quote:

---

For your reading pleasure:

---

Thanks for sharing that

there is no effective shuttle system currently
hopefully when the constructions end that can be remedied

quote:

---

The offended parties just want club access for free.

---

Not just the same seat location and club access but access to the private Legacy Club on the club level.

Sadly when things get to the lawsuit stage the plaintiff starts at a ridiculous request
then negotiates downs from there

Well my guess is that's the advice of the lawyers.

But how many lawsuits are we talking about, I've only heard of this one, are there others?

I think there is only the one and it started over parking spaces many years ago
As the reseating plan was announced the suit was amended based on what I've read

Of course if successful other similarly situated donors will want comparable accommodations.

actually I bet most won't. They had a chance to join this suit and didn't.

Funny thing is this has drawn out so long I'm not sure it'll ever get settled. Plus I'm not sure what the plaintiff can "win".

If they are awarded prime parking as they feel the agreement guarantees them
others will want back in the A lot

For all above that think they know all about the reseating of Endowed Donors please read . There were numerous Endowed Donors that did not say a word against the reseating and again played the system with the !2th Man. The following were the selection terms; 1. Select any section you desire. 2. Endowed Donors get first section selection. 3. Endowed Donors will pay the new seat capital gift. 4. They get a 2000/seat credit applied against the yearly seat fee. 5. They pick their seats in PP order.

My educated guess is they have a retired attorney who is an acquaintance/relative
who is representing them
as a favor and will get paid attorney's fees if their is settlement

The $$$ these guys are spending on attorneys could buy them 50 yd line seats on flash/stub for the next 10 years.

They all didn't have A lot. Some where in front of Bright before they demo the old tennis courts and practice field for to build the new practice field and indoor facilities.

quote:

---

For all above that think they know all about the reseating of Endowed Donors please read . There were numerous Endowed Donors that did not say a word against the reseating and again played the system with the !2th Man. The following were the selection terms; 1. Select any section you desire. 2. Endowed Donors get first section selection. 3. Endowed Donors will pay the new seat capital gift. 4. They get a 2000/seat credit applied against the yearly seat fee. 5. They pick their seats in PP order.

---

not trying to rag on the good ags. not all the endowed donors are jackwads, just a few spoiled ones.

FYI- There are multiple suits filed in multiple counties. One had already been settled. They attorneys in question are very qualified. It pains me to see so many uninformed posts on this subject, from people who have no skin in the game.

quote:

---

FYI- There are multiple suits filed in multiple counties. One had already been settled. They attorneys in question are very qualified. It pains me to see so many uninformed posts on this subject, from people who have no skin in the game.

---

Every season ticket holder has skin in the game. We were all promised that we could maintain our seats as long as we kept making the required donation, but, that promise can no longer be kept given the reconfiguration of the stadium. That's what a few of the endowed donors are completely oblivious about--they think that they were the only group promised anything, or that somehow, the promises made to them were more important than the promises made to the rest of us.

quote:

---

not trying to rag on the good ags. not all the endowed donors are jackwads, just a few spoiled ones.

---

Your disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a "jackwad".

Indeed all the endowed owners are good Ags who ponied up what was at the time, very very large amounts of cash when it was sorely needed. Also, particularly early on, we have no idea what they were promised, the records weren't very good. So be careful with such statements.

We know what the ones that sued were contractually promised

Cecil is correct. Many of the plaintiffs had different agreements with the TMF (or Aggie Club). Some of these came in when A&M was facing the death penalty, not when the program was riding high. Many looked at this as an investment, just like some of the folks jumping on board the new system. The TMF board is the one that decided not to "grandfather" any donors.

quote:

---

Cecil is correct. Many of the plaintiffs had different agreements with the TMF (or Aggie Club). Some of these came in when A&M was facing the death penalty, not when the program was riding high. Many looked at this as an investment, just like some of the folks jumping on board the new system. The TMF board is the one that decided not to "grandfather" any donors.

---

A&M has offered to grandfather these donors, the donors are just not satisfied with the level of benefits that A&M has proposed as being equivalent to what they received in the old stadium/parking arrangement. That's a fact. And, you continue to ignore the fact that every season ticket holder was promised the same seats, not just the endowed donors.

http://www.chron.com/sports/aggies/article/Two-former-A-M-Club-presidents-file-suit-against-6023928.php

http://www.chron.com/sports/aggies/article/Area-donors-sue-A-M-s-12th-Man-Foundation-6010854.php

From yesterday's online Houston Chronicle

quote:

---

quote:

---

not trying to rag on the good ags. not all the endowed donors are jackwads, just a few spoiled ones.

---

Your disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a "jackwad".

Indeed all the endowed owners are good Ags who ponied up what was at the time, very very large amounts of cash when it was sorely needed. Also, particularly early on, we have no idea what they were promised, the records weren't very good. So be careful with such statements.

---

absolutely right sir! my disagreeing with them does not make them jackwads. Them thinking they are better than everybody else makes them jackwads.

You have no idea what they think, nor what they were or weren't promised.

dchack1971,

I recall what you said. I was siding with the Endowed Donors until you posted this. That was the most generous and fairest way that the TMF approached the Endowed Donors.

Now, as far as the rest of the season ticket holders, The TMF NEVER promised that we could keep our seats as long as we paid our annual donation and season tickets. I wish that was the case. I've been a season holder since 1995 and I've met new friends that have had the same seats next to ours for years. I wish that we could keep the same seats together, but that's not going to happen, and I'm sad about it.

He may have been talking sarcastically about the TMF promises....that we all had some continuity guaranteed until the new stadium came along For annual renewals the TMF provided that as long as you paid your annual donation along with the annual increases that your seats couldn't be bumped.

Again, we know exactly what those have filed suit were contractually promised.

And it's pretty evident what they think

Thank God the 12th Man Foundation has new blood in the organization to slowly lead us out of the good ole boy network.

I see a lot of butthurt about parking and being split up from people you have sat next year to for 10 or 20 years.

If parking is a sticking point for suing, that may be about the most ludicrous reason for a lawsuit ever. I think the point can be made if you depend on your Lot A space to be able to make a game, you probably should not be going to football games at all. Moreover, if you're able to afford a Lot A space then you can afford to have someone shuttle you from somewhere close by like Reed or Olsen.

So you have set next to the same ticket holders for years? If you can't build a relationship outside of 6 or 7 days out of 365, then you can shut up. Will it really ruin your game experience to not sit next to someone you may spend no more than 30 hours with per year?

quote:

---

If parking is a sticking point for suing, that may be about the most ludicrous reason for a lawsuit ever.

---

That logic works as well for the TMF as for the endowed owners.

Rio

Just providing facts instead of personal BS. How one feels toward this is their opinion and everybody has one.

One reseating "problem" for the Endowed Donor that has not been discussed is PP ranking in their newly selected section. When the ED selected their section they did not know how they would rank according to PP for seat selection. Again fair rules were set for acquiring additional points for the 2015 seat selection PP count. Pay your capital gift , pay and 12th man obligations for 2015, pay your seat fee, as fair as this is ,it left the ED donor who only was going to use their obligated seats behind in PP acquisition. The EDs did not have to pay 2015 seat fees as long as they did not exceed $2000, and no PP credit for seat fees to their PPs thus no PP added to their PP totals for seat selection. No PP credit to the ED's PP total thus dropping in PP % ranking for their selected section. No big deal ? Select your section on getting the worst seat . Good thought unless the section you selected comes up with seats with currently obstructed sightlines. Sight Line problem is being worked , told was identified to the design firm almost six months ago but nobody ( 12th man ) currently knows how this is going to be fixed . The12th man did not create this problem!!!!. Ok, Just a few seats no big deal, but approaching 20-25 % of seats in the section your PPs% for selection then becomes a very big deal. Especially when you drop from around 25% PP in your section to 12%.
So,you as an ED follow the new rules and get hammered by something unforeseen and hopefully not thought about. You cannot select another section now , what do you do? Accept a seat where your best view is 10 yards plus behind the north endzone, Take your endowment money back and be left without season tickets ??? A big problem to some of us!

^ what

Give the plantiffs their EXACT SAME SEATS on the STUDENT side. That is the best compromise. Since location seems to be the only thing that matters to these people and the student side represents a virtual exact copy of their old seats, there's no reason not to put them over there. Cut out the bleachers and install a pair of arm chair seats on the same row and yardline they were on.

It won't matter if a student is standing in front of them, because seat location is the ONLY thing that matters to these people. Or at least, that's what the lawsuit would have you believe...

There are a bunch of posters on this thread with whom I would avoid entering into any kind of contract...

Cecil, you must not have spent much time in the business world. Contracts are broken/changed all the time. When that happens, if both parties can't reach a mutual agreement, lawyers are brought in.

Even holier than thou Aggies break contracts sometimes.

Yeah, other than the past 35 years of being in the business world and having been sued several times, and having written and negotiated more than my share of contracts.

I'm referring to those who call good Ags insulting names because of a contract dispute. The endowed owners are absolutely with in their rights to sue, as is the TMF in defending itself.

As it turns out, I am sympathetic to the endowed owners, because I was around at the time, know how much the Aggie Club needed money, and know what $20k or $40k was back then.

quote:

---

Yeah, other than the past 35 years of being in the business world and having been sued several times, and having written and negotiated more than my share of contracts.

I'm referring to those who call good Ags insulting names because of a contract dispute. The endowed owners are absolutely with in their rights to sue, as is the TMF in defending itself.

As it turns out, I am sympathetic to the endowed owners, because I was around at the time, know how much the Aggie Club needed money, and know what $20k or $40k was back then.

---

You are awfully quick to lay blame and cast aspersion on folks to be complaining about the same thing coming from the other direction. Glass houses.

I admit I don't know all the "in's & out's" of the deal promised and the discussions that took place prior to New Kyle or since...

but I do know that you will NEVER make some people happy....PERIOD

and I do feel that these people (the ones that are hard to make happy) are the least likely to compromise and they believe all compromise must come from the other party

to me, it looks like the TMF offered a nice settlement, maybe not perfect but came far in the direction of the ED's, 90%+ of them took the deal offered and realized the game was changed and they needed to maximize their return at that point (happens all the time in negotiations/contracts)

the ~10% that are willing now to fight to the bitter end that is also part of everyday business, they were offered a decent package and decided they want more so they're digging in for a fight...very likely they'll get less (after cost) then they would have received right off the bat, but they can claim they didn't "roll over"...such is life

it's not an "Aggie thing"...it's business