gotten mighty personal. Sometimes people have a legitimate dispute. I'm surprised by the number of people throwing the Gamecock Club under the bus as intentionally breaking an obligation. I think it's completely legitimate that they honestly thought they were in the right, and if so, they had an obligation -- just like Mr. Lee -- to stand up for their rights.

I agree with Mr. Lee's position generally, like most on this board. However, I don't think the contract was clear cut at all. The trial judge agreed with the Gamecock Club. What nobody thus far has bothered to mention, the Supreme Court's opinion was NOT unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion. As Mr. Lee himself noted, "All of the justices on our Supreme court are very well versed in all aspects of the law." One of those well-versed justices thought the contract was clearly against Mr. Lee.

The argument is pretty straight-forward. Mr. Lee purchased the right to be a "lifetime full scholarship member" and enjoy all the benefits. The implementation of the YES program applied to all full scholarship members, and thus no part of his deal was broken -- he got all the same privileges and benefits of being a full scholarship member without having to pay the annual membership fee.

Furthermore, no one disputes that the GC could have just raised ticket prices $375 a piece. But because they structured the price increase (let's be honest, that's what it was) as a "seat licensing fee" in order to gain tax advantages for members, does it follow that the lifetime members don't have to pay the same ticket price? So the GC could get around this adverse ruling by getting rid of the seat license and raising ticket prices $375 for everyone, but no one would be better off other than the fisc? How does that make sense?

That said, I see the other side of the issue. Mr. Lee signed up for a contractual right to buy tickets, and the contract wasn't sufficiently well drafted to specify what that means. A majority of the State Supreme Court concluded that meant buy tickets at the season ticket rate, and so now the University should concede the point to Mr. Lee.

I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong in the legal dispute. My point is only to say that both sides have a legitimate argument. Put yourself in USC's shoes -- the administrators have a duty to enforce their rights for the benefit of the school. The issue wasn't clear cut, so just like Mr. Lee shouldn't roll over, neither should they. This is a consequence of doing a crappy job drafting a contract. Both parties here had a reasonable argument, so it's not fair to call anyone amoral (USC, Hyman specifically) or accuse anyone of bribery (Mr. Lee).
I do think "legally" Mr. Lee is in the right. He has the contract and he is trying to milk it for all it's worth I and I don't blame him for that, but I am loyal to my school. I don't see any defense or other remedy that would get USC off the hook for it. The new regime was screwed over by the old regime. They gave Mr. Lee this sweet deal and for about 30 years he was able to get much more than what he paid for, and it return he sued, because it sounds like he didn't like Eric Hyman's attitude. But of course it wasn't Eric Hyman sued. Strategically, If I was Hyman or Tanner or whoever is making the decisions, I would want out of this deal no matter what it took. I would try to handle it as politely and civly as I could. If Mr. Lee is going to give up his legal rights under the contract he deserves to be justly compensated, but it's got to be reasonable. And If they can't agree what is reasonable an arbitrator or a court is going to have to decide. I would probably offer him free seats for 5 years or something.

So, if I take it personally, it's because, he sued my school when they had given him and his family favoritism for decades. Mr. Lee was good to USC, but USC was also very good to him. It's really a shame kind of like a bad break up or a divorce. Time goes on people change. People grow a part, want different things out of life. You know how it is.

It sounds like Hyman didn't want to negotiate, maybe that is the whole problem, but if Mr. Lee is not willing to negotiate either and he is going to waive his dang contract in the air, than this probably going to find itself back in court. And if Mr. Lee is going to play hardball, than any hardball tactics USC uses back he is asking for. I hope works out where everyone is cool with everything, but I hope USC get's out of this bad deal even if they have to lose a lawsuit.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 06:40 AM   #124
yazoo
1st Team All-SEC
 
yazoo's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tryon, NC
Posts: 4,070
CockyCash: 1813
yazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJCatfish View Post
This seems like it has gotten mighty personal. Sometimes people have a legitimate dispute. I'm surprised by the number of people throwing the Gamecock Club under the bus as intentionally breaking an obligation. I think it's completely legitimate that they honestly thought they were in the right, and if so, they had an obligation -- just like Mr. Lee -- to stand up for their rights.

I agree with Mr. Lee's position generally, like most on this board. However, I don't think the contract was clear cut at all. The trial judge agreed with the Gamecock Club. What nobody thus far has bothered to mention, the Supreme Court's opinion was NOT unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion. As Mr. Lee himself noted, "All of the justices on our Supreme court are very well versed in all aspects of the law." One of those well-versed justices thought the contract was clearly against Mr. Lee.

The argument is pretty straight-forward. Mr. Lee purchased the right to be a "lifetime full scholarship member" and enjoy all the benefits. The implementation of the YES program applied to all full scholarship members, and thus no part of his deal was broken -- he got all the same privileges and benefits of being a full scholarship member without having to pay the annual membership fee.

Furthermore, no one disputes that the GC could have just raised ticket prices $375 a piece. But because they structured the price increase (let's be honest, that's what it was) as a "seat licensing fee" in order to gain tax advantages for members, does it follow that the lifetime members don't have to pay the same ticket price? So the GC could get around this adverse ruling by getting rid of the seat license and raising ticket prices $375 for everyone, but no one would be better off other than the fisc? How does that make sense?

That said, I see the other side of the issue. Mr. Lee signed up for a contractual right to buy tickets, and the contract wasn't sufficiently well drafted to specify what that means. A majority of the State Supreme Court concluded that meant buy tickets at the season ticket rate, and so now the University should concede the point to Mr. Lee.

I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong in the legal dispute. My point is only to say that both sides have a legitimate argument. Put yourself in USC's shoes -- the administrators have a duty to enforce their rights for the benefit of the school. The issue wasn't clear cut, so just like Mr. Lee shouldn't roll over, neither should they. This is a consequence of doing a crappy job drafting a contract. Both parties here had a reasonable argument, so it's not fair to call anyone amoral (USC, Hyman specifically) or accuse anyone of bribery (Mr. Lee).
I didn't see it as personal in anyway. Aside from Readrooster's "drama queen" swipe (which I deserved for engaging in hyperbole), there were really no personal shots here. Just a discussion about the merits of two schools of contractual philosophy.
__________________
"if you donít have one quarterback then you have none"
--Dabo Sweeney (c. 2014)



Shaq Attack

Last edited by yazoo; 04-10-2014 at 10:45 AM.
yazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 01:02 PM   #125
CCC
Her Modness
 
CCC's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Moncks Corner, SC
Posts: 6,953
CockyCash: 101500
CCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
You have to understand not all contracts are the same. It's rare that contracts are this one-sided and exist for lifetime and are willable.
Trust me, I understand contracts VERY much (it's kinda what I do for a living). It is rare that contracts are one-sided, no expiration, and willable. But that's what his contract is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
So, if I take it personally, it's because, he sued my school when they had given him and his family favoritism for decades. Mr. Lee was good to USC, but USC was also very good to him. It's really a shame kind of like a bad break up or a divorce. Time goes on people change. People grow a part, want different things out of life. You know how it is.
He sued the school because they renegged on the contract, so I don't see how that can be taken personally. I love USC just as much as the next USC fan, but I'm not going to take it personally just because Mr. Lee has a legal issue with the school. But because I do love my university, I want them to do the morally and ethically right thing, which is to honor the contract. But, hey, I guess that's just my own morals and ethics talking.
CCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 01:35 PM   #126
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC View Post
Trust me, I understand contracts VERY much (it's kinda what I do for a living). It is rare that contracts are one-sided, no expiration, and willable. But that's what his contract is.



He sued the school because they renegged on the contract, so I don't see how that can be taken personally. I love USC just as much as the next USC fan, but I'm not going to take it personally just because Mr. Lee has a legal issue with the school. But because I do love my university, I want them to do the morally and ethically right thing, which is to honor the contract. But, hey, I guess that's just my own morals and ethics talking.
Well I WILL take it personally, because people loyal to school don't sue them and hold them to the fire for all of eternity because you have piece of paper. Because there is what is LEGAL, and then there is just GENERALLY was is right or EQUITABLE. This contract is not a fair equal deal. It's duration is TOO LONG to be fair. In order for it to be fair there needs to be a reasonable limit to it. This guy has gotten special treatment over all the other fans for decades without paying what others had to for it and I think that is bull crap. That OFFENDS my morals way more because, even if the the contract was voided right now, Mr. Lee came out WAY ON TOP already. I don't like seeing people like Mr. Lee treating my school like his b*tch because he's got a wrinkled old piece of piece of paper from from his buddy on the board in 1982.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 02:16 PM   #127
palmettosc
hypnotoad
 
palmettosc's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The South
Posts: 457
CockyCash: 1200
palmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Well I WILL take it personally, because people loyal to school don't sue them and hold them to the fire for all of eternity because you have piece of paper. Because there is what is LEGAL, and then there is just GENERALLY was is right or EQUITABLE. This contract is not a fair equal deal. It's duration is TOO LONG to be fair. In order for it to be fair there needs to be a reasonable limit to it. This guy has gotten special treatment over all the other fans for decades without paying what others had to for it and I think that is bull crap. That OFFENDS my morals way more because, even if the the contract was voided right now, Mr. Lee came out WAY ON TOP already. I don't like seeing people like Mr. Lee treating my school like his b*tch because he's got a wrinkled old piece of piece of paper from from his buddy on the board in 1982.
You are getting really worked up to be both a) in the wrong legally and knowing it and b) being able to do nothing about the situation.
palmettosc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 02:33 PM   #128
yazoo
1st Team All-SEC
 
yazoo's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tryon, NC
Posts: 4,070
CockyCash: 1813
yazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot materialyazoo is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Well I WILL take it personally, because people loyal to school don't sue them and hold them to the fire for all of eternity because you have piece of paper. Because there is what is LEGAL, and then there is just GENERALLY was is right or EQUITABLE. This contract is not a fair equal deal. It's duration is TOO LONG to be fair. In order for it to be fair there needs to be a reasonable limit to it. This guy has gotten special treatment over all the other fans for decades without paying what others had to for it and I think that is bull crap. That OFFENDS my morals way more because, even if the the contract was voided right now, Mr. Lee came out WAY ON TOP already. I don't like seeing people like Mr. Lee treating my school like his b*tch because he's got a wrinkled old piece of piece of paper from from his buddy on the board in 1982.
I could be wrong, but I'm catching a whiff of drama queenism about this post.
__________________
"if you donít have one quarterback then you have none"
--Dabo Sweeney (c. 2014)



Shaq Attack
yazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 02:59 PM   #129
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by yazoo View Post
I could be wrong, but I'm catching a whiff of drama queenism about this post.

Not at all. The school wants out the agreement, and I support my school in decisions like that. If you really call yourself a Gamecock fan, you would as well not badmouth the school and accuse them of being immoral just because after 30 long years they want to go in different direction and no longer want to bend over for this guy.

Like I said, it's a NORMAL business decision. Just like it was a normal BUSINESS decision to sue by Mr. Lee. This is about MONEY on both sides, not some great principle of rightness like people are making it out to be. If Mr. Lee says that is what it's about than he is lying because that is just the BS everyone says when they sue so they don't seem as greedy as they are. And if you believe it than you are a sucker.

So this moral - immoral "holier than though" nonsense discussion needs to be squashed. If you go after the character the school I support it better be for something serious, not little stuff like this. Because, yes, attacking the character of USC bothers me, a lot, and I am going to say something about it.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 03:16 PM   #130
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by palmettosc View Post
You are getting really worked up to be both a) in the wrong legally and knowing it and b) being able to do nothing about the situation.
I can do something. I can speak out on behalf of my school when people like Mr. Lee those who support him are trying to badmouth it as if they are trying to make some great scandal out of it. He's trying to make it sound like it's USC that was trying taking advantage of Mr. Lee, when it was Mr. Lee who has been taking advantage of USC for 30 years.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 03:20 PM   #131
palmettosc
hypnotoad
 
palmettosc's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The South
Posts: 457
CockyCash: 1200
palmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot materialpalmettosc is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Not at all. The school wants out the agreement, and I support my school in decisions like that. If you really call yourself a Gamecock fan, you would as well not badmouth the school and accuse them of being immoral just because after 30 long years they want to go in different direction and no longer want to bend over for this guy.

Like I said, it's a NORMAL business decision. Just like it was a normal BUSINESS decision to sue by Mr. Lee. This is about MONEY on both sides, not some great principle of rightness like people are making it out to be. If Mr. Lee says that is what it's about than he is lying because that is just the BS everyone says when they sue so they don't seem as greedy as they are. And if you believe it than you are a sucker.

So this moral - immoral "holier than though" nonsense discussion needs to be squashed. If you go after the character the school I support it better be for something serious, not little stuff like this. Because, yes, attacking the character of USC bothers me, a lot, and I am going to say something about it.
You are also attempting to have a "holier than though" response by implying that those who feel the same as the courts are not as supportive of the school as you. They had a legal document, had a dispute, and adjudicated it. The whole issue should be over.
palmettosc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 05:02 PM   #132
ccured
What a Rush!!!
 
ccured's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: columbia sc
Posts: 8,055
CockyCash: 4955916
ccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot materialccured is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
I can do something. I can speak out on behalf of my school when people like Mr. Lee those who support him are trying to badmouth it as if they are trying to make some great scandal out of it. He's trying to make it sound like it's USC that was trying taking advantage of Mr. Lee, when it was Mr. Lee who has been taking advantage of USC for 30 years.
You have no authority to speak on behalf of the school. Nobody is badmouthing the school for saying USC tried to take advantage of Mr Lee. It is ludicrous to say the Mr Lee took advantage of the university. He was offered a good deal that was short sighted by the university. Everyone is saying they expect the university to honor it's word. It's simple case of business ethics versus personal ethics. They don't always overlap today. I agree it was a necessary and good business decision to terminate the contracts. If you have one push back out of 20 that is great margin. Now you either buy him out or you eat his contract.
ccured is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 06:08 PM   #133
CCC
Her Modness
 
CCC's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Moncks Corner, SC
Posts: 6,953
CockyCash: 101500
CCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot materialCCC is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
I don't like seeing people like Mr. Lee treating my school like his b*tch because he's got a wrinkled old piece of piece of paper from from his buddy on the board in 1982.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
If you really call yourself a Gamecock fan, you would as well not badmouth the school and accuse them of being immoral just because after 30 long years they want to go in different direction and no longer want to bend over for this guy.

First of all, Mr. Lee is not treating USC as his "bitch"; he's pursuing enforcement of the contract that YOUR school and MY school entered into with him.

Second of all, I'm not any less of a Gamecock fan because I agree with Mr. Lee's side. I've never badmouthed the school or accused them of being immoral. I simply stated that they need to DO the moral and ethically correct thing.

I keep hearing you say that this isn't fair. Isn't fair for who? You? Me? Every other Gamecock fan? I'm sorry, but I don't feel like I should be entitled to the same deal Mr. Lee got. Fact is, I'm not entitled to it, but that doesn't make it "not fair" to me. That's exactly what's wrong with folks today, they feel like everything should be fair, and if it's not then nobody else should have it either. It's great when things can be fair, but life isn't fair and no need to whine about it when it's not. I'm willing to bet that if it was you holding that contract you'd be taking advantage of it too. You wouldn't give up this sweetheart deal to make it fair for everyone else, or out of the kindness of your heart for the university. I don't know you personally, but I'm willing to bet that would be true of you, me, and most of the folks here if we had this pretty piece of paper in our lap.
CCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 07:21 PM   #134
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC View Post
First of all, Mr. Lee is not treating USC as his "bitch"; he's pursuing enforcement of the contract that YOUR school and MY school entered into with him.

Second of all, I'm not any less of a Gamecock fan because I agree with Mr. Lee's side. I've never badmouthed the school or accused them of being immoral. I simply stated that they need to DO the moral and ethically correct thing.

I keep hearing you say that this isn't fair. Isn't fair for who? You? Me? Every other Gamecock fan? I'm sorry, but I don't feel like I should be entitled to the same deal Mr. Lee got. Fact is, I'm not entitled to it, but that doesn't make it "not fair" to me. That's exactly what's wrong with folks today, they feel like everything should be fair, and if it's not then nobody else should have it either. It's great when things can be fair, but life isn't fair and no need to whine about it when it's not. I'm willing to bet that if it was you holding that contract you'd be taking advantage of it too. You wouldn't give up this sweetheart deal to make it fair for everyone else, or out of the kindness of your heart for the university. I don't know you personally, but I'm willing to bet that would be true of you, me, and most of the folks here if we had this pretty piece of paper in our lap.
You completely miss the point. What Mr. Lee or what anyone would have done in his shoes back in 1982 or whenever is irrelevant. It is not the issue. The issue was the this was deal never should have been done in the first place. Whoever agreed to it did a disservice to the University of South Carolina. Now USC is on the hook for it, and after 30 years they no longer want to be. Okay so they are going to do what they have to do.

If I was making a bunch of money off this "sweetheart deal" I might have taken USC to court over it, make them offer me a buyout if they wanted out. But I wouldn't sit there and act high and mighty about it and claim that USC is being terrible and greedy and evil has done me some great wrong. That is what I have been reading here. Mr. Lee and his supporters are the ones whining that USC is NOT BEING FAIR to the man. Well USC was fair to him for 30 years.

So let's not talk in terms of fair and unfair, let's talk in terms of like and don't like, because that is how the world really works. The new people at USC do not like this agreement. They want out of it. Mr. Lee likes it, he wants to keep it. If you think it is some great ethical violation for USC to use the process so it is not stuck in a losing contract for all of eternity in which USC will probably going to have to pay him a ton of money, that will be made up by all other USC supporters in some way, than there is something wrong with your thought process.

And there are other things I don't like. I don't like the good-ol-boy system. Nepotism, favoritism. Does that exist? Yes, but I don't like it, I don't agree with it and if USC is going to fight against than I support them.

In my opinion doing the morally correct thing is doing what is best for the university, and that very well could mean breaking a bad contract. And if they DON'T do it they could be doing the morally INCORRECT thing. Because the decision makers at USC have a DUTY to the University to make wise business choices.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 07:52 PM   #135
Gamecock_girl_west
1st Team All-SEC
 
Gamecock_girl_west's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3,655
CockyCash: 200
Gamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot materialGamecock_girl_west is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

It will be interesting to see how the school deals with this. His contract stated that the seats were for the 'best available'. Now that there is a seat license, and he is not paying it, are his seats relinquished and he must choose his seats based on the best available?

Years ago when YES came into being, people talked about how it was about time since people who payed at the bottom level of the GCC were getting prime seats because of time over money.

GCC is a business. They have two ways to deal with this. First is the 'honorable' way of honoring the willable lifetime contract.

The second is not honoring it. Either by canceling it outright and paying some sort of penalty. Or by placing stipulations on future iterations. Less palatable and a PR nightmare for the university. Although less of a PR issue than the "we've had these tickets for 70 years and they took them away" because that will happen.

I would be interested in seeing what the contractual obligations really are in the case and what recourse the university has.
__________________
Gamecock_girl_west is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 08:30 PM   #136
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamecock_girl_west View Post
It will be interesting to see how the school deals with this. His contract stated that the seats were for the 'best available'. Now that there is a seat license, and he is not paying it, are his seats relinquished and he must choose his seats based on the best available?

Years ago when YES came into being, people talked about how it was about time since people who payed at the bottom level of the GCC were getting prime seats because of time over money.

GCC is a business. They have two ways to deal with this. First is the 'honorable' way of honoring the willable lifetime contract.

The second is not honoring it. Either by canceling it outright and paying some sort of penalty. Or by placing stipulations on future iterations. Less palatable and a PR nightmare for the university. Although less of a PR issue than the "we've had these tickets for 70 years and they took them away" because that will happen.

I would be interested in seeing what the contractual obligations really are in the case and what recourse the university has.
It's not going to be a PR nightmare. That is just silly. USC will either let it go, or Mr. Lee will get a real nice pay day out of it which means higher ticket prices for all. Yipeee! USC has probably broken or renigged on hundreds to thousands of contracts over 2 centuries. It's the way of the world.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 08:13 AM   #137
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Hey man. We are not doing things like they were done in the old days anymore. It's time to get on board with the new way or gtho. If you want be someone of importance at USC the price has gone up. You don't get rely on the fact that you and your papa was a long time big shot or that you friends made you some promises in 1982 to secure your place. You want to keep your special place in hierarchy? Than you need to pay the full price everyone else is paying for it. In cash, not old memories.
You are like the energizer bunny. Right or wrong you just keep on going. My children certainly do not think I am an old codger or old fart. I made this deal because King Dixon asked for our support. I certainly hope anyone reading this never signs a contract with you.

Ridiculous.
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 10:26 AM   #138
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 8,824
CockyCash: 510
ReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot materialReadR00ster is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgelee57 View Post
You are like the energizer bunny. Right or wrong you just keep on going. My children certainly do not think I am an old codger or old fart. I made this deal because King Dixon asked for our support. I certainly hope anyone reading this never signs a contract with you.

Ridiculous.

Oh I am definitely right. You don't need a contract to support USC, but this King Dixon guy who was AD for 4 years offered this to you and you took it, and for 25 years you held it over head of USC and intend to do so as long as you live because King Dixon said so. I am sure the new regime at USC is not happy with King Dixon right now either. Sorry but I just don't support you in this. You were FORTUNATE to get offered something like this in the first place. No one who is at USC now signed off on this. They weren't the ones that made you promises. You know every one else has been paying more because of you and those like you and will continue to don't you? But I guess you don't care about that. You'd rather play the victim. I urge to have your attorney call someone at USC to settle this dispute. I would keep any promise I made that is was in my power that was reasonable. What King Dixon offered you was not reasonable. A lifetime willable contract to buy tickets is not reasonable. I would not have promised that anyone nor would any reasonable person.

Last edited by ReadR00ster; 04-11-2014 at 10:43 AM.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 11:01 AM   #139
rioninusc
Two Deep
 
rioninusc's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,189
CockyCash: 555
rioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPitrioninusc rules the CockPit
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Oh I am definitely right. You don't need a contract to support USC, but this King Dixon guy who was AD for 4 years offered this to you and you took it, and for 25 years you held it over head of USC and intend to do so as long as you live because King Dixon said so. I am sure the new regime at USC is not happy with King Dixon right now either. Sorry but I just don't support you in this. You were FORTUNATE to get offered something like this in the first place. No one who is at USC now signed off on this. They weren't the ones that made you promises. You know every one else has been paying more because of you and those like you and will continue to don't you? But I guess you don't care about that. You'd rather play the victim. I urge to have your attorney call someone at USC to settle this dispute. I would keep any promise I made that is was in my power that was reasonable. What King Dixon offered you was not reasonable. A lifetime willable contract to buy tickets is not reasonable. I would not have promised that anyone nor would any reasonable person.
And you are ill informed about how things work in this world. When he signed a contract he signed it with the "USC", not Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon approved of these life insurance contracts, but it passed through the board or whatever, and some people took advantage of it. As long as USC is "USC" then they should honor that contract. And whoopped dee doo about 200 people probably with 300-500 seats man they sure are hindering the sales of over 80,000 seats arent' they? You have to think this possible 40k to 80k loss on YES fee's for the University is like 40 cents to 80 cents to you and me. USC made over 90 mil last year, so quit belly aching about up to 80 grand they are losing each year. If you whine about not getting 80 cents a year then you have mental issues. I am not with the school on fighting this.
rioninusc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2014, 11:58 AM   #140
georgelee57
Walk On
 
georgelee57's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Columbia
Posts: 16
CockyCash: 500
georgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his combgeorgelee57 is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by rioninusc View Post
And you are ill informed about how things work in this world. When he signed a contract he signed it with the "USC", not Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon approved of these life insurance contracts, but it passed through the board or whatever, and some people took advantage of it. As long as USC is "USC" then they should honor that contract. And whoopped dee doo about 200 people probably with 300-500 seats man they sure are hindering the sales of over 80,000 seats arent' they? You have to think this possible 40k to 80k loss on YES fee's for the University is like 40 cents to 80 cents to you and me. USC made over 90 mil last year, so quit belly aching about up to 80 grand they are losing each year. If you whine about not getting 80 cents a year then you have mental issues. I am not with the school on fighting this.
Every attempt was made to avoid what has happened. The GC was not interested is trying to settle this issue. A change in leadership does not change the contract or the obligations of each party to the contract must honor their obligations. You have no idea how many attempts were made by me to settle this issue and move on with my life,

If anyone ever breaches a contract that you are a party too you may well look at this differently.

Lifetime members, all 200+ of us, have nothing to do with setting ticket prices. Interesting to me that you feel that Lifetime Members are taking advantage of USC by insisting that the contracts be honored. We have all tried to talk to the GC and have all been rebuffed in our attempts to resolve this issue,
georgelee57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.


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