Interesting new FSU argument in their court case
I don’t think I saw this below, so sorry if this was already covered.
I’m curious what the thoughts are from everyone here on this angle.
Link:
New GOR interpretation?
89 Replies
L
lawhokie
2y
…are granted? I have not read the full text so I do not know. I do know that the second amended complaint does NOT quote from the GOR in the last sentence of par. 126, but does quote GOR in par. 127. That’s a red flag. If the GOR said that I would have that quoted and in bold text.
Another red flag is that par. 127 is appears to assert that par. 126 should be inferred from the quote in par. 126, which is not the case. Just because ESPN loses the right to broadcast upon member exit does not mean the ACC does not own the right. Why would it?
When I read a complaint, which should have simple declaratory logic, and I get confused, I think plaintiff’s counsel is either attempting to make some leap of faith in reasoning or is a poor draftsman (or both I guess).
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
I don’t know enough about it but I like that stance
Why didn’t the ACC make the references to espn, be written as “espn or any other provider of entertainment content”….something like that… .hard to believe this was missed.
I am too lazy to research further as I know one of you will 😂
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I am sure FSU/Clemson will argue that unless it specifically says the GOR is not limited to the current ESPN contract and the ACC will argue the GOR does not specifically limit itself to the ESPN deal. And interested fans will choose the one they want and go to war with it.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
as a possible interpretation. If that is the case, some lawyers need to be fired. That was clearly not the intent. The purpose of the GOR was to motivate schools to stay in the conference. This sounds like FSU is just flooding the court with arguments, and hoping to find something that works, and/or trying to overload and distract the acc's lawyers with extra work.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
be argued by The ACC lawyers in court.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
L
lawhokie
2y
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Depends on the definition of benefitted. Courtrooms are always gray.
Did FSU make money since the GoR was signed in 2016? Yes.
Did FSU get the same return on investment that other ACC schools received? No.
If FSU was benefitting from the GoR the past five years, they would not be suing to get out.
For a school that invested $76 million into football for 2023 to get the same amount of revenue distribution that UVA received while only investing $30 million into football would be a deal breaker for most anyone. FSU attempted to adjust equal revenue sharing but was continually rebuked by the ACC. I personally am not investing three times more than my partner and asking for the same return. Which is the problem in the ACC - little investment into football, the money maker.
FSU surely did not benefit from being in the ACC on December 3, quite the opposite in damages. It mattered big time.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/24/2024, 10:47:48 AM
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Nothing in the GOR mentions any teams "investment." FSU benefitted and IMHO believed the ACCN would provide a lot more than it has so they were all in. To do their fiduciary duty, the ACC must consider BC no more, or no less than FSU. Every league has worked that way historically. One reason FSU thought the ACCN would be their answer is they thought as soon as they showed up in an ACCN broadcast, the whole world would stop and watch them. But Willie Taggert messed up their plans.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
L
lawhokie
2y
They would benefit, and thereafter did benefit. If circumstances change and you now dislike a deal, no judge will care.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Any lawyer knows the judge (or jury) decision is gray, no black and white in the contracts.
Benefit is another interpretation. Evaluation of losses is another. Company X can make $2 million in 2024. Yet the books legally show a loss of $100K.
FSU isn't benefiting from the ACC in the least on many levels.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
L
lawhokie
2y
in which a party remained in a situation for as long as FSU did, which resulted in a contract that was invalidated for lack of consideration.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Contracts voided for lack of consideration exist everywhere. A google search can produce examples.
Benefits gained or lost won't be a factor in these lawsuits when it comes to future media rights. Is the ESPN contract good through 2036 or through 2026 - that's really the only question that needs answered by a judge.
The ACC filed their lawsuit against FSU without taking a member vote. Then took a so-called vote weeks later and declared it retroactive. One judge in North Carolina didn't see an issue. One judge in Florida saw it as forum shopping. Of course it was a race to the courthouse. The ACC lawsuit should have been dismissed and forced to be refiled AFTER a member vote. Then again, we are still talking interpretations, not common sense and signed contracts.
I keep saying however, the courtroom dramatics are kabuki theater. The fait of FSU/Clemson leaving is already decided. Only the cost is left to be determined. FSU has been approved by the networks and the league for a full pro rata move to the B1G. Clemson also knows where they can go. Neither sued the ACC to leave without knowing this. Anything otherwise would be complete business idiocy.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/29/2024, 1:14:11 AM
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
I
INSIDE99
2y
What's going to bake everyone's brain when this is settled is the network trading.
ESPN may well retain the rights to FSU/Clemson when they exit. ND is immediately right behind them and get their usual "cake and eat it too" deal.
News will start to emerge shortly.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2y
direct byproduct of the Maryland exit. Public discussion treats it as solely a binding mechanism. But the formal language says its purpose is to enable the conference to fulfill the obligations of the media contract. The conference does not want it to be viewed as a "penalty" punishment, damages, etc. They said as much in their amended filing calling it a "commercial opportunity" not a "penalty." The damages are already accounted for in the exit fee.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
There were plenty of statements over the years touting the GOR as evidence of the schools' long term commitment to the league, security for a long term TV deal and in response to Maryland slipping out the backdoor at midnight just like Robert Irsay, so little Wally Loh could slide in the backdoor to fulfill his goal of being a B1G President because nobody was letting him in the front door.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
Colts to me
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
I read about five lines and quit. He graduated from law school and passed the bar?
** Edited by Will Stewart at 5/23/2024, 2:56:22 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
L
lawhokie
2y
Is that the second amended complaint sets forth a fairly straightforward argument, but the Rohan clown’s explanation is nearly incomprehensible. I wish I used this firm so that I could fire them.
** Edited by lawhokie at 5/23/2024, 5:59:31 PM
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2y
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
W
WarHog38
2y
Things have gotten very bad in Atlanta.
(In response to this post by Will Stewart)
2
2hhoop3
2y
he couldn't get by the first interview with Fani Willis. ;-)
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
I
INSIDE99
2y
There might be 100 interpretations of the GoR depending on where interest lies. That is what lawyers do and what courts are for.
It's obvious the small ball ACC teams are praying to keep the money makers in tow despite a hatred for those two teams. FSU/Clemson are praying to get out as fast as possible to make what their southern rivals are making while continuing to be relevant competing for national championships.
The court cases with FSU are irrelevant to them leaving. The legal process exists only to determine an exit cost. This is a matter of how much, not if. I find it hard to conceive how some people firmly believe FSU/Clemson are going to be jailed into the the ACC against their will through 2036. Not going to happen barring a new media contract that pays what the P2 gets. An announcement from FSU stating when they are leaving will come before August 15.
On the legal side, the ACC giving ESPN an extension back in 2021 to decide whether they want to keep the contract rolling through 2036 requires a new GoR that all members must sign. There is no contract past 2026 regardless of whether ESPN extends the deal. No one in business would sign a contract for 15 years that cannot define the financial terms past a certain date. ESPN either has a contract right now through 2036 or they do not.
The state of North Carolina government has paid the ACC $15 million to keep conference championships in the state to boost outside revenues for hosting the events. Now that same BOG has implemented last second rules on preventing the UNC BOT from making decisions on leaving. Geezus, it's called collusion! The ACC sued FSU without a membership vote and then claimed they did not need a vote because the issue was not "material". Defending the GoR and a $500 million exit fee is not "material"? Now the ACC has settled on taking less from the CFP. I can't imagine why anyone would want out (sarc).
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/23/2024, 1:11:53 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
T
TDVick
2y
the ACC has made a lot of breeches, mistakes or deviations and has operated VERY poorly? Everybody has suspected this for over a decade.
1. The ACC has some double top secret TV contract that only Dean Wormer could read. That is OBVIOUSLY true.
2. Somewhere along the line some significant amendments were made and they certainly weren't publicized.
3. Shouldn't we assume that all the t's were crossed and i's weren't dotted along the way and that the changes weren't properly approved by the member schools? The ACC contract sounds a lot like the school lunch version of "mystery meat."
4. It has been reported that ESPN has a wind down option and that was only reported after FSU and Clemson decided to get nasty. It sure looks like some people have tried really hard to suppress these details.
5. This past decade the media and the schools seemed to let the narrative continue that the TV payout numbers while not exact, were quite firm. Then it turns out that the company they sold the rights to could possibly either renegotiate or terminate it. It sure seems that the foundation of the ACC has been rickety house of cards for a long time. I'd like to see some people get severely punished.
6. I don't see how people at most of their schools can have any confidence in their leadership that let this happen.
It amazes me how everyone is throwing stones at FSU and Clemson. Those who are seem to have their anger pointed in the wrong direction. It looks like a lot of deception has gone on for a long time. I'd also like to find out if there was malfeasance.
When this gets resolved, VT might end up taking the biggest stature hit based on where it could have been (SEC) than anyone. VT might be able to sue some some people.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/23/2024, 9:59:35 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
never answered by the way. The guy just joined the board in March, and I wanted to know where his allegiance lies, WADR I think you are reading things in my question that aren’t there.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
that finding out the facts might be more important than allegiance, and that's what I'd like to see done. People (maybe not you) seem to be making Clemson and FSU the villains here, when in fact, it looks to me like they are shooting the messenger. Yes, Clemson and FSU have agendas, but I just want to find out the legal and economic facts that seem to be suppressed. That makes me much angrier than Clemson and FSU wanting tor ride off to greener pastures. It sure doesn't seem that FSU and Clemson are the one trying to suppress the facts from coming out.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/23/2024, 10:33:28 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
In the end, I think ESPN holds the cards. Consequently, I am trying to figure out what is best for them, so I ask is it better for them if FSU and Clemson go to Fox? Maybe, it’s two less mouths to feed, or maybe not since they have them for a low price. Is ESPN better off paying FSU and Clemson more if they go to the SEC, maybe because the ACC implodes and they don’t have games with 30% empty stadiums that don’t draw TV eyeballs too. I am looking at you Miami, Wake, Pitt, Duke and some others. However, if they are going to pay them more, what happens to the ACCN that they invested in?
You tell me what way ESPN is better off, and I will tell you the facts, but at least to me right now, I don’t know which path is better for ESPN. It’s just not clear to me, yet.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Attempting to ascertain the background of an opposing view only validates that the GoR is open for interpretation depending on which side of the fence one sits. Hopefully (at least personally) I can step back and try to see the realignment forest and what's to come. Most here probably agree FSU and Clemson are gone, just a matter of when and how much.
FSU is throwing a great deal of crap against the wall in hopes something sticks. I've seen my share of business lawsuits and that seems to be par for the course. Greed changed everything for everybody in college athletics. FSU/Clemson is guilty of that for certain. At the same time, if VT gets a P2 invite, everyone here will be dancing in the streets and will fight to get there.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
the question sir. TerryD and I have had some roust over the years, but most of the time we kept it respectful. I have enjoyed his post and I find your post interesting. However, we come with our bias for a certain outcome and it's nice to know where you are coming from on your perspective. If you don't want to share it, that's your prerogative.
PS I agree any school outside of the P2 wants in, so while my first reaction was I hope the ACC/Big East could compete money wise, we all know neither are and will in the future. So those of us with a football history of competing most of that time in the top 10-20 over the last 30+ years, just hope we aren't left out because we hired one bad coach in decades. Especially because our fan base has packed football stadiums and has a insanely dominant record against at least two that have been mentioned, even when we were down, not that I want them left out, because I don't want that. I want us all to make it to the P2 level.
** Edited by Stech at 5/23/2024, 3:57:20 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
L
lawhokie
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
D
daveinop
2y
why hasn't FSU announced already, i.e., why ask for the withdrawal notice to be retroactive contingent upon winning in court instead of just submitting the withdrawal notice?
The three 5-year look-ins may or may not have been a good idea (they were touted by the AD's group at the time); but they are a feature, not a bug. IMO, ESPN currently has a contract thru 2036.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
First question: The courtroom and lawsuits are most always necessary for any business to even reach a mediation process/settlement opportunity. The only issue for FSU is the cost they will have to pay to get out. They are attempting to solve that riddle before announcing. Not whether they get out. Either side winning in court will take another 2-5 years. FSU/Clemson isn't waiting.
It's odd that Phillips recently insisted that February 2025 is just a "look-in" for ESPN. The ACC was foolish and agreed to extend the GoR attached to an old 2016 document. They extended the GoR to 2036 with a contract that can end in 2027. What is unclear (the courts are attempting to find out) is if the members knew about these details. If the ACC leadership did not tell the members about the extension - which actually gave ESPN the unilateral right to end the contract in 2027 - it put every member at risk. ESPN has full authority to end the contract in 2027. They don't need a composition clause. They don't have to wait until Feb 2025. You would think that every ACC member would want to know what ESPN intends to do - that is not a "look-in".
The GoR is directly linked to the length of a TV contract. Changing the end date of the contract resets how each member maneuvers their future income and obligations.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/23/2024, 12:58:32 PM
(In response to this post by daveinop)
2y
A contract basically means what both parties says it means. If the ACC and ESPN say X, it can not successfully be implied to mean Y, unless the verbiage is eggregiouly obscure. This whole question comes to an end if and when ESPM comes in and agrees with the ACC position. That said, is the reason why ESPN has been silent is because they do not agree with the ACC?
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
ESPN isn't a party to the lawsuits, so they aren't going to say or do anything because they don't want for one of the parties to drag them into it.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
SMU Pony
2y
...unless they absolutely have to (like they did with FSU asking a judge to unseal the ESPN/ACC contract)
Also, if the ACC/ESPN deal ends if ESPN does not exercise an option by 2/1/2025, then I wouldn't expect any news on that front until 2/1/2025. Presumably ESPN has no contractual incentive to exercise the option before they absolutely have to, and in that case, why would you?
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
S
SMU Pony
2y
We know that FSU alleged that in their initial filing in Leon County, which was not immune to blatant inaccuracies and half truths.
As I’ve said before:
1. I find it hard to believe that ESPN has a unilateral right to end the entire ACC deal in 2027, and no one knew anything about it until FSU’s filing in December. That seems like the type of detail that would’ve leaked sometime in the past 8 years.
2. I find it much more likely that the ACC Network portion of the deal can be unilaterally ended by ESPN in 2027. ESPN had hesitation about launching the ACCN in the first place and required the ACC deal to be extended through 2036 as part of their underwriting of launching a new channel. It would make sense that they would’ve written into the contract at the time an escape hatch if they couldn’t achieve full distribution at desirable rates from cable providers for the ACCN
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
T
TDVick
2y
doesn't seem to be FSU or Clemson. If there a debate whether there is a dead body behind and door and someone is trying very hard to prevent that door from being opened, then who should I assume is the purveyor of half truths?
Do you see my point? There is a very simple solutions to this. It is called "DISCLOSURE." Who seems to be trying their best to prevent disclosure.
I'm not trying to get catty with you and I really appreciate your contributions. Also I'm really stoked to be able to play SMU in the (contingent) future and love the addition of SMU to the ACC. You people have a great football culture and seem to know what you are doing. I'm very fearful that VT has really harmed their future by turning a blind eye to how bad the ACC has been managed.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
The ACC is almost assuredly obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to keep all aspects of the ESPN contract confidential pursuant to the terms of the ESPN contract. ESPN/Disney are extremely hawkish regarding trade secrets.
The ACC's reasons for preventing the door from being opened aren't nebulous, they're simply consistent with their contractual obligations to ESPN. And the ACC isn't unique in this regard -- I highly doubt that SEC, B1G and Big 12 schools can access a copy of their media rights contract without trekking to the conference HQ and having it removed from a safe.
I recall years ago BYU had some dispute with the MWC regarding rights to air re-runs of their games, and the BYU lawyers had to travel to wherever the MWC is headquartered to review the media deal.
And thanks for the kind words -- a Ponies game at Lane Stadium would be a bucket list trip for us.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
You guys have done some good maneuvers and you must be excited to get better exposure and competition. It sounds like you think this GoR is pretty solid.
I'm doubtful about the ACC, but maybe the departure costs will be too onerous for FSU and Clemson to move.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
...the networks are already setting their TV schedules for this fall.
In 2025? I think so; they're won't be a legal resolution by August when they'd be required to notify the conference of their departure and I highly doubt the SEC and B1G's lawyers would advise them to invite a school embroiled in litigation with their current conference for fear of a tortious interference claim. To provide some anecdotal perspective, I currently have a client litigating a matter where the amount in controversy is approximately 1/100th of the FSU/ACC litigation and the scope of discovery is over a period of approx 9 months (instead of 8-11 years as we could potentially see in the FSU/ACC matter)...the first filing was in November of 2022 and it's not scheduled to go to trial until July 2024.
I would be shocked if there is a quick settlement unless it's for an eye-popping amount -- the ACC likely believes it has the stronger legal position, has almost zero incentive to settle and knows FSU and Clemson are up against the clock as they want out ASAP.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
with a LOT of deception. VT could have easily grabbed Missouri's SEC spot back in 2011. Then Maryland bailed from the ACC, which a lot of people couldn't seem to figure out and blamed on the fact the Maryland had some financial difficulties and might have been a bit desperate. I think there has been a lot of window dressing over the years to paint the ACC's status relative to the SEC and B10 in a much better light than was the reality.
VT was routinely worked over by NC interests since the 50s and finally hard to bust its way into the ACC at gunpoint in 2003. Now there is a potential that VT gets relegated to a lower spot because it chose to align with an NC-dominated ACC.
Looking forward to a Dallas trip. You guys might be whales and be able to challenge for ACC titles if this proceeds. I think you'll be a top 4 ACC program if it stays together.
** Edited by TDVick at 5/23/2024, 10:35:22 PM
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
D
DrHokie
2y
Tobacco Road Mafia kept VT out of ACC for years until we busted our way in 2003. Then in 2011, SEC WANTED US and we turned them down !!!!!!!! What was VT administration thinking ???
Oh well, it is what it is...whatever that is.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
2
2hhoop3
2y
stupidity and arrogance of the Tobacco Road Mafia that gave VT an opening and few, if any, would likely attribute it to VT busting their way in. Also, your contention the SEC wanted VT in 2011 and VT turned them down is not nearly as straightforward as you contend and comes with lots of context. If it were as straightforward as that, the invite would be a public record and the BOV declining would be a public vote.
(In response to this post by DrHokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
has been explained to you countless times over the years, the contract situation was just logically explained to you and yet you still look for the fantasy/conspiracy? Maryland left because they were bleeding cash and the only way Wally Loh was ever going to be a B1G president was by sliding in the back door. Delaney exploited the weakness. The only one doing any painting is you.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
W
WarHog38
2y
FSU attorneys were accused in court of committing a felony by ESPN a few months ago when they started divulging details about the GOR & ACC TV Contract. That along with the GOR being locked away those eight years might have caused relevant details to stay hidden. Who wants a felony in their resume in the years ahead? Bad for everything these computerized digitalized days.
This Link shows the 16 Page ACC GOR, look on Page 3, at # 5. Term. I quote, "The "Term" of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until June 30, 2027" .........................
Link:
GOR
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
...I've linked it below.
I disagree on the lack of leak of a supposed option. Things like that are not uncommon to see leaked -- it's been widely reported that ESPN has an out for their MLB deal in 2025 or so. Material deal points (term, rough numbers, rights of refusal) are often leaked. I feel like ESPN having the right to kill the ACC deal is something that would've absolutely been known before last DEcember if it were true, but I could certainly be wrong.
Link:
2016 GOR amendment
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
I see where 2036 was added as a new end date. The ACC TV Deal with ESPN is a different agreement. I have no Link to that ESPN TV Deal with the ACC. It is rumored to be in peril of never being further extended by ESPN. If ESPN extends that TV Deal and the ACC wins lawsuits, then the ACC continues on to 2036. We shall see what ESPN does. I would not have much faith in ESPN/Disney considering their recent past.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
A few months back I predicted they wouldn't extend as-is, I've since rethought that (as I was calculating ESPN's financial obligations incorrectly)
Consider this...
Even if FSU and Clemson leave, I think the ACC is then about on par with the Big 12 in terms of quality of inventory.
ESPN would owe each ACC school roughly $25M/year for 100% of their media rights (with ~4% [?] annual increases) through 2035-36. ESPN also splits the ACC Network profits 50-50 with the ACC schools. I believe the most recent projections we have showed the ACC Network made ESPN roughly $150 million in PROFIT last year -- and that's before the ACC Network gets increased in-state carriage fees in Texas and California beginning next year.
ESPN would owe each Big 12 school roughly $24M/year for roughly 70% of their media rights (with Fox owning the other 30% or so -- I can't recall the exact breakdown but that should be pretty close) through 2030-2031.
So yeah, given those examples, I see zero reason to kill the ACC deal even without FSU and Clemson. ESPN will need boatloads of content for their DTC platform and the ACC provides decent content at great value through 2035-36.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
Everyone wanted the ACC network. The only way to get it was the lengthy gor. Without the ACC Network, schools can easily argue that they would have never signed a gor that extended to 2036, which is probably completely accurate.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2y
story that is currently circulating. So, you're rewriting the story to better suit your discomfort boundary.
Here's the way I remember the story coming out: Last Fall/Winter, Nicole Auerbach wrote in the Athletic that while the 2021 look-in was cancelled for COVID, Phillips met privately with ESPN and changed ESPN's deadline date for renewal from 2021 to 2025. If Phillips had not signed-off, ESPN would have been required in 2021 to exercise their "unilateral" option: extend until 2036, or end the media contract. That story got plenty of play in the media and nobody on either side of the contract denied it.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
I just don't ever remember anything about a supposed unilateral ESPN option leaking prior to FSU's first filing in December. In fact, I recall many prominent media members acting surprised as if they were hearing it for the first time. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, that would be a massive material element of a contract signed in 2016 that I think we would have heard about sometime prior to December of 2023.
A look-in is not the same thing as a unilateral option. As I understand the ESPN/ACC look-ins, they're required to "look" at the deal and probably be "reasonable" is discussing any tweaks that they need to or want to make, but I do not think either side is contractually bound to actually do anything. I believe the look-ins occur every four years or so; I could be wrong about that, however.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
Getting that ESPN contract verbatim was a major part of the discovery legal process seeing that the ACC has kept those top secret documents in Charlotte lockdown. I found it ironic that the 2027 ESPN extension has only been mentioned since FSU officials recently had the chance to get to Charlotte and read that contract. Maybe FSU is lying, guess we find out soon enough. The devil is in the details. Now ESPN has to cough them up, at least in South Carolina for now. The lawsuits were necessary regardless of intentions to leave already decided.
The FSU BOT claims they never had the opportunity to vote in 2021 to extend the ESPN contract. They also claim Swofford unilaterally made that decision in 2021 the year he was leaving office. The same way Phillips unilaterally made the decision to sue FSU without a member vote only to take that vote weeks afterwards and declare it retroactive. It's called forum shopping and the Leon County Judge Cooper was correct in calling it what it was - a race to the courthouse. Of course it's material.
I don't mind discussing the legal sides, it is interesting. I'm thankful to be able to discuss it with someone who is educated on the realignment subject. But FSU is gone asap. Their PE investments are not just to build new facilities. They knew there may be a cost to get out of the ACC. Negotiating that cost is what's happening. Getting $40-$50 million more annually in a P2 full pro rata membership quickly offsets just about any exit cost. Connect the dots.
The networks have made the decisions already so I've been told for 11 months. Everything is still speculation, even from the sources. Anyone who cannot see this is blinded by love or hate of their institution. What a cray off-season this has been.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
…and I’m sure many of them did, particularly after the new SEC and B1G media deals were announced in August of 2022. Also, it’s not unusual that the ACC keeps the ESPN contract at their HQ and only allows schools to access it there. This prevents it from being subject to FOIA requests, and the ACC almost assuredly has an obligation to keep the contract confidential. Have you ever seen the SEC, Big 12 or B1G media deals? No, and for the same reason.
I agree that FSU will eventually leave, but I do wonder how long the ACC drags this out. If you’re the ACC, and you (probably correctly) think you have the stronger legal position, do you take this all the way to a verdict to try and box FSU in? You might, if you think the alternative is extinction for the conference.
The ACC needs to find the highest number that FSU (and, possibly, Clemson) will pay that other schools won’t so as to keep the conference mostly intact. That’s inherently difficult, because FSU is the most resource-poor school in the conference. If FSU can walk for $100 million, they’d stroke that check tomorrow. As would every other ACC school with a landing spot in the SEC or B1G.
Alternatively, if you’re FSU, how much are you willing to pay to get out ASAP? Surely their lawyers have informed them that for all of their bluster, they’re not really operating from a position of strength here. If the ACC does take this to a verdict and wins, FSU’s position goes from not great to disastrous.
It’s an interesting game of chicken from a legal perspective. Given the stakes, I’m confident that despite what the YouTube lawyers say, the ACC is not overly concerned about engaging in discovery in the grand scheme of things.
My prediction is that ESPN will (eventually) be involved in a compromise that allows at least FSU and Clemson to move to the SEC while also ensuring the ACC’s long term stability. That seems like the easiest route out of all of this mess.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
be tricky business. UNC and Miami come to mind, as if there is a P2 invite for any school, they would also assuredly pay what ever that amount is.
The bigger problem is if there is an adjustment in the media contract if schools go to the P2. That will determine whether or not the ACC stays together.
I think the ACC would be just fine if FSU and/or Clemson bolt. There is still quality football inventory for the ACC to land a B12 type of contract - but the truth is, none of us really knows. The ACC can ill afford 4 (or more) schools bolting for the P2.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
I
INSIDE99
2y
I enjoy sharing your views.
Finding the highest number that FSU/Clemson will pay to get out and vice-versa the lowest number the ACC will accept is the prime reason for these lawsuits.
From the FSU side, they absolutely are certain they have some upper hand in the lawsuit as does Clemson. They will use these tools to negotiate out. That is what a lawsuit does. In regards to disastrous, I'm certain you do realize that many high level people also believe that if FSU pulls out now that the ACC is at risk of losing the ESPN contract all together. No extension, no contract at the given rates when those teams leave.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Much like SMU accepting a bid to a Power Conference (ACC) and not getting paid for nine years of television money - about $24 million per year ($216 million in total), SMU boosters raised $100 million the first week to offset the loss because they saw certain death not being in a Power Conference. Similarly, FSU is in full fundraising PE mode if that helps connect their P2 realignment dots to avoid certain ACC death in their eyes. The cost is irrelevant.
I predicted here about a month ago that FSU will announce before August 15 they are leaving the ACC. That is the cut off date for being out for 2025. They will play 2024 as an ACC member for the last time and then play a P2 schedule in 2025 either as a P2 member or not as a P2 member. They are approved for B1G membership at full pro rata by the league and by the networks. That was a full year ago. Approval does not mean money has exchanged hands or that an offer has been given, they are approved. Anyone who doesn't believe this must also believe FSU has to be dumber than a box of Doak Campbell Stadium bricks to sue to get out without knowing where they can go. They will pay an exit fee, but no media rights fees. FSU will obtain AAU status possibly before the 2025 season, they are that close now. This realignment for FSU will not take two more years, of that I am certain. But that's the fun of predictions :)
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
If they do, I think their lawyers are giving them bad advice. I do not think that either FSU or Clemson have made many compelling arguments other than the argument that the GOR no longer applies if ESPN kills the ACC deal in 2027.
I think it's more likely that they're trying to raise a stink, placate their fanbases and see if they can create enough trouble for ESPN and/or ACC to throw up their hands and say enough and agree to a settlement FSU deems to be acceptable, or complete a legal hail mary and get a favorable ruling. In that regard, I don't blame them -- nothing ventured, nothing gained.
FSU is a top 10-15 brand in the nation, I have no doubt that the SEC and B1G would accept them for membership at this time. I do not think they would extend an invite before the ACC litigation is resolved, however, as doing so could invite a tortious interference suit. And FSU going independent in 2025 would be an interesting move -- it would be very difficult to put together a compelling schedule at this point, and they'd lose out on a certain CFP bid (and almost certain bye) if they could otherwise win the ACC that year. Not to mention all of the adverse impacts on their other sports. That seems to me like they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I agree that every day FSU remains in the ACC they fall further behind the P2 powers they view as peers, but I don't know if they get can out as quickly as you predict without creating massive problems for themselves. They need to hope that the ACC has a number they'll settle on that FSU can stomach. If the ACC says YOLO and takes this whole thing to trial, that is just about FSU's worst case scenario IMO.
Everyone thinks a settlement is a foregone conclusion. I agree it's the most likely outcome, but I don't know that it will happen as soon as FSU fans would like and I think there's at least an outside chance that the ACC takes this all the way to a verdict unless ESPN brokers the peace.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
All the discussion over legal aspects dominate the ACC/FSU/Clemson topic as of now. It is the media networks that will make the ACC realignment call.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/27/2024, 4:49:38 PM
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2
2hhoop3
2y
says it all. This thing might settle but, only if the network(s) come to the table with cash. The ACC has very little incentive to settle short of that and after looking at the FSU lawyer's work and case to date they probably feel more convinced of that every time a new piece gets flung against a wall by FSU in hopes that it will stick.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2y
I have all kinds of layman’s legalese to spew. The idea that The ACC has no incentive to settle is just bravado. It’s the same rhetorical device as the “felony” threat, and the same as FSU’s request that the exit notice be retroactive to last year… meaningless bellowing.
These parties are working two separate courses: the more visible court fight, and the settlement negotiation. The court business is slow, expensive, and subject to the human foibles of a judge. The settlement is quiet, less confrontational, far less expensive, a much more likely to arrive at a sweet spot.
There is much that we just don’t know. FSU/Clemson might have some exploitable quirk in the contract language. Is that enough? Who knows? The ACC may think they can smother a complaint like that.
To me, The ACC’s most troubling vulnerability is the pending renewal of the media deal. Will ESPN renew? Why not say so now? Does the conference know ESPN’s intention one way or the other? If the decision goes against renewal, The ACC’s chances for a fat settlement are gone. And their chances for a court victory just won’t matter. Unless Phillips knows he is getting his extension, he would be wise to settle soon.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
very little incentive not no incentive. It is not bravado or bellowing it is a realistic assessment of the outcomes. An entity fighting for its existence has very little use for a negotiated settlement that cannot provide that existence and they are very unlikely to let FSU walk without paying a hefty sum unless the network(s) can and will provide the difference.
Why should ESPN say so now when they have more time to see how things play out? How do you know that the ACC does not have an idea of ESPN's thinking? A partnership generating ESPN annual cash flow of $150MM is not something ESPN will just ignore and that is one reality, among several, which your legalese failed to address.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
I think ESPN would love to continue the deal with The ACC, but only if the roster is intact. FSU is leaving (that's speculation, barely) but when? Who else goes? FSU and Clemson contribute a disproportionate volume of viewership. Now we have to weigh UNC. ESPN will consider that. I have said all along I think ESPN likes their cozy ACC contract. But if the biggest players leave, ESPN will reconfigure their relationship into whatever setup delivers the most return. That might not be a continuation of the current deal. Maybe the inclusion of TX and CA will be enough. We'll see.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
it would not be a prediction. Also, how does something really get approved when there hasn't been an "offer" and what fantasy would the B1G have to spin to avoid being sued in that case? I look forward to reading more of your certainties for laughs and watching you attempt to dazzle with your "legal knowledge" obviously obtained during a recent stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Maybe you and Rohan could form a firm, call it Barney & Stick, BS for short.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
I
INSIDE99
2y
I'm no lawyer or even close. Been both a plaintiff and a defendant in business litigation disputes between partners. That's the extent of my legal expertise. In my defense, those litigations did cost me a bundle. A very large bundle. Lawyers will take my money to teach lessons. LOL.
My intel is mostly from the network side and yes some from the FSU side (biased of course). Sources probably no more certain than Sankey or Phillips. I'm not sure anyone involved at the top is 100% certain of anything right now. That is why there are thousands of rumors always circulating. I have tried to convey this but it seems to get lost. This is also why I continually use the phrase "connecting the dots" in an attempt to make sense of it all.
I truly believe FSU is ready to announce. However, they cannot join another conference without their media rights. Another reason why Clemson has declared in their lawsuit the GoR states a team's rights cannot be maintained once they leave the conference. But FSU can schedule other guaranteed non-conference games with those P2 schools much like ND does as a non-ACC member for football. If the legal issues are not settled it's going to absolutely get crazy for all sides, including either FSU owing half a billion dollars or the ACC imploding with no TV contract. Or both.
I do read every realignment forum out there because it's interesting and college football has always been my first love. Reading the SMU board and reading the FSU board are night and day, as in worlds apart on this issue. Miami fans have started to get on board with the need to get out, but it was slow coming. They see the end result forest.
One aspect I am 100% certain of as stated already...FSU has been approved full pro rata for the B1G. The networks have already made the decision on FSU, which is why I see a settlement getting announced soon. There is certainly high risk for both the FSU and ACC by playing out certain scenarios. That is why a better understanding of the ACC/ESPN contract is vital.
FSU is gone. And it won't take long. I believe Clemson too. But after that the P2 schools may take two more and call it done at least until 2030. If your school does not bring football money increases to the table the P2 is not interested right now. There will be no massive realignment just yet.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and valid points in your first few paragraphs. However, you type a book to avoid or obscure the fact you did not or cannot answer the questions asked.
Then you double down making the same statements you made before while once again avoiding the questions asked. You say you are 100% certain that FSU has been approved full pro rata for the B1G and the networks have already made the decision on FSU. So which is it, are you just speculating or are you 100% certain and if 100% certain where does the certainty come from? Again, if no offer was made how is there an approval? If you are certain and have facts to support that certainty how does the B1G avoid a suit under existing contract law? Most people believe, maybe even hope now, that FSU is gone but, as you say they are not going anywhere without their media rights and the reality is that if that happens in the near future the most likely reasons are the network(s) step in with cash to resolve the dispute or FSU pays up. Your problem as you have been told before is not speculating but, trying to pass off speculating as fact or 100% certainty and then avoiding the direct questions when challenged to support your position. It is the standard M.O. of the posters who troll this board from time to time. Perhaps you will prove me wrong with your next response and until then hope springs eternal.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
D
DrHokie
2y
What do you REALLY think ????? You sound angry...
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
I made what I was thinking clear but, if you really have questions feel free to ask. Not angry, just not willing to surrender the narrative or this board to trolls who claim to value discussion but, whose behavior screams they are really just here to stir the waters with propaganda. People will tend to believe most anything if they hear it enough and these boards have plenty of evidence of that.
(In response to this post by DrHokie)
D
daveinop
2y
and I happen to agree (tho many smart folks on this board do not)...the GOR is contract specific
For me, the second goes back to the ACC's answer to the Florida judge on "what if FSU left the conference". FSU (per Rohan) is saying if they leave, then the GOR doesn't count. But the ACC said, we'd sell the rights to FSU OR another party (presumably their new conference or the network broadcasting those games). In my opinion, that was the ACC's way of saying they intend to get market value for those rights; and that is something FSU apparently can't or desperately doesn't want to afford.
I think the problem for FSU, to use Rohan's quote, is "the language of the agreement is it's own undoing". The language in the doc signed by FSU grants the rights necessary for the ACC to carry out the ACC's contract with ESPN. If that contract stands, I think FSU remains obligated under the GOR unless some buyout is executed. I don't think the "Novel" thinking that the ACC could still negotiate for others moves the needle. The ESPN contract almost certainly says, we'll give you X dollars for product Y...and FSU is an integral part of Y. Is FSU really saying that conference composition is irrelevant re: the contract?
Finally, I think Phillips is probably more accurate in his description of what comes next with ESPN next Feb; i.e., it is a look-in, not a re-up as claimed by FSU.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
W
WarHog38
2y
I will first talk about Rohan Law, as I see that issue has already be bought up in the responses. Rohan is an attorney practices in injury claims and is an FSU graduate. Rohan is biased and readily admits it. Rohan has been all over YouTube doing legal analysis on the lawsuits involving FSU. Rohan never does in depth legal analysis of the Clemson lawsuit. Listening to Rohan I guess depends on accepting his legal expertise over his bias. I do think you can mix both to a certain limit. Although his opinion probably needs a second legal opinion as backing to be totally taken very seriously.
The 1st Point: ACC GOR by wording just effects an ACC member school as long as they are an ACC member. Once the ACC school leaves the ACC, the GOR no longer effects their media rights. This 1st Point is the main basis of the Clemson lawsuit against the ACC. I have heard Greg Flugaur read a GOR paragraph from another conference that clearly tied the GOR to the school being in that conference. Flugaur did say, he had no idea if the ACC GOR was worded similarly.
The 2nd Point The ACC GOR is only legally binding in wording to ESPN as a media provider. That means the ACC GOR doesn't apply to future media deals with FOX or streaming media providers.
I have no idea what is in the ACC GOR. Maybe Rohan knows very little more. However if either one of those two points are facts. The ACC is going to have a hard time winning those lawsuits.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
S
SMU Pony
2y
Rohan's first point is nonsense, and he knows it. Read Paragraph 1(a) (especially the portion beginning with the word regardless) and the first sentence of Paragraph 6.
I think I agree with the second point; if the ESPN deal terminates, then the GOR ceases to be effective. So if ESPN actually has a unilateral option to extend the ACC deal from 2027 to 2036 (as FSU has alleged) and elects not to do so, then I think schools have a solid argument that they can break free from the GOR in 2027. I do find it odd that the 2016 extension of the GOR simply extended the term of the GOR through 2036 and did not include an express provision that the GOR is coterminous with the ESPN deal if ESPN can actually get out in 2027 -- that would seem to be the type of oversight that the attorneys drafting and reviewing the document would not miss. This makes me think that the ESPN unilateral option that FSU has alluded to is only for a portion of the ACC deal (e.g., the ACC Network) and not the entire ACC deal. If that's the case, then the ACC could likely take its portion of media rights currently allocated to the ACC Network to market in 2027, but the GOR would likely still apply to the most valuable portion of the ACC media deal. I suppose FSU could try and sell such rights separately, but you're talking about maybe one non-marquee home football game and some home basketball games each season, which wouldn't be particularly valuable.
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
exercise the final option only applies to the ACCN, then wouldn't open up another can of worms? I ask because there is a possibility the ACC could have said whatever was necessary to get each member to sign the document, then end up agreeing to something else with ESPN. On top of that there could be an issue of the ACC properly not conveying the changes (if known) back to the members. Given that Swofford's tenure was coming to end and it is obvious that he was determined to get certain things accomplished as he tried to cement his legacy, I could see the ACC resort to using that tactic particularly if he had enough people willing to help him achieve his goals.
If the schools knew that ESPN could unilaterally kill the ACCN at certain times, then would the schools have been as supportive of the idea? That alone may not be enough to give a school reservations about the plan. However, when you start to add in other factors (i.e. the schools required to pay for the cost to upgrade their studios before ESPN would launch the network), then there may be some schools who end up deciding the ACCN isn't really worth it after all. I guess that is why I keep coming back to how determined was Swofford on achieving certain goals before he retired and how much was the ACC willing to help him achieve those goals. One thing I am really interested to see play out is the establishment of what information was shared with the members, when was it shared, and by whom.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2y
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
2y
...Rohan is a personal injury lawyer who is playing to an audience of FSU fans. I think this interpretation of the GOR might require the most garnet-tinted glasses yet.
I'll link the GOR here for reference: https://www.cbs17.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2022/07...
My interpretation is that the grant of rights necessary to fulfill the ESPN agreement referenced in paragraph 1 at the top of page 2 is the grant by each school of whatever rights are provided as consideration in the ACC/ESPN contract. Now we don't have the ESPN contract, but I presume this to be something akin to all rights to broadcast live visual accounts of each member school's intercollegiate athletic events. And that grant is made "regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term." The 2016 amendment to the GOR extended the "Term" through June 2036.
Further consider that the recitals on page 1 of the GOR reference enhancing the stability of conference membership and the commitment by each member school to the others, and I think it's quite obvious what the intention of the parties was at the time the GOR was signed. But that interpretation doesn't get you clicks from rabid FSU fans on Twitter.
I will say that I think FSU's strongest (and perhaps only strong) argument is that the GOR ceases to apply if ESPN has the ability to kill the entire ACC deal in 2027 and does in fact do so.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
I always thought they were equal
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
2y
But in layman’s terms it’s somewhat equivalent to stupid. I believe dumb in that take (equivalent to stupid) can be overcome. However, stupid is absolute; thus I believe it should be at the top of the list……
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
M
mjfhokie
2y
Then the band spells out "DUMB" on the field for Duke University Marching Band. How dumb (or stupid?) is that?
(In response to this post by RJHokie)