Yormark Delivers on Promise of Television Deal that Will Solidify Big 12 Future

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Only a moron, a real moron would seek to only sign a new deal that would get the B12 close to B1G or SEC money. Only a moron, a real moron would pitch a deal anywhere close to the B1G or SEC deals which are supported by much, much larger viewership and markets. Only a moron, a real moron would reject a deal that substantially increases payouts after losing the leagues two most valuable properties.

Yormark is no moron. And as has already been established, you just argue to argue, criticize to criticize without any legitimate basis or original thought.

---

you weren't negotiating the deal, Yormark was, but thanks for letting us know how you might do it.

Every single point that I made was legitimate, and not only that is they were supported by media comments, not simply my opinions.

I don't know much about morons, but you seem to be well versed in it.

---

Well, we all know how you'd negotiate a deal (because you've already told us) - do nothing until someone approached you on their knees with SEC/B1G kinda money. I must say, that would be friggin brilliant.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Well, we all know how you'd negotiate a deal (because you've already told us) - do nothing until someone approached you on their knees with SEC/B1G kinda money. I must say, that would be friggin brilliant.

---

I never said that.... why don't you just stop trying to pick fights? You do it with almost every poster on every board you are allowed to visit.

I did not say "someone, I said ESPN and Fox, and potentially others (CBS, Peacock, Amazon, Apple), why give these clowns exclusivity", I did not say B1G kinda money, I simply asked you what the difference was between our deal and their deal, and you refused to answer, because that answer shreds your whole spiel.

I think we could have gotten more, a lot more. You don't. Move on.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Well, we all know how you'd negotiate a deal (because you've already told us) - do nothing until someone approached you on their knees with SEC/B1G kinda money. I must say, that would be friggin brilliant.

---

I never said that.... why don't you just stop trying to pick fights? You do it with almost every poster on every board you are allowed to visit.

I did not say "someone, I said ESPN and Fox, and potentially others (CBS, Peacock, Amazon, Apple), why give these clowns exclusivity", I did not say B1G kinda money, I simply asked you what the difference was between our deal and their deal, and you refused to answer, because that answer shreds your whole spiel.

I think we could have gotten more, a lot more. You don't. Move on.

---

Never said that, huh? Below are just some of your own words….

"that sounds horrible.... come on man, hold out until those media clowns start to sweat about programming... the tell them what the price is.."

"Reality is that this guy is grasping at straws in a world where straws are not welcomed... This deal is sort of okay, but is totally lame when compared to the P2"

"how much did the SEC and B1G annual budgets go up? You make it sound like a 44% increase is good, but if it gets you only 1/2 or 1/3 of what the other leagues are getting, then it is a total fail. I didn't look up the SEC increase, do you know what it is? How does our deal compare?"

"in order to make a great deal, you have to be willing to walk away, and this guy is putty in the hands of the networks, who's only goal is to keep our contract low so that they have more leverage over the PAC and so that the ACC won't revolt for more dollars."

"ESPN has no respect for us and has not incentive to see us succeed."

I'd say your negotiating strategy is contained in all that nonsense. But I guess when a person argues just to argue, they kinda forget what they say.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Well, we all know how you'd negotiate a deal (because you've already told us) - do nothing until someone approached you on their knees with SEC/B1G kinda money. I must say, that would be friggin brilliant.

---

I never said that.... why don't you just stop trying to pick fights? You do it with almost every poster on every board you are allowed to visit.

I did not say "someone, I said ESPN and Fox, and potentially others (CBS, Peacock, Amazon, Apple), why give these clowns exclusivity", I did not say B1G kinda money, I simply asked you what the difference was between our deal and their deal, and you refused to answer, because that answer shreds your whole spiel.

I think we could have gotten more, a lot more. You don't. Move on.

---

Never said that, huh? Below are just some of your own words….

"that sounds horrible.... come on man, hold out until those media clowns start to sweat about programming... the tell them what the price is.."

"Reality is that this guy is grasping at straws in a world where straws are not welcomed... This deal is sort of okay, but is totally lame when compared to the P2"

"how much did the SEC and B1G annual budgets go up? You make it sound like a 44% increase is good, but if it gets you only 1/2 or 1/3 of what the other leagues are getting, then it is a total fail. I didn't look up the SEC increase, do you know what it is? How does our deal compare?"

"in order to make a great deal, you have to be willing to walk away, and this guy is putty in the hands of the networks, who's only goal is to keep our contract low so that they have more leverage over the PAC and so that the ACC won't revolt for more dollars."

"ESPN has no respect for us and has not incentive to see us succeed."

I'd say your negotiating strategy is contained in all that nonsense. But I guess when a person argues just to argue, they kinda forget what they say.

---

I know what I wrote, and I did not say what you allege that I said.

DUDE stop; with the petty bickering.... I wrote exactly what was wrong with your statement... read it

move on and leave me alone. You're wrong about me, you're wrong about everything. You're always wrong.

leave me alone

Unquestionably, you don't agree with Yormark's negotiating strategy including at minimum the timing of the discussions and the value of the deal and maybe even the platforms. You've clearly given this subject a lot of thought given your adamant and uncompromising previous stances - as stated above and in various threads. You must have something different in mind in terms of an acceptable outcome. Just what should Yormark have done, and what would be a good deal worthy of your stamp of approval?

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Unquestionably, you don't agree with Yormark's negotiating strategy including at minimum the timing of the discussions and the value of the deal and maybe even the platforms. You've clearly given this subject a lot of thought given your adamant and uncompromising previous stances - as stated above and in various threads. You must have something different in mind in terms of an acceptable outcome. Just what should Yormark have done, and what would be a good deal worthy of your stamp of approval?

---

I've already made it abundantly clear. Please read my prior posts.

I'm not going to fight with you, go away.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Unquestionably, you don't agree with Yormark's negotiating strategy including at minimum the timing of the discussions and the value of the deal and maybe even the platforms. You've clearly given this subject a lot of thought given your adamant and uncompromising previous stances - as stated above and in various threads. You must have something different in mind in terms of an acceptable outcome. Just what should Yormark have done, and what would be a good deal worthy of your stamp of approval?

---

I've already made it abundantly clear. Please read my prior posts.

I'm not going to fight with you, go away.

---

The only thing you made clear is:
- Yormark was premature in negotiating
- Yormark should have waited for the different media platforms to approach him
- the value he negotiated was a complete fail

Beyond the above, you have not given us:
When would you have approached potential bidders?
What is an acceptable value?
Which platforms are acceptable.
What should be the term of a new deal?
What other key provisions should the deal include?

C'mon man, I know you've thought this through.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Unquestionably, you don't agree with Yormark's negotiating strategy including at minimum the timing of the discussions and the value of the deal and maybe even the platforms. You've clearly given this subject a lot of thought given your adamant and uncompromising previous stances - as stated above and in various threads. You must have something different in mind in terms of an acceptable outcome. Just what should Yormark have done, and what would be a good deal worthy of your stamp of approval?

---

I've already made it abundantly clear. Please read my prior posts.

I'm not going to fight with you, go away.

---

The only thing you made clear is:
- Yormark was premature in negotiating
- Yormark should have waited for the different media platforms to approach him
- the value he negotiated was a complete fail

Beyond the above, you have not given us:
When would you have approached potential bidders?
What is an acceptable value?
Which platforms are acceptable.
What should be the term of a new deal?
What other key provisions should the deal include?

C'mon man, I know you've thought this through.

---

I've asked you in multiple consecutive posts to leave me alone. Please go away.

The deal is negotiated, it's done, and only time will show is if it was good, horrible or somewhere in between.

What I may thing about what could have happened is now water under the bridge. Time will tell us.

Now go away. I should not have to ask you 10 times to stop stalking me and trying to pick a fight.

your constant derailing of thread is weighing heavy on all of the board posters. Please stop.

Just to be clear….

You criticize Yormark but do not offer what specifically should be his alternative actions.
You criticize the timing of the negotiation of the new media deal but do not offer an optimal alternative.
You criticize the value of the new media deal but do not offer an acceptable target.
You criticize the platforms but do not offer the optimal alternative.
You criticize other poster's opinions of support for the new deal, just to assert it's a fail with no explanation as to why it's a fail.

Sorry, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion other than you're just arguing to argue.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Just to be clear….

You criticize Yormark but do not offer what specifically should be his alternative actions.
You criticize the timing of the negotiation of the new media deal but do not offer an optimal alternative.
You criticize the value of the new media deal but do not offer an acceptable target.
You criticize the platforms but do not offer the optimal alternative.
You criticize other poster's opinions of support for the new deal, just to assert it's a fail with no explanation as to why it's a fail.

Sorry, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion other than you're just arguing to argue.

---

no, no, no, let's be totally clear. Transparent.

I ALREADY ANSWERED ALL OF THOSE POINTS. And none of what you just posted is true. NONE OF IT

you are trolling me and I've asked you to stop.

please honor the board and stop trolling.

sorry, I have said post after post after post leave me alone, I don't want to argue with you... so who really is arguing... it's you.

leave me alone

You keep saying you've answered every point. I see nothing. I think you're just trying to convince everyone you've already provided answers when in reality you've provided nothing.

I know you have the issues down cold. Just help all of us out with your answers so we can all clearly understand where you think Yormark went wrong and we can finally put a stake in this.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

You keep saying you've answered every point. I see nothing. I think you're just trying to convince everyone you've already provided answers when in reality you've provided nothing.

I know you have the issues down cold. Just help all of us out with your answers so we can all clearly understand where you think Yormark went wrong and we can finally put a stake in this.

---

you're still trying to provoke me. I don't care if you can see it or not, or see anything, because clearly you don't even try.

I think you're just trying to convince everyone that "you're so honest and truthful, and you just want to get to the bottom of things", when in reality you've already announced on the forum that you want to fight with others and "prove them wrong", that is you stated purpose for posting.

go pick a fight with someone else.....

maybe the forum members can help to end your mad obsession with me, and stop your hijacking of threads, since me constantly pleading with you has had no impact on you cyber bullying and trolling.

No, I'm just trying to understand, in plain English, what it is you think Yormark should have achieved, at minimum, that, in your opinion, would have resulted in a successful outcome for the B12. But since you're unwilling to specifically and succinctly disclose what you think Yormark should have achieved, we (the readers) can only assume what you consider success based solely on your various and numerous criticisms and comparisons. To wit, in summary:
- Yormark should not have approached ESPN/Fox for an extension. He should have waited for the expiration of the current contract so platforms other than ESPN/Fox could bid, AND/OR in the meantime just wait for ESPN/Fox to show up at the door with a large bag of money begging for a new deal.
- accordingly, you have no regard for the advantages of getting a deal done now, before the PAC, and any terms in the new deal that could facilitate expansion, and the stability and certainty a new deal provides the league members.
- the value of the new deal is a total fail. A 44% increase is unacceptable. Yormark should have held out for SEC/B1G kind of money. It's the only way the B12 will be able to compete.
- the term of the deal should have been longer. Extending the current deal to expire concurrent with the SEC/B1G deals is of no value, or at least less value than a longer term deal.

I wish you could have summarized for us, but I believe that pretty well covers your position. No need to respond, this closes the loop. Thanks for your input.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

No, I'm just trying to understand, in plain English, what it is you think Yormark should have achieved, at minimum, that, in your opinion, would have resulted in a successful outcome for the B12. But since you're unwilling to specifically and succinctly disclose what you think Yormark should have achieved, we (the readers) can only assume what you consider success based solely on your various and numerous criticisms and comparisons. To wit, in summary:
- Yormark should not have approached ESPN/Fox for an extension. He should have waited for the expiration of the current contract so platforms other than ESPN/Fox could bid, AND/OR in the meantime just wait for ESPN/Fox to show up at the door with a large bag of money begging for a new deal.
- accordingly, you have no regard for the advantages of getting a deal done now, before the PAC, and any terms in the new deal that could facilitate expansion, and the stability and certainty a new deal provides the league members.
- the value of the new deal is a total fail. A 44% increase is unacceptable. Yormark should have held out for SEC/B1G kind of money. It's the only way the B12 will be able to compete.
- the term of the deal should have been longer. Extending the current deal to expire concurrent with the SEC/B1G deals is of no value, or at least less value than a longer term deal.

I wish you could have summarized for us, but I believe that pretty well covers your position. No need to respond, this closes the loop. Thanks for your input.

---

I'm not even going to read that, you're probably saying the same things over and over trying to pick a fight

I made my points very clear... go read them. and in the future, please read what I've written or don't include me in your nasty responses.

show some decency and integrity man, I've asked you to stop. Have you no dignity?

FYI - since you didn't read it, I summarized your points.

Glad we were able to provide the readers a one post summary.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

FYI - since you didn't read it, I summarized your points.

Glad we were able to provide the readers a one post summary.

---

thanks for further showing the forum that you have no decency, integrity or dignity.

Please leave me alone, and stop your cyber bullying.