they contacted another conference about joining, then every thing would have to be done very secretively. Out of no where 8 schools vote to disband and then coincidentally those 8 schools join the big 2 having never had any contact with them.

This goes to trust, as a program we see no handshake hacks it, If the GOR is removed there is NO protection and no guarantees. Therefore any institution that goes this way, and conference X says they will bring them in, and after the vote to get rid of the Rights they change their minds and bam institution x is left with nothing........ That's the predicament at the 8 institutions if they vote to dissolve.

A GOR gives a conference absolute control over the TV Contract payouts to member schools. Let's say Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech & Miami in whatever distribution as you want chose to leave the ACC for the SEC & B1G. That would leave Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Wake Forest & Duke (Duke might replace Miami in those eight due to the B1G wanting AAU) providing the teams for all the football games shown on the ACCN. I don't think ESPN would honor the payment terms on that TV contract a single year. I am no attorney but I think any good attorney could create a loophole to extricate a school from a contract riddled to that big a degree.

get, it's their media money from their new conference.

being paid to the teams that left. All of that money goes back to the ACC. If ESPN pays the ACC less, that is just more evidence of damages to the teams that remain, and therefore evidence of the need for payment from the teams that left. Which supports the idea of enforcing the GOR.

I would still like see what an attorney says about enforcing a contract based on an ACCN that no longer exists because ESPN defaulted on the scheduled payments. That would put ESPN in court against all the schools plus the ACC in court enforcing what you said about media money against each school. It just looks like a lot of wriggle room for a big reduction in GOR penalties.

but, it would never get that far. The flaw in your thinking is linking payments due to conference for breaking GOR to remedies and adjustments under ESPN contract with conference for the ACCN. They are separate documents with separate remedies and the action of the individual schools to break the GOR which would trigger possible adjustment or cancellation of ESPN contract with the conference for the network would not void the individual schools' obligation to the conference under GOR. You have got yourself caught up in a circular reasoning pattern and are ignoring causes versus results and remedies. Were it that easy to do the ACC would have folded like a cheap tent right out of the gate. Ask yourself why that has not happened already? You can bet it is not because smart lawyers just have not yet gotten around to looking at that alternative and the likelihood and risks associated with that course of action.

I can see the eastern half of the SEC embracing the Hokies as brand new rivals. However the SEC Conference is going to be too big with ACC adds in my opinion. These western teams as the Hogs may not play the Hokies twice in a generation. Arkansas does not go to Knoxville & Gainesville or Athens and all those eastern opponents but every 12 years the way the SEC now sits with 14 teams. They are talking a single SEC Division for 16 teams and three or one set yearly opponents depending on a 9 or 8 Game SEC yearly schedule. Sankey discounted pods at SEC media days. Pods would be necessary for western SEC teams to regularly play new ACC adds. So the ACC surviving or faltering means little to me. Actually more concerned about the Big 12. I really like both those conferences compared to the B1G & Pac. I think the B1G will start dismantling the ACC, not the SEC. I am a SEC fan. I just think attorneys would have the groundwork for challenging that ACC GOR if the ACC went to six teams as I described in that previous post. Notre Dame is not going to still be around to yearly play those six teams after those eight defections I stated. I mean an attorney can ask what makes a football conference a legally viable and still viable functioning entity. We all know about eight, ten, twelve & fourteen team conferences still being totally viable. However where is the line? Does a conference's head office still being open with no schools still make a conference viable? Does that conference become viable with one school, two schools or three schools? Is a conference with six schools and no longer able to secure a TV Contract still considered legally viable? I don't know if an attorney can get traction with that or not? However I think legal avenues like that would be opened by the ACC falling apart. As to why the ACC is not already falling apart? The 15 teams in the ACC all signed that GOR less than a decade ago. Signing that GOR was an act of Binding. It takes pressure to break such a Binding. The ACC being financially dwarfed by other conferences is that pressure. ESPN can alleviate that pressure may increasing payments on the ACCN to each school? You think ESPN will do that in a big way? I think that is now necessary.

led to the downfall of the league.

The USC/UCLA move had to be shocking for everybody so everybody is now playing catch up. So yes lawyers and school administrations aren’t going to be ready to challenge this…now. Give it a year once everybody gets their ducks in a row. Keep in mind these contracts for the Power 2 don’t become finalized for a year or two and they don’t begin until 2025? This probably isn’t over, it’s just on pause. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/28/2022, 9:20:38 AM

meant to imply it was over and as you say the statement applies to now. Over time as the remaining term of the GOR lessens it will become less of a deterrent and additional time also allows for exploring other alternatives and testing strategies. The GOR did what it was intended. It provided a speed bump that schools looking to pull a "Maryland" would have to consider and to allow for a more deliberate and intentional unwinding of conference affairs should that time come as opposed to the implosions/chaos both the Big 12 and PAC 12 have or are undergoing. All of that was a fortunate byproduct of the GOR helping to seal a deal with ESPN. The thing that is still unclear at present is what avenues, if any, are available to the ACC and ESPN for adjusting the long-term agreement to reflect changes in the actual market for TV agreements.

Right now there is no process to dissolve, so one would have to be created in the ACC Constitution and Bylaws. To amend the ACC Constitution and Bylaws requires 75% of members voting to do it. That would be 12 votes. You would have to create what you want it to say is the rule, and then get 12 members to support it.

than a few posters haven't a clue what GOR acronym stands for much less the details in it

If there's no language or rule about the process to dissolve, then you also can't break any rules if a simple majority vote to dissolve and state they are breaking no written rules.

2 years notice and Exit Fee of 3X the Annual Revenue in the year of notification. So no. There is not a rule to dissolve the ACC entity, but there is a specific process for each school to leave. If 75% want to create a rule to dissolve, there is a defined process to do that as well.

Could you link that? I am not doubting because you are usually spot on, but I sure would like to see that. It pretty much shoots down anybody leaving the ACC for 10+ years if true. (that’s other than Notre Dame, which would have less of a penalty)

It said that there was no language in the ACC Constitution and Bylaws for Dissolution other than boiler plate over the Property that the ACC owns like the Headquarters building. But it also said that in North Carolina standard law for Non-Profits is a majority can dissolve a Non-Profit. That is where people are getting this 8 number. But then they questioned if the ACC is a Non-Profit because they pay taxes on stuff. Is the ACC a Non-Profit? I don't know. I don't have a link. This was a few weeks ago I saw the Article.

It files an IRS Form 990 each year. You can find a most recently posted copy on “990 Finder” if you Google that site. Since the ACC is on a June fiscal year, the most recently filed return is for June 30, 2021 which would be a 2020 return (the year in which the fiscal year begins). The most recently posted return on the site is probably 2019.

It was in the Raleigh News & Observer on July 10, reprinted other places on July 11. Dissolution is undefined in the bylaws. But this idea of the majority was originated around non-profit regulation. Would ESPN allow itself to be left with 4 of the players and lose Duke UNC basketball to FOX? John Skipper wouldn't, but who knows? First of all since it is not in the bylaws if this is attempted, it will be challenged. ND having a say over the football conference would also be challenged. So the simple answer is to get 12 votes to define the process in the Bylaws.

link it or copy and paste it?

get it posted. I did send it to Will when I first got it and hoped he would post it as a resource to the board. Here are the basics... "1.6 BOARD VOTING REQUIREMENTS 1.6.1 Quorum. Except as provided under applicable law, this Constitution or the Bylaws, two-thirds (2/3) of all Directors present at a meeting of the Board shall constitute a quorum of the Board; provided that, in the case of any matter requiring the affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of all Directors present, a quorum shall only exist if at least that number of Directors equal to such required vote is present. 1.6.2 Required Vote. Each Director shall be entitled to one vote each. Except as otherwise provided herein or in the Bylaws, if a quorum is present when a vote of the Directors is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote shall be an act of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, all references in this Constitution or the Bylaws to the affirmative vote of: (a) a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all “Directors present”, shall mean a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors who are present at a Board meeting at which a quorum exists; (b) two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors, shall mean two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Two-Thirds Matters”); and (c) three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors, shall mean three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Three-Fourths Matters”). The Absolute Two-Thirds Matters are as follows: (i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances), (ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office, (iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)), (iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and (v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote). The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2. 1.6.3 Constitution and Bylaws Amendments. The initial draft of any proposed amendment to this Constitution or the Bylaws shall be submitted in writing to the Directors or their designees at least four weeks before the Board meeting at which such amendment shall be considered. Revised drafts reflecting material comments received within 14 days shall be sent to the Directors at least 10 days before the meeting; provided that motions for further amendments may be considered and adopted by the requisite vote at the meeting."

assuming the 8 vote thing is true I can imagine the lawsuits filed over the next 20 years by the bones and ashes of the ACC