I think your are right it is not football related unless is a threat.Sebastabear said:Not sure I get your point here '71. UA isn't suing Cal - They don't need to. They've just told Cal they aren't going to follow through on their contractual obligations. And yes, I know for a fact that has happened. If anyone is suing anyone (and we are) it's going to be Cal suing UA.71Bear said:Did UA sue Cal? If so, why hasn't that information been made public?wifeisafurd said:
is it just Cal and UCLA? If so, wonder why? The contract with UCLA is substantial. Cal's is not. You wonder why Cal even would be on the radar given the size of other UA contracts. Again, I wonder if this reflects on the possibility of no football for the California schools, when everyone else is playing. The money for sponsors is in football. Otherwise, why would Cal be so unprofitable? It is not like UA is paying Cal the big bucks.
Otherwise, this is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" other than the schadenfreude re: UCLA's problem (just one of many at this particular time). Heck, earlier this year, the AD had to borrow (with interest) $18.9 from the UCLA General Fund to cover the Athletic Dept. deficit.
UA's legal position is indefensible. There is zero chance that Cal and UCLA have different force majeure clauses than Notre Dame, etc. These things are boilerplate. They can't pick which contracts they want to terminate because of an act of God affecting the entire world.
To WIAF's speculation that UA is terminating the California schools only because we won't be playing football and everyone else will, I'd note they kept Utah and there is zero chance some Pac-12 schools are going to have a season and others aren't - the conference has already agreed it's all for one in this. If California (the state) goes completely bonkers there are plans to work around that including playing games elsewhere.
But even if that were the case, this decision is premature by several weeks. No one (including Cal and UCLA themselves) know what is happening with football this season yet. UA certainly doesn't have some inside scoop they are using to buttress their position.
This is just a renegotiating ploy. They made a bad deal and don't like it. Let the games begin.
After reading their 1st quarter report, which I encourage you to review, I bet they are threatening those with bad contracts with either restructure the contracts or be terminated in bankruptcy court. Why
Annual revenue was down 23 percent.
Wholesale revenue decreased 28 percent
North America revenue decreased 28 percent
Restructuring and impairment charges were $436 million consisting of $301 million in restructuring and related impairment charges ($298 million in non-cash and $3 million in cash related charges) and $135 million from impairments of long-lived assets and goodwill. (Look out they have a restructure plan already in place).
The quarterly loss was $$590 million and operating loss was $558 million (which should be adjusted for
restructuring losses).
THEY HAVE OVER ONE YEAR OF PRESENT SALES IN INVENTORY.