Rohan Law has been following the court cases and had an interesting post
Full disclosure that I share this same perspective mentioned in this post so I’m biased. And I think this guy is on the side of FSU, but does give positive views of both sides during the court hearings.
The core of the post is:
I now agree (partially) with Clemson's interpretation. The ACC GoR is based entirely on the ACC's deal with ESPN and cannot exist as a valid, binding agreement without ESPN's media rights agreement.
… a simple reading of the plain meaning of the GoR confirms (to me) that if @espn exercises it's option before February 2025 for the years 2027-2036, the GoR has value as alleged by FSU totaling $542M. In the event ESPN does not exercise it's option to extend the ACC Media Rights Deal, the GoR ceases to have any value and is unenforceable.
36 Replies
D
daveinop
2y
this isn't complicated. For its part, Clemson just wants that interpretation verified by a judge...'how long are we in this thing'. FSU wants/needs ESPN to not exercise its option; that's really their only economically viable out. As the ACC lawyer said; "or we could sell it [the rights] to someone else". FSU isn't going to get out without paying market value for the rights, i.e., either what ESPN is paying the ACC, OR, what someone else would pay (likely more). The notion that FSU could get out of the extended GOR for some fraction of what ESPN is paying is ludicrous.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
The hook to pay anything after the 2027 season. I think that they are angling for that date with the GOR, as currently, there is no contract after 2027.
It's difficult for any institution to budget without knowing what the contract will be, or who will be in the conference.
Without the ability to actually read the media contract, the fans are left hanging on a thread. It also becomes much more difficult to recruit students or even coaches in such an environment.
In my opinion, this needs to be resolved now, and while the court cases are the CCC vs two schools, ESPN is squarely in the middle of this.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
2y
was filed and we became aware of the extension provision in the contract; i.e.;
"I AM CHANGING MY MIND! I now agree (partially) with Clemson's interpretation. The ACC GoR is based entirely on the ACC's deal with ESPN and cannot exist as a valid, binding agreement without ESPN's media rights agreement. The entire first paragraph of the GoR mentions ESPN nine (9) times and makes no mention of any other potential media partners. The GoR was made at the request of ESPN, for the benefit of ESPN, and in conjunction with ESPN. Paragraph seven mentions access to campus facilities FOR ESPN, not for "any ACC affiliated media partners". Any agreement designed to contemplate an existence beyond any ESPN media deal would/should have said after EVERY mention of ESPN, "or any other media partner with whom the ACC signs a material media rights agreement at the conclusion of the ESPN Agreement." But the GoR did not say that. The GoR, conclusively, requires the existence of an ESPN Agreement for it to exist. I apologize to those I maligned or suggested otherwise."
He could have cut and pasted that analysis from this board
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
O
obguthr
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
But the GOR itself very clearly says "ESPN agreement" multiple times. So my guess is that the CW deal might be allowed under the ESPN agreement, but that the CW deal would have no bearing on the GOR if the ESPN agreement went away.
In other words, if the ACC only had the CW deal next year then the GOR would be null and void and teams would have their media rights. In that case, each school would only have to pay out the ACC exit fee.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And lawyers can argue either side depending on who pays them. Until the court decides, my take is that if the GOR was that tightly tied to the one media deal, all conference members would have been or demanded to be a party to the contract as well as the GOR. So my take is all conference members assigned the power to obtain media deals to the ACC and not just to deal 1x with ESPN.
Now I ask everyone, the possibility that ESPN will opt out exist. I don't think it is as likely as some think but it does exist. So if your take is right, then the ACC is totally handcuffed in working right now to get a new deal. Do you really think that all the ACC lawyers missed that? I don't. So I believe the ACC has the power under the GOR to be talking to everybody right now.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
They could still leave but they could not argue the damages in the GOR?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And I don't think FSU/Clemson/UNC or anybody else wants this to go where I think it will end up. And I don't think the final court will make any ruling that FSU et al can individually be freed from the GOR at the expense of what I call the non mag 7. FSU's move is really crippling to them and I believe that they will have their day in court. After all the GOR can easily be determined as a "share and share alike" agreement that FSU etc are just trying to weasel out of so they can make more while the non mag 7 makes less.
Further it will most likely end up in federal court with the non mag 7 as a "Class" covering what, 9 states. No way a Florida Court can rule on that. NC courts have more standing as that is the state where the ACC who represents all school resides. But this has federal case written all over it unless FSU etc can satisfy the non mag 7 schools.
(In response to this post by HwoodHokie)
2y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
HIS PREDICTION: Settlement for 150-180m AFTER 15 Aug 2024 to leave for '26.
Thinks the process with three states and potential appeals will take too long for anyone's liking.
Waiting till Aug 15 will allow for FSU to stay an additional year.
Take it for what it's worth.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
My prediction is that FSU will announce they are leaving the ACC before summer is over. They are not waiting on the courts to decide two years from now and will deal with the legal issues down the road if need be. But I think this saga gets settled rather quickly at this point with both ESPN and FOX involved in that settlement.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
on a pike.
150 million?!? Considering the amounts of $$ involved here they might as well let them leave for free.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
That's about 10 million per school to not have FSU for a decade.
Not a good deal.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
V
VTCALS72
2y
does the mag 7 do that? Now if they do then IMHO they would be more liable to the non mag 7 for screwing them out of a legitimate contract (GOR).
IMHO the only way any school is allowed to leaves with just the <200 mil exit fee is if ESPN signs on the current agreement for the full 2036 term.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
faith on ESPN's future actions, history could end up repeating itself. The ACC believes (again) that if it agrees to the deal, then the ACC's new agreement with ESPN, which would require a new GOR, would be equal to or greater the value of the current agreement. Some of the schools may even be on board with the idea because of informal conversations their leadership has had with ESPN assuming the schools form a new conference or rebrand the ACC because the brand name has been tarnished.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And the PAC's dealings were tarnished as well but watch them come back. In fact I do not see one thing so far that tarnishes the ACC in any way.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
carrying a lot of weight.
The PAC may very well rise from the ashes some day. However, it is unlikely the PAC will ever get back to the same peak it once was because the new members won't have the same value as the members that were lost to the Big Ten. The same would hold true if/when the ACC losses members to the Big Ten or SEC.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
the new one will be just what ESPN was angling for when the PAC leadership turned up their noses at the ESPN offer. The new PAC will be just like the new ACC and what the XII is right now. a below the P2 regional conference.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
no different than the MWC, MAC, Southern, or Horizon League in terms of value. Particularly if the P2 becomes the new DI and the FBS/FCS/non-football schools become the new DII. At least I could see a scenario where it no longer makes sense to have the FBS and FCS subdivisions in football anymore, so the schools decide to recombine them.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
The bitter end might be 2027.
Or at least it sounds that way.
ACC commish and member presidents' can stick to the guns to the very end. But if the ESPN doesn't renew the contract, then the end might be coming quite sooner than any of could have thought just 6 months ago.
OTOH, the ESPN deal is supposed to be good for them. So we will see.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
Hokie83
2y
I am sure thats Fsu's end game but I expect ACC to fight this to the bitter end..
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...does ESPN blow up their ACC contract knowing some properties will go to Fox?
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Way too many look at what happened with the PAC and think the same thing will happen by plan. But the TV contract was up, the 4 schools left with no penalty and the PAC arrogantly tried to negotiate with ESPN as if they had the same strength as the B10. So ESPN said F you. The ACC otoh has pretty much done what ESPN has asked/required. I still think we have Stanford/Cal because ESPN asked the ACC to take them.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Could it be that they already have invites to the Big 10 (let's assume they do for now)
The question then becomes if they announce their departure before ESPN extends the contract, is their GOR tied to the "new" contract.
I think they are trying to get out before the extension is granted, and the GOR only applies to the look in.
It puts ESPN in a tough spot - if they extend the contract, and FSU and Clemson are not included, then they are stuck without the premier football schools.
I think that is why ESPN has not stepped up to extend the contract yet. It very well could be that ESPN has already lost the future rights to those schools no matter what they do - unless the courts rule against Clemson and FSU.
Time is of the essence for ESPN, as these cases could drag on - and ESPN really can't make a determination of what those rights are worth without knowing who is in the conference, and who isn't.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
If the 2 were tied as much as you are saying then all 14 would have had to sign individually. But they didn't because they subordinated their rights to the ACC in dealing with media contracts.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...schools, as well as the addition of schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
option or not. It is possible one of the predetermined "look in" dates happens to fall on the same date as when the option is scheduled to begin if exercised.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Some think it was awful but that discounts the hoped for value of the ACCN. didn't the "deal" have several "look-ins already built in from the beginning? It seems you think so with your "predetermined look-in dates. If so the only change is that a predetermined look in date was postponed from 2021 to 2025. Most likely it was because the ACCN was late getting launched and they wanted to give the ACCN a fair chance at seeing how much it was returning.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
2022 to 2021. If you keep with the 5 years established in the original agreement, then the next one should be in 2026 and the final one in 2031 (assuming ESPN exercises the 9-year option). This isn't the article I made a reference to in the other post, but the idea is still the same.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
the late 2010s. It may have even been one of David Teel's articles or Andy's articles. In the article, it identfied years that were considered "look in" years. It even included 1 date between 2027 and 2036 (I think 2031 or 2032) with the qualifier "assuming ESPN exercises the 9-year option." I think the "look in" dates were every 5-6 years or so. Hence why I said 2027 might be used for both the option and the "look in."
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Look ins were a part of the original contracts. IMHO and the delay in the implementation of the ACCN probably was a major factor.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2y
determine how much of a factor delaying the launch of the ACCN had on how things played out in the 2021 look in. It may have still been a major factor given the look in was 2 years after the launch of the network. Then again, it could have become a minor factor because the pandemic was the extremely large elephant in the room.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
Now, or do you think they are already in the contract,
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)