The latest on Florida State, ACC, Clemson lawsuits
By Matt BakerTimes staff / Published May 31|Updated Yesterday
“The latest (June 5, 2024): Clemson’s case against the ACC in South Carolina appears to have a hearing set for July 12. I haven’t seen that show up in South Carolina court records. But it’s included an updated filing in North Carolina (where the league has sued Clemson).”
A motion for summary judgement on a declaration that the ACC only owns Clemson’s broadcast rights for games played while the Tigers are in the ACC would be a significant development in conference realignment. If the South Carolina judge rules that Clemson’s position is correct, then it is possible that an official notice to withdraw from the ACC could be issued within days regardless of the likelihood of the ACC appealing the decision. FSU would almost certainly follow Clemson’s lead within weeks if not days.
30 Replies
2y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
L
lawhokie
2y
We can’t assume every GOR in college athletics is identical.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
V
VTCALS72
2y
That covers just about everybody. I found it interesting that there was all this uproar about the ACC holding the media contract in their secure location then it seems every one of the former P5 did the same. 2nd point, if it was "different" then the other 3 conferences would not have joined the "keep it secret" lawsuit.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
L
lawhokie
2y
I am not sure what the ‘keep it secret’ lawsuits are, I just haven’t followed this very closely.
However, I am familiar with contract law in general. The ACC GOR is an agreement among conference members. How did outside parties join in a litigation specifically with respect to the ACC GOR (not the ESPN deal)? How would any other conference have standing to join wrt to an ACC agreement?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And have petitioned to have the ACC/ESPN media deal essentially be made public. The other leagues in some manner joined the ACC in asking that the ACC/ESPN media deal not be made public under the auspice of revealing one contract would reveal them all.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
L
lawhokie
2y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
would adversely affect the SEC, Big and B12 because the deal are essentially the same. So their participation is not the GOR it is protecting the privacy of their agreements with ESPN/Fox
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the GOR with the media rights agreement. The other conferences were protecting disclosure of their media deals. Additionally, the GOR only applies to the ACC and Big 12. Both the SEC and B1G at present have very limited need to worry about their members looking for greener pastures.
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
That has no more chance of happening than a NC judge ending it for Clemson, FSU with a declaratory judgement that the GOR means ACC ownership of rights through 2036.
This is getting more like the PAC saga except it is 2 schools rather than a conference trying to dictate to big media what they are going to do while still under contract.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
where Clemson is located will find that Clemson’s interpretation of the GOR is correct. And once they have that ruling, Clemson will likely announce their exit from the conference. FSU will likely follow. The ACC will still exist at that point and of course an appeal will be filed.
I also don’t think that Clemson is going to pay the exit fee claiming that the financial penalties involved with the ACC's exit fee (three times the ACC's operating budget) are exorbitant and unreasonable. That exit fee will have to be litigated before Clemson and/or FSU or any other school pays anything. In the past, major conference exits fees have been reduced significantly to avoid or end litigation (examples: Maryland, Texas, Oklahoma, etc.)
** Edited by WBGV at 6/6/2024, 1:29:32 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
L
lawhokie
2y
Judges HATE to be reversed on appeal, especially judges from hick jurisdictions that get little respect from appellate courts.
MSJ requires every fact at issue to construed in favor of non-movant, and the case must still be a clear win for movant. That means the contract wording must be clear with zero nuance.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Just saying...
(In response to this post by lawhokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I do not believe any of that "exorbitant" stuff will stand in court either, What somebody else did in getting their horse out of the barn has been corrected.
Is there a worse thing for FSU/CU to do that get out before they know the real cost of doing so?
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
they are in court. They do know the cost of staying, and seems to be untenable to them.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
Agree. That's why all this talk from FSU homers about
"FSU will be gone by June 30" or "FSU will be in the Big Ten in 2025" or even "there's no turning back now" is a bunch of malarkey.
If the price is right, they will leave, if not, they won't. Ditto for Clemson.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the Maryland case shows? How about the Texas and OKlahoma cases? If you actually look deeper at those cases I think you will find there are significant differences between the FSU and Clemson situations and those you refer to.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
are exorbitant and unreasonable when compared to the exit fees of other conferences and what has been paid in the past. Now with that said, a judge could find that the fees are reasonable, but Clemson and FSU will likely litigate the exit fee before paying it.
** Edited by WBGV at 6/6/2024, 1:51:00 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
found the fees exorbitant or unreasonable and their resolutions came on different grounds. The current fees were established and, more importantly, agreed to in processes designed to comply with previously established court precedents. Clemson and FSU are entitled to litigate to their heart's desire and the courts will decide absent an earlier settlement that likely only comes about with a lot of money from somewhere. Moreover, it would seem likely any new landing spot prior to the resolution of the legal cases will come with an entirely different set of concerns, somewhat akin to looking to marry someone before their previous divorce is final.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
M
mjfhokie
2y
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
The exit fees are just an internal condition of leaving the ACC that was established within the conference. It doesn't have any connection with the media contract or the GOR.
** Edited by HokieAl at 6/6/2024, 5:24:08 PM
(In response to this post by mjfhokie)
An annulment then? 🤷
You act like FSU and Clemson didn't sign anything. 🤣
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/6/2024, 6:38:35 PM
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2
2hhoop3
2y
but, like your previous response not really relevant to the questions asked.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
estimates because actual damages are elusive, at best. So the parties agree in advance to accept this estimate. Still could be litigated, but you can't just look at them and say they're excessive.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
Now whether they can convince a court that they are excessive and unreasonable is another matter.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
L
lawhokie
2y
It’s also difficult for sophisticated parties to argue, particularly after operating under an agreement and re-upping on the deal.
The cold, hard fact for Clemson and FSU is that there is almost no incentive to negotiate here. Reducing the exit fee by half on settlement does not mean that much to each remaining school, but it means a LOT to the two plaintiffs. So why not drag it out and let plaintiffs sweat?
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
attacks from the best angle they find.
(In response to this post by WBGV)
2y
conclusion since the media contract with the ACC is not available for interpretation by the fans. Personally, I don't think any conference or team dictates anything to the media companies.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)