Blahblahblah. what are yo doing to help this effort? Focus on geting games on? Explain..ala monster. Nada mucho.
Are you as bad at reading as you are at writing? It says quite clearly in his post what he's done. He has written them three times to register his complaint. If you think this lawsuit is a winner, why don't you and your chums go and file it? Truth is that you aren't going to do it because you're just full of hot air. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
And just exactly what have YOU done to get the games on? Crying to fellow soccer fans on a soccer board doesn't count. Neither does threatening a ridiculous lawsuit that can only serve to alienate our only current source of broadcasting games. Do you think InDemand would have made any effort to revise their scheduling if some of us hadn't taken the time and put forth the effort to write them and remind them we were out here? On behalf of myself and the others who did, you and your lawsuit happy friends are welcome.
I actually wrote them. Not on behalf of a current subscriber, as my cable services don't provide the MLS package, but as a past subscriber (last year) and a future subscriber (when I move). For what its worth. I believed back then, and I believe now, that writing and complaining when wronged is always the first step. That is why I did it. With regards to the lawsuit, I was just voicing my opinion that I thought there was a case that some attorney's would consider taking, if anyone was interested. Obviously people disagreed with my opinion that I thought there was a case. It is a message board, suprising that we disagreed. Why is there so much hostility towards the three people on here arguing that there is a lawsuit?
Thanks for writing them. It does make a difference. Why the hostility? Maybe because of the condescending attitude they took with little to no knowledge of the actual facts of this case in giving me a legal lesson when none of them, in fact, are attorneys. Then you came in with a "What the hell, why not try the suit" mentality which, in my opinion, showed the lack of merit for such a case. In short, when people without the facts and without the training tell me they know more than me after I have done a bunch of research to try and better educate fans, I take it personally.
Is it three people that are receiving abuse? I thought it was only two, and it seems pretty self-evident to me as to why. Almost as self-evident as the fact that discussing a lawsuit is absurd, even if there is "merit" to the case.
Over on www.thecrew.com, Legal Beagle posted this: I've traded emails with a writer at the Columbus Dispatch. She thinks it's a story, and is going to "run it up the flagpole" at the Dispatch. Seems to have come to nothing, though. LB, when are they going to run your story?
At first I thought they were just mad and venting, which is ok, that's what the boards are for. But the more it was discussed, the more it seemed like someone might actually act on it. That makes me mad because I don't have local coverage of any team where I live, so without the Shootout, I am strictly dependant on the ESPN's. Do I honestly think this lawsuit would see a courtroom, much less be won? No, but if it were to go beyond people talking about it on these boards, it might be enough for InDemand to decide that for the small number of subscribers, (especially in comparision to pointy ball fans) it's just not worth it for them to deal with the hassle/bad press. I feel like I have to fight the non-soccer world enough to see games, I think it's way wrong to have soccer "fans" become a part of that battle.
You're such a pleasant little guy, aren't you? In regards to the fear that taking legal action in defense of our contractual rights will frighten away potential sellers ...... Why are they selling their product? To be nice? How very sentimental and thoughtful of them. No, of course they are selling because they hope to earn a profit. And if they can't earn a profit this year, they may hope to position themselves to earn a profit in the future. We *are* a market.
Give me a break. Yes we are a market, but as has been posted, a bigger market (college football fans) are non-plussed about MLS shootout conflicts as well. Which market would you rather piss off? Also, since the profit margin is probably very small, do you think a lawsuit over a couple of games (not to mention the hassle of dealing with scheduling conflicts as well as irate customers) would help or hurt the chances of Indemand offering the shootout again?
OK, but let me throw one back at you: If iNDemand skates away undamaged after breaching their contract with us, what incentive prevents them from doing it again? Are you going to take their word?
Since this is a civil action, you would have the burden of proof, correct? If so, I'd like to see this contract that you speak of.
BTW, I'm not being abused --- so that reduces the victim list to just one. If we didn't enjoy disagreeing about things we wouldn't be here. How much fun would a message board be, where everyone agreed?
I'm actually totally satisfied with Indemand's response to the problem and especially the speed with which they get back to us. If this were a Time Warner issue, we'd still be on hold with clueless operator #2345 who has gone back and forth 3 times on whether or not there ever was a second shootout. (BTW, with this last minute schedule thing, I think many of us will have to contend with our cable operators in the coming weeks.) Will they do the same thing next year? Maybe, but I'll still sign up at $49 bucks. It's a lot better than no Shootout. Since they are under no obligation to continue to offer the Shootout, I personally think a civil exchange is much more productive.
The burden would be only to a "preponderance of the evidence", which is quite a bit lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used for criminal cases. A contract is an exchange of promises. It is not a thing. A thing may help to prove the terms, but there are many other ways as well.
I never brought up the standard of evidence. I am quote aware of the difference. And you answered exactly what I wanted you to. It's a promise. And what does their Web site promise? Nothing specific. In fact, the MLS plan is the only one they advertise where no specific number is tied to the iNDemand advertising. Think that's just a coincidence? Face it, soon-to-be counselor. You have jack. Especially since, as MLS Confidential reports and I was told in confidence last week, iNDemand is going to blame it all on their subcontractor. So you are going to take a he-said/she-said argument which they are going to turn onto a third party which someone is going to blame MLS for using the word "all" in their press release which will bring in the cable systems which will lead to anarchy and cats and dogs living together. And all that makes the liklihood of any positive resolution through a lawsuit all the more unlikely. DK is right - civil discourse (and Uncle Phil starting his own station) are the proper paths to fix this.
Well thank goodness you're here to clear everything up, for those of us whose bulbs burn less brightly than yours. And congratulations on being a secret confidant! Dark Knight, we were promised the same thing we received in prior years. If we had reasonable expectations based upon our prior dealings, or based upon industry custom, there need not be an expressed promise from Time Warner or iNDemand. It will be still be legally binding upon them. You seem to believe that their practice of airing disclaimers will excuse their contractual duty. I'm telling you bluntly, you're wrong. As Hartwick Fan pointed out earlier, when you sit down in the barber's chair you seldom express your promise to pay his $12.00 ---- but you are still contractually bound. Nor does it matter if, while you're sitting down in Mr Barber's chair, you pronounce your alleged right to change your mind at some later time. You sat, you pay. Same thing here. I've perhaps not expressed myself clearly on this point, as there seem to be quite a number who aren't receiving the transmission. In sum, the argument that we may prefer to go another route may have merit. But the argument that we don't have a case ---- well that one is just plain wrong (unless Monster walks out of the back room wearing a dark robe!) And finally, with regard to the various parties involved, the law will not require a plaintiff to chase the monkey around the cage. Our contract was with our local cable provider --- in Columbus, that is Time Warner. We bring a claim against Time Warner. If Time Warner feels that some third party should share blame, or even totally assume blame, it is their right to implead that party. But that is their problem, not ours.
MLS confidential has an official release...sorry, read it today on thecrew.com "They are unable to fullfill their CONTRACTUAL commitment to the shootout pakage" this is due to another commitment to carry football games. Looks like they lost some bandwidth. MLS is all over it...good we made noise supporters.
Huh? and stop saying I wanted a lawsuit. I expected subscribers to do what we did to get to this point. REad the post...I won'even waste my time making it easy for you by linking. Now they will tape delay or show all five games this weekend...there you go Monster. Should somebody not have threatened a lawsuit? It may have actually sped the process up.