New lawsuit filed today in Harris County over reseating of endowed donors, parking and away game tickets.

201502408 - BLOCKER, NOEL and BLOCKER, SANDRA vs. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 12TH MAN FOUNDATION

I though our craptacular season would help me in seating in 2015 but looking at the point standing a week ago I got bumped down pretty far in section.

Upon further review, he intervened in the prior suit as well.

What is the difference between this lawsuit and the previous lawsuit? Noel Blocker was part of the suit filed in 2013. I don't care to read all the legal garbage. I'd rather slit my wrists than read a lawsuit. So what is this new nonsense about in layman's terms?

Oh and LOL at these Former Students' sour grapes!

But but but we gave 10K 100 years ago!

These are the same type of people who get on here and act like they are the reason currents students have a sports pass.

Lol

i bet they'll sit down and be really quiet the entire trial too

It doesn't matter what they gave 10 years ago, it matters what they were promised when they gave it. I'm sympathetic to the Foundation, but ultimately, a contract is a contract.

It is basically the same lawsuit. Without going back and reading the most recent petition in the 2013 suit (that is still going on), I could not give you specifics. I think this is about away game tickets as well as parking.

Two other things to note from the above posters.

1. One of the donors claimed to have given $20K what was paid but someone else actually paid 10K of that amount for them.

2. The thing about contracts is they can be broken and damages can be paid if a party decides to breach (or thinks its better to breach). That is the beauty of a contract. However, the donors are stating "we had second deck seats on the 50" and now we want the premium second level club seats because that's where our old seats were.

Sure... they can't expect to get anything more than they paid, but they are due what they promised, or remedy for breach.

and if the contract favors the TMF? still a contract is a contract even if it deems they get zilch now?

The Aggie Club was very sloppy in the way the endowed seats were issued.

Some of you unsympathetic have no clue just how much $30,000 was in the early 80's.

The TMF tried, but IMO their solution was far short of what those relatively few endowed ticket holders were owed. I hope the lawsuit succeeds.

Is there reason ?, you decide. As an endowed donor, you selected your new section first, then select your seat by PPs. , you had no idea where your % point would be for seat selection, since you picked the section before anybody else. Sounded really nice at the time. A fair rule imposed on everybody for points, all anybody could give for upgrading in points was limited to your Cap Cam. gift ( could pay 100% if desired) and any 12th man seat cost for the year 2015. One bump in the road, endowed donors did not have seat costs for their sections if the seat donation did not exceed $2000. This left them at their initial PP plus a few extra while everybody else were paying their seat costs and moving up in PPs, 2seats @2000 per seat is 160 points . The endowed is immediately put behind in seat selection. No way to ever catch up. Workable if no really bad seats in your selected section. Personally , I dropped from approx. 24% in PP for my section to 12% , not a good picking % for my section. Just Info for you on this subject.

Something something whine about seats & the 12th man & new kyle field something something old army

something about Aggies don't cheat or steal and contracts are honored something..

haven't read the contract, but some of you should probably google the term "efficient breach"

it happens all the time

agreed, they should have provided more value for the endowment.

Also I'm guessing the parking hasn't been figured out?

At least we know the TMF doesn't lie because that would require actual communication

quote:

---

haven't read the contract, but some of you should probably google the term "efficient breach"

it happens all the time

---

That still doesn't mean that one party is happy when the other breaches the contract. It may cost one party less to breach the contract because they can make more money in another contract, but that doesn't mean that it benefits society as a whole, as is claimed by some.

quote:

---

quote:

---

haven't read the contract, but some of you should probably google the term "efficient breach"

it happens all the time

---

That still doesn't mean that one party is happy when the other breaches the contract. It may cost one party less to breach the contract because they can make more money in another contract, but that doesn't mean that it benefits society as a whole, as is claimed by some.

---

i'll confess to not having read much about this issue at all, but your post makes very little sense to me.

why would it matter if it benefits society as a whole? are they a party to the contract?

and of course the non-breaching party isn't happy. that's why they're entitled to sue for damages and, if successful, recover.

In one of the lawsuits, they provided the contract and on at least one thread last year someone posted their contract. Neither specified seats, but referred to an endowed section. If the offer noted in earlier is correct, it looks like the TMF created a value based emdowment section, rather than designate a physical one.

I view it like emminent domain. Both sides have rights; one to seating and the other to make a new and improved building and offerings. They make offers, try to work it out, and if not, the courts decide. Generally, its a bad finale for both sides to go to court.

It was so (relatively) few seats, they should have just negotiated the location and then continued providing the tickets under the same arrangement. Very short sighted of the TMF IMO.

It was so (relatively) few seats, they should have just negotiated the location and then continued providing the tickets under the same arrangement. Very short sighted of the TMF IMO.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

haven't read the contract, but some of you should probably google the term "efficient breach"

it happens all the time

---

That still doesn't mean that one party is happy when the other breaches the contract. It may cost one party less to breach the contract because they can make more money in another contract, but that doesn't mean that it benefits society as a whole, as is claimed by some.

---

i'll confess to not having read much about this issue at all, but your post makes very little sense to me.

why would it matter if it benefits society as a whole? are they a party to the contract?

and of course the non-breaching party isn't happy. that's why they're entitled to sue for damages and, if successful, recover.

---

Just saying that is one way it is considered acceptable to utilize efficient breach, as explained by a judge. (Trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and found this on Wiki)

Judge Richard Posner gave this well-known illustration of efficient breach in "Economic Analysis of Law":

quote:

---

Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 25,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use.

---

Not saying I agree with this principle, just a way I saw this argued.

We're you an endowed donor? Just curious. Bummer that you moved down in seat selection process, I did as well. In my section when I chose last year 33 percent of seats were taken, at 5 o'clock yesterday 56 percent were taken.

Personally I think the issue with people like this is they give for the wrong reason.

You should give back to your school first, and then care about your tickets.

If you are giving to only get good tickets, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

PS $20k buys a lot of seats off of flash seats/stubhub. If you really only want tickets to the game, and dont really want to give go this route and save yourself money and the hassle of reselling what you cant attend.

As far as I can tell the whole re-seating thing has been a bit of a poker game. Some ante up more than others, so you either match the pot or fold. Not anyone's fault but your own income potential, and your decision making.

America was built on the HAVE's and HAVE Not's and those who can be self-made.

Zman , yes . And the section I selected as of right now has sight line impaired seats , not just a couple .so if you are selecting low in priority not good

Good for them hope they win.

These people gave a bunch of money at a time whenyou didn't have to give much of a donation at all.

if it's just about supporting your school, then they should reset priority points every year

Glad the new stadium got built.. a few eggs had to get broken to make the omelet. Big deal..

quote:

---

Personally I think the issue with people like this is they give for the wrong reason.

You should give back to your school first, and then care about your tickets.

If you are giving to only get good tickets, you are doing it for the wrong reason.

PS $20k buys a lot of seats off of flash seats/stubhub. If you really only want tickets to the game, and dont really want to give go this route and save yourself money and the hassle of reselling what you cant attend.

As far as I can tell the whole re-seating thing has been a bit of a poker game. Some ante up more than others, so you either match the pot or fold. Not anyone's fault but your own income potential, and your decision making.

America was built on the HAVE's and HAVE Not's and those who can be self-made.

---

Then the TMF never should have offered seats for donations.

if you have an issue, it should be with the TMF, not the people that took the deal that was offered to them.

quote:

---

New lawsuit filed today in Harris County over reseating of endowed donors, parking and away game tickets.

201502408 - BLOCKER, NOEL and BLOCKER, SANDRA vs. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 12TH MAN FOUNDATION

---

Going to follow this one. All the docs are electronically available through the district clerk's website. This one will probably settle based on the little that I know about the issues, but there are some interesting arguments here.

The seats they paid for back in the day NO LONGER exist! These jerks want the same latitude and longitude as their prior seats. They didn't pay for club seats but now they think they should get club seats for free because the club seats are the same latitude and longitude.

In a recent development, because of falling oil prices, several pledges(gifts) will not be able to be honored , opening up 2000 seats. Do not know the location of these seats...just West side