Very interesting , sure hope somebody did not tell me an untruth .

quote:

---

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.

---

This.

A bunch of adults are crying like titty babies

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.

---

Using normative language regarding how people spend their own money, and what value they place on the transaction, makes this argument invalid in my opinion.

The Aggie Club started this program to fund a permanent endowment . The 12th MF continued the program because they wanted and needed the money . To unceremoniously dismiss and toss your oldest and in some cases your most loyal donors out because you have a new opportunity to rip off new unsuspecting donors all in the name of progress is truly reprehensible . I hope this goes badly for the 12th MF as they deserve all the bad press they will receive for this. It should serve notice to everyone that the rules you are playing under now can and most likely will be changed later on you. It's their pattern and it surely will be repeated if there is an opportunity to grab more cash. It's really all they care about. The rest is lip service

If the anti TMF posters knew the inside scoop about one of the original litigants trying to get something for nothing and then threatening a lawsuit when the TMF didn't give in to demands, you'd be more sympathetic to the Foundation.

Point out where I'm whining. Point out where I've distorted the truth.

When the 12thMF changes the rules again don't be surprised . My PP level is plenty high and I have seats between the 30's. At least until they decide to reneg on their current offering......... It's inevitable with these guys

[You are done. -Staff]

quote:

---

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

---

The good thing about sitting in the lolpoors seats like me? Not having to worry about priority points affecting where I sit.

I really feel sorry for you Friendly , can you point on the doll where the older man hurt you ?

quote:

---

I really feel sorry for you Friendly , can you point on the doll where the older man hurt you ?

---

Friendly has been outed as a punk *****. I understand why people who got seats relocated feel strongly about it. However, why does friendly care so much? No reason other than a basement living Internet troll.

Wow, that is real mature. If you want to convince people that the TMF "does not honor their agreements" then you need to point to facts and give examples - the reseating doesn't count because there was never an agreement that donors get seats in the same latitude/longitude. If you still think the reseating should count, then attach the contract someone had with the TMF and point out where you think the breach occurred.

quote:

---

Wow, that is real mature. If you want to convince people that the TMF "does not honor their agreements" then you need to point to facts and give examples - the reseating doesn't count because there was never an agreement that donors get seats in the same latitude/longitude. If you still think the reseating should count, then attach the contract someone had with the TMF and point out where you think the breach occurred.

---

There are legitimate questions in this. I think it's unfortunate that this had to be resolved in the courts. People made a commitment to A&M when it wssnt sexy and hot. That said, I'm not certain that the one time payment entitles you to seats and ammenities far beyond what anyone imagined would be there.

It did not have to be resolved in the courts.

You right no one is entitled to anything except what the other party freely offered and sold. If they think that the deal is no longer reasonable stop offering it ( check ) if they think they need to claw back what they already sold and promised then negotiate in good faith. To simply destroy the West side and then claim they can't offer that anymore so the deal is over is self serving and certainly not acting in good faith. Just MHO.

All I'm saying is that this is a precedent and should serve as a warning that going forward their word isn't binding

quote:

---

It did not have to be resolved in the courts.

---

The problem is that one of the original litigants threatened lawsuit when the TMF didn't give into his unreasonable demands. My recollection is that one of the demands actually had to do with parking and the TMF was trying to make efforts to compromise. However, the guy decided to quit negotiating and filed a lawsuit. It ended up being an "all or nothing" thing - he didn't seem to have a real desire to compromise anything.

If they were promised seats in perpetuity they should get seats in perpetuity. They've not been offered that.

For your reading pleasure:

Just so you know, I believe Blocker entered into his agreement in 79. Should have just let him have tix for 4 more years then be done.

Geez guys, maybe you should just keep whining about it on the internet.

If you want real satisfaction, endow a chair that isn't sitting in Kyle Field and will benefit thousands of students in perpetuity.

How about we put up some lawn chairs in front of a TV at whatever dump the old West side was taken to, that would still technically be the same endowed section...

quote:

---

Just so you know, I believe Blocker entered into his agreement in 79. Should have just let him have tix for 4 more years then be done.

---

I believe the early deals had no expiration date. I'm also pretty sure the early deals required no payment for tickets each year.

If the 80s donor of 30K still sits in the seat they should honor the contract. Too often they haven't been in years and others sit there. I don't think 30 K should equal seats in perpetuity.

quote:

---

You right no one is entitled to anything except what the other party freely offered and sold. If they think that the deal is no longer reasonable stop offering it ( check ) if they think they need to claw back what they already sold and promised then negotiate in good faith. To simply destroy the West side and then claim they can't offer that anymore so the deal is over is self serving and certainly not acting in good faith. Just MHO.

All I'm saying is that this is a precedent and should serve as a warning that going forward their word isn't binding

---

If you are making the argument that A&M demolished the west side simply so that they had an excuse to break these contracts, then you need to adjust your tin foil hat.

The seats that were part of the donor agreement don't exist, and that's not because of some conspiracy to screw endowed donors. We could just as easily be talking about how to fulfill these contracts in a case where A&M builds a completely new stadium (or is it your contention that doing THAT, standing along, would have been a bad faith act solely designed to break these agreements?).

Most rational folks understand that this is no more than an argument over what needs to be done to, as closely as possible, provide the endowed donors the same level of benefits that they received prior to the renovation project. But, if you don't accept this premise, and think that A&M could not renovate Kyle without acting in bad faith because it breaks their agreement with the endowed donors, then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's what the TMF did--it was simply an argument over the location. The endowed donors who filed suit apparently claim that the proper location should be the club level seating, while the TMF argued for a different location. To claim that the endowed donors are 100% right is just self-righteous posturing. It's really reminiscent of what Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama do in apologizing, inappropriately, for imaginary wrongs done by the US (which weren't wrongs at all).

These contracts could not be performed as written since the stadium changed, so there was always going to be an argument over the appropriate remedy. That's all this is. It's not some great moral crusade where the endowed donors are wearing white hats and A&M the black hats (or vice versa, for that matter).

quote:

---

That's what the TMF did--it was simply an argument over the location.

---

I don't believe that's precisely correct.

I'm under the impression that at least some of the early endowed donors just received tickets each year. No priority points or anything like that. Their benefits aren't being retained.

It's clear that some of these early agreements were sloppy and imprecise. IMO the TMF should have sucked it up and honored the agreements as they had been for 30 years, not changing anything about the deal other than negotiating seat location for seats that no longer exist. The appearance is that the TMF did a cost analysis and determined that they didn't need to worry about the endowed donors all that much.

They tried to negotiate seat location.

That couldn't agree. Hence, a lawsuit.

twk you are right I'm not claiming they did the West remodel based on this. A lot of time was spent determining whether remodel or new construction was the best option and this didn't factor into it. But I can assure you the 12th MF has been upset with the endowed donor program benefits for a long time and when the decision was reached to build new stands at some point somebody said "Hey this will give us a way to relocate some of those donors 'cause their seats no longer exist." At which point some high fives were probably exchanged.

Charlie M. , I think at least some wide grins. If they can get an endowed to take their money back , especially if the endowed has 10 plus years left on their contract, the 12th man makes more money. Harsh, but good business decision. However , once you drink from a glass of sour milk ,you will never drink from it again.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is what I meant when I said there are interesting arguments.

I have a football and parking policy letter from the TMF that contains the following statements.

"Your 1992 contribution establishes you seating and parking location for the indefinite future. As long as you continue to contribute that amount (plus any approved increases) , your seating and parking positions will not change."

Although the exact section and seat number I have may no longer exist I'm thinking there will be a seat on row one of the third deck on the 45 yard line. That is my current seat location and I contend I should be given the opportunity to retain that location regardless of priority points.

Take cover

Good luck Gigem70, I hope you are ready at your assigned time to select those seats. I'm betting that seats on the 45 go quickly to high priority point members especially on the front row. Don't think the TMF is guaranteeing anybody select seats. All based on priority points and assigned seat selection times.

quote:

---

All based on priority points and assigned seat selection times.

---

And there's the rub. Promises were made to the endowed ticket owners that didn't include those conditions.

Aggies should keep their promises, even if they now regret them.