Conference Realignment

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,966
The GOR states (Paragraph 1) that each of the Schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference...all rights...necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement...”

By signing, member schools have to give the Conference control of all broadcasts that they sold to ESPN. The Schools do not own them. The Schools cannot revoke this. FSU has no leg to stand on.
Do u think that , based on the concurrent timing of GOR and ESPN, it's very very likely the schools individual rights are waved for this deal alone?
All contracts i have seen have a term- agree?

Would seem like if linked and assuming ESPN has right to a cancel the deal, then if ESPN says ( no more squabbling) the GOR is therefore gone.

Or is it possible the term is much longer than this deal?
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
Do u think that , based on the concurrent timing of GOR and ESPN, it's very very likely the schools individual rights are waved for this deal alone?
All contracts i have seen have a term- agree?

Would seem like if linked and assuming ESPN has right to a cancel the deal, then if ESPN says ( no more squabbling) the GOR is therefore gone.

Or is it possible the term is much longer than this deal?
The term in the GOR document is until June 30, 2027. It was then extended in the amendment to June 30, 2036.

The term wouldn't change if ESPN can and does cancel the contract. However, I have said before, that it seems to me that an argument can be made that in that situation there are rights needed for contractual obligations that don't exist any more. If such a thing happens, lawyers will be making a lot of money arguing over commas and word placements.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,966
The term in the GOR document is until June 30, 2027. It was then extended in the amendment to June 30, 2036.

The term wouldn't change if ESPN can and does cancel the contract. However, I have said before, that it seems to me that an argument can be made that in that situation there are rights needed for contractual obligations that don't exist any more. If such a thing happens, lawyers will be making a lot of money arguing over commas and word placements.
Contracts usually have a "purpose" - that went not do able voids the whole contract. Details of the UNWIND are in general conditions and law and could have a mention in the Special conditions.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
Contracts usually have a "purpose" - that went not do able voids the whole contract. Details of the UNWIND are in general conditions and law and could have a mention in the Special conditions.
Here is a link to the document if you want to read it:


EDIT: BTW, there isn't an unwind clause in the document. In fact, it requires approval from every single member to modify the contract. Not a majority, not a super majority, unanimity.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,974
Location
Auburn, AL
Do u think that , based on the concurrent timing of GOR and ESPN, it's very very likely the schools individual rights are waved for this deal alone?
All contracts i have seen have a term- agree?

Would seem like if linked and assuming ESPN has right to a cancel the deal, then if ESPN says ( no more squabbling) the GOR is therefore gone.

Or is it possible the term is much longer than this deal?
They were not concurrent at the time they were signed. The ESPN agreements are dated July 8, 2010, May 9, 2012, and June 24, 2014. The term of the GOR is through June 30, 2027, but that is modified per the amendment to June 30, 2036.

The GOR specifically states that the member schools have to irrevocably grant their rights to the Conference “regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term.”

It doesn’t mention anything about linking the GOR TO ESPN, only that the Conference did. And that the schools agreed to do so by waiving their rights.
 

gtbeak

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
308
Really interesting article in The Athletic about a “Super League”
Two primary problems with that proposal. #1, it takes power away from Sankey and the Big 10 commish, and #2, it is mostly a fair solution, meaning that the schools at the top of the heap right now would have to cede the high ground they hold.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,120
Really interesting article in The Athletic about a “Super League”
Yeah - interesting concepts indeed. Probably won't fly due to the leadership of the P4 pushing back, but some of the ideas would be a solution to what is happening with NIL and the legal landscape, as well as allowing the schools to continue supporting non-revenue sports.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,330
It is great to discuss all the legal ins and outs of contracts/deals that were signed/made but nobody has seen. What keeps screaming at me is only 13-14 pages of 140+ pages will the parties that signed all these agreements allow the entities actually effected by the whole 140+ pages to see. Somewhere all of what ever they don't want those parties effected and the public to see is going to be seen. That is a BIG pressure point on ESPN and the conference management. They have to know they are subject to possible exposure they do not want.
What that says to me is a deal is going to be made pretty quickly that allows the schools that want to leave to do so. Exactly how that plays out and what actually happens to the ACC conference I have no idea. Something is going to happen and pretty soon I'm sensing. It will be agreed upon by enough members to let it happen. There are a lot of other schools that want out, some have been relatively quiet during a lot of this. Schools want off this sinking ship. And folks it is sinking. As someone previously said "turn out the lights now or turn out the lights later". They are going out. Another pressure point is the 3 new schools coming into ACC as voting members July 1, 2024 if I have the date right and all those that want out of the ACC will have to act before then.
Somewhere back I saw where ESPN said they wanted their investment into the ACC Network back. I'm guessing they get it back when they make a deal.

What else for all involved is pure guesswork without being able to see or know nearly enough. But I can see the pressure points and they are big in deal making. There may be more but notice that there are pressure points on both sides, that is how parties come together. The ACC as we know it is gone bye bye. I feel very strongly GT will be gone and will not remain around if there is something left of the ACC. I feel very strongly where they will end up but will not mention that here because I'm not privileged to know for sure. Pretty sure there are others that feel the same or maybe some even know.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
It is great to discuss all the legal ins and outs of contracts/deals that were signed/made but nobody has seen. What keeps screaming at me is only 13-14 pages of 140+ pages will the parties that signed all these agreements allow the entities actually effected by the whole 140+ pages to see. Somewhere all of what ever they don't want those parties effected and the public to see is going to be seen. That is a BIG pressure point on ESPN and the conference management. They have to know they are subject to possible exposure they do not want.
What that says to me is a deal is going to be made pretty quickly that allows the schools that want to leave to do so. Exactly how that plays out and what actually happens to the ACC conference I have no idea. Something is going to happen and pretty soon I'm sensing. It will be agreed upon by enough members to let it happen. There are a lot of other schools that want out, some have been relatively quiet during a lot of this. Schools want off this sinking ship. And folks it is sinking. As someone previously said "turn out the lights now or turn out the lights later". They are going out. Another pressure point is the 3 new schools coming into ACC as voting members July 1, 2024 if I have the date right and all those that want out of the ACC will have to act before then.
Somewhere back I saw where ESPN said they wanted their investment into the ACC Network back. I'm guessing they get it back when they make a deal.

What else for all involved is pure guesswork without being able to see or know nearly enough. But I can see the pressure points and they are big in deal making. There may be more but notice that there are pressure points on both sides, that is how parties come together. The ACC as we know it is gone bye bye. I feel very strongly GT will be gone and will not remain around if there is something left of the ACC. I feel very strongly where they will end up but will not mention that here because I'm not privileged to know for sure. Pretty sure there are others that feel the same or maybe some even know.
I have a lot of questions about your post:
  • Why do you believe that ACC members cannot see the ESPN agreement? What I have read is that they cannot copy or take pictures of the agreement. That they have to travel to the NC headquarters to review it. But I haven't seen anything even remotely official that says that they cannot even view it.
  • Why do you think pressure to "expose" the contract is going to cause the ACC to "allow the schools to leave"? The schools are free to leave anytime they want to. They still won't own their media rights, but they can leave. The ACC and ESPN have been battering down the hatches instead of cowering and capitulating. ESPN even accused FSU and it's lawyers of committing felonies. I don't see either group getting ready to lay down. I see them fighting to uphold NDAs, and ESPN fighting to protect supposed trade secrets.
  • Why do you think "a lot of other schools want out"? Reportedly only one school abstained from voting to file a lawsuit against FSU. If the schools want out as bad as you believe, why are they not stopping the lawsuit against FSU?
  • Where have you read that ESPN wants their investment in the ACC Network back? How much do you think ESPN has put into it? What would make you think that they could charge the ACC for that money? Do you realize that every ACC member was required to build infrastructure and a broadcasting center on campus? Non-revenue sports broadcasts are not even produced and transmitted to the ACCN with ESPN equipment. It is all done with school equipment. I don't know the exact policies, but it appears to me that GT broadcasts are even done with GTAA employees instead of ESPN or ACCN employees. The ACCN has to be the lowest cost network that ESPN has.
I don't see the pressure points that you see. The FSU lawsuit is almost farcical. Other than being public, I don't see any pressure points at all against the ACC.

What I do see changing things are unions and employment lawsuits. The Athletic article today apparently says that the P5 teams (P4 plus Pac12) plus a few others are going to form a super league that will negotiate with a player's union. I haven't read the article, but from what others have said, the Super league would basically do away with conferences and form divisions. I think that is probably the only way to accomplish such a league. The NCAA president hinted that such a thing could happen a few months ago. IF such a thing comes about, all of the worry about conference affiliation, and the FSU lawsuit will all be much ado about nothing.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,330
RonJohn, rather than me trying to answer all your questions, I see the same things you see, (although I have not seen the Athletic article) so lets just let it play out and see what happens. I would love to know what you do and/or have done. Would you share that with me?
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
RonJohn, rather than me trying to answer all your questions, I see the same things you see, (although I have not seen the Athletic article) so lets just let it play out and see what happens. I would love to know what you do and/or have done. Would you share that with me?
I am just an engineer. Did engineering mainly for 20 years or so. Have been doing more project management and people management for the last 10-12 years, and less and less engineering. No law degree, or legal training. Have been writing proposals for the last 12-15 years. Have been reviewing contracts and master services agreements for that length of time.

I think there are a lot of similarities between engineering and contract law. Both look at things without emotion and apply basic principles to whatever the situation is. Legal cases are exercises of basic logic. -- What happened in this instance, and what laws apply to such circumstances. -- My weakness in legal matters are things that I would have gotten in a legal education, which I lack. I don't have a good knowledge of the actual laws and precedents. I can search codes, but even when I find what I am looking for I don't know what else is out there. Just like similar things in engineering, you have to understand not only what this code says, but whether this code applies in this particular instance. Maybe more self-deprecating that I should be, but I realize that I have limitations. I think that too often people believe themselves to be more capable, or more knowledgeable than they actually are.

Maybe more than you asked for, but that is my background. Just an engineer.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,330
I am just an engineer. Did engineering mainly for 20 years or so. Have been doing more project management and people management for the last 10-12 years, and less and less engineering. No law degree, or legal training. Have been writing proposals for the last 12-15 years. Have been reviewing contracts and master services agreements for that length of time.

I think there are a lot of similarities between engineering and contract law. Both look at things without emotion and apply basic principles to whatever the situation is. Legal cases are exercises of basic logic. -- What happened in this instance, and what laws apply to such circumstances. -- My weakness in legal matters are things that I would have gotten in a legal education, which I lack. I don't have a good knowledge of the actual laws and precedents. I can search codes, but even when I find what I am looking for I don't know what else is out there. Just like similar things in engineering, you have to understand not only what this code says, but whether this code applies in this particular instance. Maybe more self-deprecating that I should be, but I realize that I have limitations. I think that too often people believe themselves to be more capable, or more knowledgeable than they actually are.

Maybe more than you asked for, but that is my background. Just an engineer.
So you spent a lot of time inside documents and data so to speak, hope I'm seeing that right? I see you getting wrapped up in lots of details in your post. That seems to be where you want to go. This explains a lot to me.

I'm an old deal man, I put together deals with Gov't entities, Corporations and individuals, finanacing was my strong suit in all of what I did. Outlooks and possibilities were important and in what I did you had to look and plan many moves ahead. You quickly learned where people were by reading them, you had to understand what all the motivations were and there were other things. I was always aware of the legalities but did not let myself get wrapped up in that because lawyers and CPAs are negative thinkers by training and I had to make things come together certainly within the laws, so I would end up most times telling the lawyers what we wanted rather than getting them involved in the negotiations. I was a businessman not a lawyer. I learned early on that lawyers were deal killers in many cases because they would get you caught up in a lot of legal details and the deal would get lost.
Glad we shared this as it explains to me that we are polar opposites in our mindsets. A lot of what I share regarding realignment comes from doing deals, so I'm seeing things that are not actually in writing. Could I be wrong, absolutely. I worry that some on here may be saying things that are not really there just from the little I have been able to put together, but I expect we will know something about the longterm fate of the ACC by fall, but will just have to wait and see if that is right.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,545
I expect we will know something about the longterm fate of the ACC by fall, but will just have to wait and see if that is right.
We are only 4 months and 12 days away from the announcement deadline to leave the ACC for the 2025 season. That isn't too far away.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,966
They were not concurrent at the time they were signed. The ESPN agreements are dated July 8, 2010, May 9, 2012, and June 24, 2014. The term of the GOR is through June 30, 2027, but that is modified per the amendment to June 30, 2036.

The GOR specifically states that the member schools have to irrevocably grant their rights to the Conference “regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term.”

It doesn’t mention anything about linking the GOR TO ESPN, only that the Conference did. And that the schools agreed to do so by waiving their rights

The GOR on the conference looks like an attachment to the ESPN agreement.
To a retired pipeline developer this looks like the acc is a group of producers - that are dedicating acreage to be developed- usually a map with yellow outline and some legals. The real contract has all kinds of performance requirements for both parties. ESPN is the old style pipeline that buys the output of the producers and gets it to the end. There are usually failure to performance clauses, remedies, methods to withdraw, blah, blah. At day 1 all are friends.

When some of the producers are finding a lot of product they want better terms and priorites than the lessor. At a set point reality sets in, and renegotiation occurs.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,974
Location
Auburn, AL
The GOR on the conference looks like an attachment to the ESPN agreement.
To a retired pipeline developer this looks like the acc is a group of producers - that are dedicating acreage to be developed- usually a map with yellow outline and some legals. The real contract has all kinds of performance requirements for both parties. ESPN is the old style pipeline that buys the output of the producers and gets it to the end. There are usually failure to performance clauses, remedies, methods to withdraw, blah, blah. At day 1 all are friends.

When some of the producers are finding a lot of product they want better terms and priorites than the lessor. At a set point reality sets in, and renegotiation occurs.
Not quite. The “producers” conveyed their rights to another who would negotiate on their collective behalf. The ESPN Agreement is between the conference and ESPN. A member school can leave, but their conveyed rights remain through the term.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,966
Not quite. The “producers” conveyed their rights to another who would negotiate on their collective behalf. The ESPN Agreement is between the conference and ESPN. A member school can leave, but their conveyed rights remain through the term.

The GOR is just a minor attachment in a large set of documents to make bank analysts and advertising consultants' say ESPN ACC is a good stable product.

The GOR is the Yellow circle where they simply pledge their acreage. We pledge our entertnaiment values to ESPN aand have severe penalties for failure to do so.

The real deal, the transportation agreement, has all the nuts and bolts.
It can have minimum number of wells drilled, minimum amount of performance, etc.


But does the ESPN ACC deal have metrics, penalties, bonuses, removal for individual programs, the conference?
It appears that the ESPN ACC deal does not go into internal investment performance requirements.


Consensus of the talking heads is that the ESPN ACC agreement does give ESPN the sole right for ALL STOP at a set time.

After an ALL STOP, the current GOR becomes moot???

Now the GOR is doing a fine job of making everyone get serious about next steps.

I would hope the agreement has some wind down clauses to provide order.

Hope we have a great season. Beating FSU would shock the world.
I am all in for GT. See you at ND and VT when we decide our future in football
 
Top