Login | Sign Up
TechSideline

All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

Conference Realignment Board
◀ ▶
VTHokie2000
Joined: 01/01/2005
Posts: 41,416
Likes: 17,028
VTHokie2000

It can't be the same contract through because the parties in each contract

are different. The ESPN Agreement is between ESPN and the ACC. While the GOR is between the ACC and the individual conference members. Then again, I am basing it on 16 years in contracting for both the federal government and the private sector. Over the years I have had numerous opportunities to view copies of subcontracts or subgrants issued which is what led me to my conclusion on the GOR potentially being a subcontract. Ultimately I do believe the courts will have to decide whether they are 2 independent contracts or there is a relationship between them (i.e. prime-sub relationship).
Posted: 02/06/2024 at 02:08 PM ET
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)

Thread Replies (89)

Full Thread →
ACC contract fact mentioned on College Football Addiction
TDVick • 01/31/24 06:35 AM ET
So FSU only had to wait until 2026 and now they are suing?**
IB4TECH • 01/31/24 02:30 PM ET
Not necessarily, it sounds like a contingent contract where ESPN has all
TDVick • 01/31/24 10:16 PM ET
How much more would have been a "good" deal?
VTCALS72 • 02/01/24 08:46 AM ET
It seems to me that the idea of tying the ESPN deal to the GOR in the
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 10:25 AM ET
I dont think Miami has a guaranteed landing spot if ACC falls apart
Hokie83 • 01/31/24 12:25 PM ET
Note I was talking about the time the PAC broke up, not now.
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 12:58 PM ET
Thanks for the clarification :)**
Hokie83 • 01/31/24 01:48 PM ET
I agree with this. FSU takes one of Miami or Clemson with them. The one
Big12 guy • 01/31/24 12:49 PM ET
As for #5, the PAC deal...
EDGEMAN • 01/31/24 11:33 AM ET
I think they got sunk because their deal was up.
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 12:52 PM ET
I'm so old, I can remember when being stuck 'til 2036 was bad**
daveinop • 01/31/24 08:00 AM ET
ESPN drop one of the most favorable deals they have?
HOO86 • 01/31/24 07:50 AM ET
It is no longer even close to favorable deal
HokieZig • 01/31/24 02:40 PM ET
Yeah. Seems like what ESPN is paying now is WAY OVERPRICED to what the ACC
TDVick • 01/31/24 10:23 PM ET
Well in 2023 ACC was 6-4 over the SEC and 4-3 over B1G in football.
HOO86 • 02/02/24 12:59 PM ET
if they go to market now, it would land between Big 12 and SEC
daveinop • 02/01/24 09:07 AM ET
I still believe these additions would not have occurred without ESPN's not
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 08:54 PM ET
My understanding from posts at the time.
HOO86 • 02/02/24 10:18 AM ET
ESPN offered the PAC12 $100 million per year.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 03:48 PM ET
Also remember
HokieZig • 01/31/24 04:58 PM ET
They said no to a merger because they wouldn't accept 10 new pro-rata adds.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 07:08 PM ET
Where are you seeing that?
HokieZig • 01/31/24 04:52 PM ET
It was this deal.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 06:57 PM ET
It was during the time when the Apple deal came out.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 05:56 PM ET
If that's the case, why would FSU, UNC, and Clemson oppose?
daveinop • 01/31/24 03:07 PM ET
Because there are now 3 more votes that prevents the conference
Big12 guy • 01/31/24 03:53 PM ET
If the TV deal dies, the GOR likely dies with it. Then it's exit fee
daveinop • 01/31/24 04:47 PM ET
GOR will most likely survive this lawsuit.
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 09:08 PM ET
I think the GOR survives the FSU suit as well, but not ESPN pulling out
daveinop • 02/01/24 07:16 AM ET
What if ESPN is replaced by say Amazon?
VTCALS72 • 02/01/24 08:25 AM ET
not at all. I'm saying that legally, the GOR would have to be amended
daveinop • 02/01/24 12:45 PM ET
Why do you think the GOR would have to be amended at all?
VTCALS72 • 02/01/24 02:44 PM ET
read it
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:28 PM ET
I did and I still don't see anything that ties the each school to the ESPN
VTCALS72 • 02/01/24 05:44 PM ET
first sentences in sections 1 and 8
daveinop • 02/02/24 07:55 AM ET
Because "ESPN Agreement" is mentioned throughout the document, one could
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 05:14 PM ET
I think your was is closer than part of the same contract
VTCALS72 • 02/05/24 01:14 PM ET
It can't be the same contract through because the parties in each contract ◄
VTHokie2000 • 02/06/24 02:08 PM ET
How much of a say does the ACC really have at the next look-in? I ask
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 02:04 PM ET
What is the real point.......
2hhoop3 • 02/02/24 01:18 PM ET
This all went down towards the end of Swofford's tenure. One could even
VTHokie2000 • 02/02/24 03:37 PM ET
Like I said.......
2hhoop3 • 02/02/24 03:52 PM ET
It doesn't mean we won't see members try to escape their portion of the
VTHokie2000 • 02/02/24 04:07 PM ET
A number......
2hhoop3 • 02/02/24 04:24 PM ET
A portion of it will play out in the courts. How much remains to be seen.
VTHokie2000 • 02/02/24 04:35 PM ET
no idea; but it was touted by the AD's when it was signed**
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:30 PM ET
If ESPN decides to exercise the option, then we will see if they were right
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 05:01 PM ET
for sure**
daveinop • 02/02/24 07:56 AM ET
If Amazon were to replace ESPN, then it could be interesting to know the
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 12:05 PM ET
The ACCN is a linear channel Amazon might be interested in. **
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 01:22 PM ET
I agree that Amazon could be interested in the ACCN. It is even possible
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 01:57 PM ET
Why would ESPN sell the ACCN to Amazon? Why would Amazon pay for a linear
33laszlo99 • 02/01/24 02:50 PM ET
Ummm...where do I say that ESPN sells the ACCN to Amazon?
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 04:56 PM ET
Do I misunderstand: "I agree that Amazon could be interested in the ACCN**
33laszlo99 • 02/01/24 06:08 PM ET
If you are referring to your question about ESPN selling the ACCN, then
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 07:16 PM ET
You do understand that the ACCN is owned 100% by ESPN, right? The ACC may
33laszlo99 • 02/04/24 11:14 PM ET
Given that ESPN is looking for ways to reduce cost, I would expect a deal
VTHokie2000 • 02/06/24 01:18 PM ET
OK, so if Amazon owns the rights, they can easily sublease content to ESPN,
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 02:05 PM ET
If we assume Amazon's deal with the ACC is modeled after or similar to its
VTHokie2000 • 02/01/24 02:19 PM ET
From my perspective, I just don't see how it is ESPN's best interest to
Big12 guy • 01/31/24 05:23 PM ET
Why? Big 12 lucked out when the PAC stupidly turned down ESPN's first offer
daveinop • 02/01/24 01:10 PM ET
Why what? **
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 01:12 PM ET
"Why did the B12 get such a good deal?" (you, 1/31, directly above) **
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:38 PM ET
Seems to me .......
2hhoop3 • 02/01/24 01:25 PM ET
correct**
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:39 PM ET
OK, and you will find no disagreement here, but you can not ignore
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 01:32 PM ET
no collusion; just Pac 12 misplaying their hand
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:52 PM ET
Did they really.......
2hhoop3 • 02/01/24 01:39 PM ET
There is nothing to back that up. It's a theory. The fact is they
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 01:50 PM ET
ESPN giving pro rata for the G5's was part of smoothing over
daveinop • 02/01/24 05:05 PM ET
We both have a theory.......
2hhoop3 • 02/01/24 02:02 PM ET
No, based on what I have read, the ACC has the position that unless they
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 02:10 PM ET
The possible......
2hhoop3 • 02/01/24 02:19 PM ET
Right, and limited timeslots in other time zones and markets. **
Big12 guy • 02/01/24 02:22 PM ET
What do you mean.....
2hhoop3 • 02/01/24 02:25 PM ET
Say thank you to the ACC GOR
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 10:15 PM ET
I don't think it is either**
daveinop • 01/31/24 05:54 PM ET
If Disney was smart they'd exercise the option to extend the contract now.
tarheelblue • 01/31/24 12:42 PM ET
And by not exercising that option, is ESPN making a statement?**
33laszlo99 • 02/01/24 03:46 PM ET
that they want to remain as flexible as possible for a prospective buyer**
daveinop • 02/01/24 04:35 PM ET
Good Point. Hadn't thought of that.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 01:13 PM ET
reasonable**
VTCALS72 • 01/31/24 10:32 AM ET
ESPN is definitely making cash on the ACCN
EDGEMAN • 01/31/24 09:26 AM ET
That's what I was trying to say. I don't think so either. **
HOO86 • 01/31/24 10:14 AM ET
The sports media rights market of only a few years ago no longer exist.
WBGV • 01/31/24 10:42 AM ET
You do know that consumers still pay for content with streaming services
EDGEMAN • 01/31/24 11:36 AM ET
The “streaming service model” dosen’t seem to be near as profitable
WBGV • 01/31/24 12:03 PM ET
Yet. That is true.
HOO86 • 01/31/24 03:55 PM ET
I used the YouTube TV model which has all of the ESPN channels, but...
EDGEMAN • 01/31/24 03:37 PM ET