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 
NineInchSpurs
WeStill0wnUSC
Badazcock
Pty23
gromweat
ReadR00ster
rabid cock
markymark550
Goofyboy
2000grad
Well, as it turns ou (2402)
Luginbill says ECU s (2355)
What the heck is up (1817)
Next years RB situat (1677)
ECU fan here (1375)
So, Vanderbilt is ne (1301)
Davis dinged up agai (1129)
Freaky Coincidence o (1068)
Defensive stand-arou (910)
Quarles is a Colt! (705)
New Photos by Travis Bell
Davis dinged up again?
For the love of God! -- P
So, Vanderbilt is next
Robin William's fakes dea
Well, as it turns out, we
No Gurley near the goal l
What the heck is up with
Defensive stand-around pl
Name a Gamecock


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-02-2014, 07:35 PM   #21
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by GH View Post
the willable part is what kills me.
Agreed, it seems like "lifetime full scholarship" is a pretty egregious misnomer if you really can pass it on beyond your life. Seems more like an eternal full scholarship to me.
DJCatfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 07:55 PM   #22
GamecockInHell
2nd Team All-SEC
 
GamecockInHell's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hephzibah, Ga
Posts: 3,400
CockyCash: 4524
GamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot materialGamecockInHell is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

A season ticket in the early to mid 80s cost less than a hundred bucks. I think the face value on a regular ticket was in the range of $15 each. $5,000 was more oney than I could afford back then.
GamecockInHell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 08:15 PM   #23
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
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?
Ticket prices are the same no matter where in the stadium they are.. The YES fees per seat vary depending on where the seat is. They could not raise the ticket price just for his seats. They would have to raise ALL tickets or most likely open themselves up to another lawsuit they would lose.
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 08:59 PM   #24
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,125
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 gamecockhub View Post
Ticket prices are the same no matter where in the stadium they are.. The YES fees per seat vary depending on where the seat is. They could not raise the ticket price just for his seats. They would have to raise ALL tickets or most likely open themselves up to another lawsuit they would lose.
I am pretty sure since the school owns the stadium they can set a price of any seat at any price they want, and they can adjust the YES program any way they want. I doubt this guy's "contract" guaranteed him a certain seat or a certain price. Seems like he was promise a chance purchase season tickets every year and life insurance and that is all. I doubt it said he could buy any seat in the stadium he wanted.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:09 PM   #25
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
I am pretty sure since the school owns the stadium they can set a price of any seat at any price they want, and they can adjust the YES program any way they want. I doubt this guy's "contract" guaranteed him a certain seat or a certain price. Seems like he was promise a chance purchase season tickets every year and life insurance and that is all. I doubt it said he could buy any seat in the stadium he wanted.
My point was that they can't raise his and not raise ticket prices in at least the same section to equal what they would want to charge him as it would be seen as retaliation by the court. The best thing USC can do is let it go. They have already gotten a lot of negative publicity over this and to continue to try and "stick it" to this guy will only cause a lot more. They lost, charge him the ticket price and raise his when they raise others and move on. YES does not apply to this guy per the ruling so whatever they do with it, they can only charge him for the tickets. As long as he sends them $500 a year per their second agreement.
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:17 PM   #26
Sir Cuss
Blue Chip
 
Sir Cuss's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Low Country
Posts: 943
CockyCash: 500
Sir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot materialSir Cuss is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

no one likes a "breech"
__________________

Sir Cuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:27 PM   #27
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,125
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 gamecockhub View Post
My point was that they can't raise his and not raise ticket prices in at least the same section to equal what they would want to charge him as it would be seen as retaliation by the court. The best thing USC can do is let it go. They have already gotten a lot of negative publicity over this and to continue to try and "stick it" to this guy will only cause a lot more. They lost, charge him the ticket price and raise his when they raise others and move on. YES does not apply to this guy per the ruling so whatever they do with it, they can only charge him for the tickets. As long as he sends them $500 a year per their second agreement.
Not necessarily. The court could see it as just see it USC exercising their rights while sticking to the terms of the agreement. Paying nothing more than the ticket price was a term. All the court said was he didn't have to pay a fee ON TOP of the price. Paying certain price is not in the agreement. He agreed to pay whatever price USC chooses to charge. And it doesn't matter what you or me or anyone else thinks. USC will do what they want. Him not being in the YES program doesn't matter. They could still give all the GOOD seats to YES members and decide rest except to the worst 8 seats in the house will go to General Admission or students or to other groups and there is nothing he or the court could do about it unless there is something in the agreement that says the could not. And no one will care except him and his family who are getting a meal ticket out of the deal, because it does not effect anyone else.

Last edited by ReadR00ster; 04-02-2014 at 09:37 PM.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:31 PM   #28
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Not necessarily. The court could see it as just see it USC exercising their rights without breaching their contract. And it doesn't matter what you or me or anyone else thinks. USC will do what they want.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Given what was said in the decision I think it would go badly for USC if they jacked only his ticket prices up. Hopefully they are smart enough to just let it go.
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:33 PM   #29
BlueHerons
4-Star
 
BlueHerons's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 405
CockyCash: 500
BlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his combBlueHerons is developing his comb
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccured View Post
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?
Yes, they were passed down. One family, the mother, each of the three adult sons, bought the deal. The mother died a couple of years ago and her seats went to the eldest sons oldest son. Back when they opened up the zone, the same family bought four additional seats.

Mostly old money Columbia families that I know of.
BlueHerons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 09:58 PM   #30
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,125
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 gamecockhub View Post
We will just have to agree to disagree. Given what was said in the decision I think it would go badly for USC if they jacked only his ticket prices up. Hopefully they are smart enough to just let it go.
What looks bad for USC in MY opinion is they let this guy and his family have a free meal ticket for his entire life and his family down through eternity because he bought a $100,000 life insurance policy. Nothing looks worse or more ridiculous than that.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 10:12 PM   #31
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
What looks bad for USC in MY opinion is they let this guy and his family have a free meal ticket for his entire life and his family down through eternity because he bought a $100,000 life insurance policy. Nothing looks worse or more ridiculous than that.
Bad or not that was what they agreed to when they took his money and signed the contract and have no one to blame but themselves. What is worse than anything is not living up to a contract you signed when the other party has lived up to their end. It calls into question the integrity of the university and its officials and the ability to trust them in ANY contract. Nothing is worse than a person, business, agency or school that cannot be trusted to keep its word.
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 10:13 PM   #32
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueHerons View Post
Yes, they were passed down. One family, the mother, each of the three adult sons, bought the deal. The mother died a couple of years ago and her seats went to the eldest sons oldest son. Back when they opened up the zone, the same family bought four additional seats.

Mostly old money Columbia families that I know of.
This isn't the first time this issue has been litigated actually: https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/di...No=2011-UP-331

That opinion actually dealt with lifetime silver spur memberships. The clause in that contract said, "Upon the death of [], this Lifetime Silver Spur membership will be transferred to [] for his lifetime only."

I would be pretty surprised if the lifetime full scholarship was more favorable, so I somewhat doubt it lasts multiple generations. Granted all this is speculation since no one on this board seems to have the document, but again, it would be really odd for the full scholarship clause to be significantly more favorable than the silver spur clause.

Only leaving it available for one bequest is also consistent with your story -- it makes more sense to will the tickets to someone young (the eldest son's son, rather than the eldest son outright). That way you can stretch out the benefit as long as possible. If you could bequeath the tickets forever, there would be no need to skip a generation.

Finally, just in case anyone was interested, the annual gamecock club report lists the number of donors at each level. As of 2013 there were 34 lifetime silver spur members and 188 lifetime full scholarship members. http://scgamecockclub.com/sites/all/...ship-Guide.pdf
DJCatfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2014, 10:15 PM   #33
GH
Moonocababa
 
GH's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 18,760
CockyCash: 28000
GH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot materialGH is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
What looks bad for USC in MY opinion is they let this guy and his family have a free meal ticket for his entire life and his family down through eternity because he bought a $100,000 life insurance policy. Nothing looks worse or more ridiculous than that.

They can do two three things.

1) Let it go. They made a ****ing stupid ass deal so they will now have to live with it...FOREVER....FOREVER....FOREVER...the guy won fair and square...don't screw him over.

2) Don't honor the deal. Get sued and pay damages and let the fallout of bad publicity come.

3) Offer the people who made the deal a hefty sum of money right now to end the deal.
__________________
Yech, I can hear you misspelling words as you speak!
GH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 02:23 AM   #34
GamecockUltimate
BIGGER. STRONGER.LONGER
 
GamecockUltimate's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Club Fields
Posts: 5,256
CockyCash: 219000
GamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot material
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

I mean they might as well let it go the family probably donates a ton to usc anyways, why burn that bridge and the bridge of 27ish other rich fans?
__________________

for willy
GamecockUltimate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 02:30 AM   #35
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,125
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 GH View Post
They can do two three things.

1) Let it go. They made a ****ing stupid ass deal so they will now have to live with it...FOREVER....FOREVER....FOREVER...the guy won fair and square...don't screw him over.

2) Don't honor the deal. Get sued and pay damages and let the fallout of bad publicity come.

3) Offer the people who made the deal a hefty sum of money right now to end the deal.
It wouldn't be "screwing him over" to limit his seating options. That is just "playing hardball," as he is not promised any specific seats of his choice. Another thing they could do is raise his AND the YES members tickets $325 and give a $325 discount for being a YES members. He won a chance to buy "some seats" every year. That's all he won.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 02:36 AM   #36
ReadR00ster
2nd Team All-American
 
ReadR00ster's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Posts: 9,125
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 gamecockhub View Post
Bad or not that was what they agreed to when they took his money and signed the contract and have no one to blame but themselves. What is worse than anything is not living up to a contract you signed when the other party has lived up to their end. It calls into question the integrity of the university and its officials and the ability to trust them in ANY contract. Nothing is worse than a person, business, agency or school that cannot be trusted to keep its word.
Like I said, I am arguing the there was a bargain, I aM debating the WHAT it exactly was that the university offered the guy and accepted by him. It sounds like he was just promised the chance to buy some seats every year. Unless they promised him some specific seats, they could put him the worst seats and they will have fulfilled their end of the bargain. There has to be a limit to what this guy is allowed to do. What if he starts buying up every seat in the stadium or sells his right to some other person on company and they buy up every seat in the stadium and jack up the prices?

Last edited by ReadR00ster; 04-03-2014 at 02:47 AM.
ReadR00ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 06:28 AM   #37
yazoo
1st Team All-SEC
 
yazoo's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tryon, NC
Posts: 4,197
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

The statute of limitations in SC for breach of contract is three years. Unless all 28 of the donors sued, the rest of them will have their claims barred by the statute of limitations if they try to enforce these contracts now.

Interestingly, even Elizabeth Sims, who was a party to the original suit with Mr. Lee, is now barred from recovery because she chose not to appeal the adverse (to her and Lee) trial court determination.

I am also confused about the legal strategy of Mr. Lee, the prevailing party.

Quote:
Believing that the University could not require him to
pay additional consideration for the opportunity to purchase tickets without
violating the agreement, Appellant brought a declaratory judgment action.
Maybe some of the lawyers on here can tell me. Because Lee did not actually sue for breach of contract but chose to only sue for "declaratory judgment," what damages can he collect? Can he even get his YES fees back even after the ruling or would the statute of limitations not bar him from suing for those damages?

In the end, because the vast majority who made this deal will choose not to sue USC out of loyalty, respect, disdain for the courts, etc., Hyman probably made a sound financial decision to breach the contracts with these donors. I am not saying Hyman made a moral decision.
__________________


Shaq Attack

Last edited by yazoo; 04-03-2014 at 06:42 AM.
yazoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 11:29 AM   #38
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReadR00ster View Post
Like I said, I am arguing the there was a bargain, I aM debating the WHAT it exactly was that the university offered the guy and accepted by him. It sounds like he was just promised the chance to buy some seats every year. Unless they promised him some specific seats, they could put him the worst seats and they will have fulfilled their end of the bargain. There has to be a limit to what this guy is allowed to do. What if he starts buying up every seat in the stadium or sells his right to some other person on company and they buy up every seat in the stadium and jack up the prices?
He was allowed to take over the seats his parents had and he is able to buy a total of 8 seats period, first priority on 4 of best available and second priority on 4 more so there is no "buy out the stadium" possible. Like any other GCC member you retain the right to purchase the seats you have but can move if other seats you want are available when your priority comes up. As long as I renew my seats and (since I am not part of the lawsuit) pay my other fees USC can't take my seats from me or force me to move under GCC rules. Same holds true for him. They can't move him to the worst possible seats unless they want to invite another legal action or unless he asked to move and then they still would have to give him the best available based on his priority to do otherwise would open USC up to another lawsuit.

They can't punish him for winning his lawsuit! To do so would open USC up to a much greater liability. USC screwed up, fought in court and lost!
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 11:37 AM   #39
gamecockhub
4-Star
 
gamecockhub's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 340
CockyCash: 10341
gamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talonsgamecockhub has developed his gaff and talons
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

Yazoo:
It is confusing as some of the articles state that all of the Lifetime SS and FS donors are going to have to be repaid for their YES fees and others don't say anything about the other 200+ in both of the Lifetime categories at all. I know we should not rely on the journalists writing these articles always knowing what they are talking about but it is certainly both confusing and interesting.
__________________
Any day above ground is a good one!
gamecockhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2014, 12:54 PM   #40
hardcoregamecock
4-Star
 
hardcoregamecock's Avatar
 


Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 371
CockyCash: 500
hardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervoushardcoregamecock is making other chickens nervous
Default Re: SC Supreme Court Rules against Gamecock Club

OR, raise everyones fees by 20 bucks a year and make up what they lost in the 25 members.
Im guessing roughly 40k gcc members? Don't really know but if that was the number you generate 800k.
Again im not sure what they lose each year on the 25 members this applies to but this seems to be the easiest and likely solution they could try.
hardcoregamecock 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 05:45 AM.


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