Palmetto Proving Grounds

I fail to see your point.

It seems like the guy is saying the University has failed to honor the agreement by charging for parking, relocating their spot, reworking the formula for purchasing tickets, etc., not that the University does not recognize as valid the transfer of benefits from father to son. To me it seems like they're arguing it's sort of a constructive breach because the University's increases in fees and changes to parking have effectively eliminated their benefits. But they still have "access" to the best available tickets and they still have access to reserved parking, albeit parking that costs money instead of a free spot that no longer exists.

I haven't seen the contract, but the court of appeals' opinion in the Rosen case, which raised similar issues, discusses the provisions at issue. It says that the contract does not provide for these benefits free of charge, and there's nothing to suggest that the Gamecock Club is not free to change its policies with respect to priority and fees. It sounds to me like these folks sat on their Lifetime points and were passed up by people who have been giving at a higher level and accruing more points. That's sort of how this whole deal works; the priority points are based on a combination of loyalty and giving level. If you give a little for a long time, you're bound to get passed by someone who has been giving a lot for a shorter period of time.

I don't know how you can be pissed off that they're taking away a parking spot in a spot where there won't even be a parking lot any more with crumbling pavement and port-a-johns and they're giving you a new spot in a brand spanking new lot 100 feet away on nice new pavement with cable and power hookups and new air conditioned bathrooms.

When the lifetime contracts were signed, all Gamecock Club parking was free. What the lifetime donors were promised was assigned reserved parking which, as far as I can tell, they still have the right to.

Seems to me it says "Assigned reserved parking". It doesn't say WHERE that spot shall be does it?

upvote for use of the word turds

Do you really think the University would simply stop honoring a contract? Don't you think perhaps they believe they have, at all times, honored the contract? And just maybe, could it be, the donor disagrees? And perhaps, that's why there's a lawsuit...

The old "i'm right because I said so" is about as effective as the "i'm right because I'm right" argument.

All that said, no true fan sues his university.

need...more...upvotes...

I note with some pleasure the crickets from Al since the contract was posted, effectively debunking his entire anti-USC/Hyman theory. Fortunately, the early parts of both threads are around for folks to see, yet again, how he operates.

Your #1 is why I suggested there may be SOL problems. In addition, there could be an argument they accepted the change in terms by going along with it for so long.