SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

[sc455]

Thiz thread is full of spite and hate..you all should be embarrassed.

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by BeatBamaTwice

Respectfully, I'm not so sure. This is a lifetime contract with an annual breach. Although I understand many have been making payment under protest, although possibly beneficial, arguably even that check annotation was unnecessary. It's reasonable that lifetime right holders could have remained hopeful USC would change its position so as to remove the condition precedent to purchase. What arguably might be lost is the right to recoup paid YES fees beyond the three year limitation, not the right to a declarative judgment as to rights and obligations under a lifetime contractual relationship.

Hypothetically, you are one of the 199 boosters. That is a good legal argument you made against my statute of limitations bar analysis to your claim. However, nobody knows if the legal analysis you suggest is a winner or not. (Mostly likely not since the breach was a substantial breach.) Meanwhile, you owe me $200 per hour to litigate the issue with USC knowing you have just a moderate chance of prevailing and may have to pay USC's costs in the end. Plus, I need a retainer of $5,000 to draft the lawsuit. I figure the fees for my help with this will be around $20,000 in the end. Oh, btw, no way this is a contingency fee case in view of the substantial risks. Do you hire me to file suit?

[BeatBamaTwice]

Originally Posted by yazoo

Hypothetically, you are one of the 199 boosters. That is a good legal argument you made against my statute of limitations bar analysis to your claim. However, nobody knows if the legal analysis you suggest is a winner or not. (Mostly likely not since the breach was a substantial breach.) Meanwhile, you owe me $200 per hour to litigate the issue with USC knowing you have just a moderate chance of prevailing and may have to pay USC's costs in the end. Plus, I need a retainer of $5,000 to draft the lawsuit. I figure the fees for my help with this will be around $20,000 in the end. Oh, btw, no way this is a contingency fee case in view of the substantial risks. Do you hire me to file suit?

Yes, there's always costs and risks but with Mr. Lee having already blazed a rather wide trail, and a lone legal issue to address, I'll be surprised if it isn't raised. Also, the more who join in, the lower the cost per client. But what I actually expect, in light of the Court's order, is for "My Carolina" to immediately put the entire matter to rest by announcing that it will fully abide by the ruling in regard to all similar agreements. Carolina isn't out to hoodwink anyone. I'm confident this is over, that it will do what's right.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by yazoo

So, lets say USC continues to impose the license fee on the other 199 boosters who got the deal. They knew more than three years ago, USC was not going to honor the agreement. So, now after reading the Supreme Court opinion, they object to paying the license fee because of Mr. Lee's legal opinion. USC says, pack sand and pay up. They sue USC. You are hired to represent USC. You do not plead the statute as an affirmative defense the statute of limitations and file motions for summary judgment based upon it?

Second, if you read the Supreme Court opinion, it states that Mr. Lee's action was one for Declaratory Judgment. That is a different type of claim than a breach of contract claim, which seeks and must prove damages as an element of the claim. I'm not sure the statute of limitations applies to Mr. Lee in view of his pursuing this claim, but it might. The statute of limitations is a bad*ss defense.

It seems like you are making a res judicata argument, but it seems to me like it is only an "issue preclusion" scenario because as you said, Mr. Lee sought only a declaratory judgment and not sue for breach. For res judicata the case has to be tried on the merits. That was not the case here.

As far as I know USC has honored the agreement to these other contract holders. These others I assume just decided to pay the fee when they did not have to. So if USC tries to keep charging these people fees, they can say "no," and if USC does not allow them to purchase seats, than that is a material possibly fundamental breach of a contract that they can sue for, and the statue of limitations starts ticking when USC manifests it's intention to refuse to sell them the seats. I guess USC could argue that it manifested that intention when it started charging the fees, but the court treated that as an intent to alter the contract by adding an addition term, not to refuse performance. So I don't think res judicata or statute of limitations is going to be a viable defense for USC.

What Mr. Lee's declaratory judgment did was preclude USC from arguing the issue again that requiring additional fees is consistent with the current contracts. I don't think any of these people are going to get refunds, but they won't have to pay the fees anymore.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by BeatBamaTwice

Yes, there's always costs and risks but with Mr. Lee having already blazed a rather wide trail, and a lone legal issue to address, I'll be surprised if it isn't raised. Also, the more who join in, the lower the cost per client. But what I actually expect, in light of the Court's order, is for "My Carolina" to immediately put the entire matter to rest by announcing that it will fully abide by the ruling in regard to all similar agreements. Carolina isn't out to hoodwink anyone. I'm confident this is over, that it will do what's right.

Well, they are going to do what THEY think is right.

[BeatBamaTwice]

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

So if USC tries to keep charging these people fees, they can say "no," and if USC does not allow them to purchase seats, than that is a material possibly fundamental breach of a contract that they can sue for, and the statue of limitations starts ticking when USC manifests it's intention to refuse to sell them the seats. I guess USC could argue that it manifested that intention when it started charging the fees, but the court treated that as an intent to alter the contract by adding an addition term, not to refuse performance. So I don't think res judicata or statute of limitations is going to be a viable defense for USC.

Excellent breach point. And if correct, instead of risking their right to purchase tickets and missing out on great seating for games, they'd each clearly have the same right as Mr. Lee under their lifetime contract to a judicial declaration of their rights. It's why this is over and done. USC will soon return all YES fees collected from all lifetime boosters whether the fees were paid under protest or not. To do otherwise would be to teach the student body an unacceptable lesson about dishonoring obligations.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by BeatBamaTwice

Excellent breach point. And if correct, instead of risking their right to purchase tickets and missing out on great seating for games, they'd each clearly have the same right as Mr. Lee under their lifetime contract to a judicial declaration of their rights. It's why this is over and done. USC will soon return all YES fees collected from all lifetime boosters whether the fees were paid under protest or not. To do otherwise would be to teach the student body an unacceptable lesson about dishonoring obligations.

That's a little much. They charged them more money than they were required to pay. Something that the could of done just by raising ticket prices, which is what they probably now do.

[ReadR00ster]

I am USC here is what I do.

1. We are going to raise ticket prices $500.
2. We are going to make the fee optional for $500 for everyone and call it something else.
3. Anyone who pays the optional "donation" will get $600 off NEXT year's tickets.

[roosterdude21]

[yazoo]

I think Ray is likely to just stop charging the fee to the 200 boosters going forward. I don't think anyone gets a refund. Mr. Lee, according to what he told us, is not seeking a refund. Either way, it makes no nevermind to me as I will support the Gamecocks regardless.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by georgelee57

We had an AD in Mr. Hyman who made a business decision to disregard over 200 valid agreements that had been in place for 20 years and had been honored up until his arrival. No preliminary contact was made with any of the Lifetime members and not one person from the GC Club or AD's office ever offered any reasonable explanation as to why we were not given the respect that all humans deserve. I was told by Jeff Crane in his office that we were not dying fast enough (what a guy). Class act and still with the AD'S OFFICE. We were treated as though we were used commodities to be discarded and all of this by number's cruncher's' with MBA's (not from USC, Jeff Crane UNC) WHO were brought here BY Hyman for a specific purpose, raise money at all costs and forget the long term fans. These folks were and are not Gamecoocks they are resume builders who want to prove their great ability as fundraisers so they can move on and repeat the process. There is no loyalty here, just look at what is occurring at A&M, sound familiar. We now have true gamecocks as coaches and as our AD. Ray and Steve and all of our coaches have proven their loyalty and have and will continue to do things the right way. Let's do what we have always done, love our university and team, treat other with respect and always act in a manner that reflects positively on you and your USC.

Remember this, second thought will be given going forward before we as fans are simply looked at as $$$$ and not as the loyal Gamecock fans that we are. Let Ray do his job, support your team and help those in need. No one has the right to flagrantly disregard the rights of others in the manner that Mr. Hyman did and he was not and never will be a true gamecock.

The above quote touched on a point that I want to make.

Even if it was never officially said, Eric Hyman was brought in to do a job- modernize the USC Athletic Department. That's what he did at TCU, and he more than accomplished that at Carolina. I don't think Hyman ever truly bought into Carolina at a personal level. I always thought it was because he was an No.Car. alumn - but it never felt like he was one of us. My favorite example of this is how he never once referred to us as "Carolina" - always "South Carolina." That said, but I always felt like he was doing his job and doing it well. I thought he showed great leadership during hard times (NCAA investigation), and he sure did a hell of a job recruiting coaches (Frank Martin, Dawn Staley, Chad Holbrook). I fully expect that the Board of Trustees knew Hyman would ruffle some feathers with the YES Program. But ultimately, what had been tried for over 100 years wasn't working, and I think they knew it had to be done in order to play with the big boys.

So regarding the contracts, everyone who is from South Carolina - or who has lived there long enough - knows that there is a very strong "good ol' boys" club in this state. It exists at all levels of government and business; and our universities are no exception. The whole deal reeks of the good ol' boy system hard at work (a lifetime, willable contract? Even in the 80's people weren't that stupid). I personally applaud Hyman for bucking that system, and it's my opinion that this is at least part of the reason why the families that benefited from the deal are so pissed off about it.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by Spartan

The above quote touched on a point that I want to make.

Even if it was never officially said, Eric Hyman was brought in to do a job- modernize the USC Athletic Department. That's what he did at TCU, and he more than accomplished that at Carolina. I don't think Hyman ever truly bought into Carolina at a personal level. I always thought it was because he was an No.Car. alumn - but it never felt like he was one of us. My favorite example of this is how he never once referred to us as "Carolina" - always "South Carolina." That said, but I always felt like he was doing his job and doing it well. I thought he showed great leadership during hard times (NCAA investigation), and he sure did a hell of a job recruiting coaches (Frank Martin, Dawn Staley, Chad Holbrook). I fully expect that the Board of Trustees knew Hyman would ruffle some feathers with the YES Program. But ultimately, what had been tried for over 100 years wasn't working, and I think they knew it had to be done in order to play with the big boys.

So regarding the contracts, everyone who is from South Carolina - or who has lived there long enough - knows that there is a very strong "good ol' boys" club in this state. It exists at all levels of government and business; and our universities are no exception. The whole deal reeks of the good ol' boy system hard at work (a lifetime, willable contract? Even in the 80's people weren't that stupid). I personally applaud Hyman for bucking that system, and it's my opinion that this is at least part of the reason why the families that benefited from the deal are so pissed off about it.

Finally someone who understands! Hyman's priority was drastically changing SC for the better not preserving old relationships. To do that he felt he had to trample some of those old arrangements. You know the old saying, "in order to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs." Sorry if the old timers took it personally and as an "affront to human decency?" seriously? I would not expect such older gentlemen to react so petty and childish about something like this. You want to sue fine, but no need to play the poor victim that is being kicked when he's down. Because he isn't down, he's up. Eric Hyman showed all the loyalty he needed to show by doing his job and getting results. He didn't owe any loyalty to the those long time donors. He owed the university to do a good job, that is all.

[COCKYWOOD]

Hyman's top assistance from TCU, Jeff Crane stayed at SC and is now Ray's senior assistant. He could of left when Hyman did , but loves SC and all the improvements. Super guy , who with Ray will keep us moving forward.

[georgelee57]

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

Finally someone who understands! Hyman's priority was drastically changing SC for the better not preserving old relationships. To do that he felt he had to trample some of those old arrangements. You know the old saying, "in order to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs." Sorry if the old timers took it personally and as an "affront to human decency?" seriously? I would not expect such older gentlemen to react so petty and childish about something like this. You want to sue fine, but no need to play the poor victim that is being kicked when he's down. Because he isn't down, he's up. Eric Hyman showed all the loyalty he needed to show by doing his job and getting results. He didn't owe any loyalty to the those long time donors. He owed the university to do a good job, that is all.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this matter. On another note, the AD has decided to honor all LT contracts for the upcoming 2014 season. Coach Tanner is going to work all of this out and will be meeting with all LT members in early May.

Go Cocks.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by georgelee57

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this matter. On another note, the AD has decided to honor all LT contracts for the upcoming 2014 season. Coach Tanner is going to work all of this out and will be meeting with all LT members in early May.

Go Cocks.

Whatever they decide is best is fine with me. Like I said, my issue was only the attitude that someone would take the stance that USC would be doing the wrong or unethical thing because they want out of a contract that is basically forever. If it was a shorter term contract, say 15 years or so, that would be different story. To expect someone to go on forever and ever and never change their mind and when they finally do after DECADES is a low blow. USC does not owe the lifetime members anything because of duty and honor. That is not the reason they are doing this. So no one should even be going there. It's just a matter of how much it is going to cost them to get out of this deal vs how much it will cost them to keep allowing it. Which is really thanks me and the other Gamecock fans who will be making up the difference so that they decide to just keep letting you get your deal, so you are welcome. I think these people paying the seat fees deserve a little more appreciation, should give these fans something for paying these fees. USC and the GGC should them parking and concession credits or something.

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by georgelee57

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this matter. On another note, the AD has decided to honor all LT contracts for the upcoming 2014 season. Coach Tanner is going to work all of this out and will be meeting with all LT members in early May.

Go Cocks.

Tanner is an honorable man. We could not ask for a better AD.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by yazoo

Tanner is an honorable man. We could not ask for a better AD.

And so was Hyman.

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

And so was Hyman.

ha-ha. Good one.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by yazoo

ha-ha. Good one.

Best AD we ever had. Stood up to the old money. Much respect.