Conference Realignment

[iceeater1969]

Ok, u law suit guys, report what the FSU rulings mean.

Seems like GOOD FOR GT - EXTRND TILL WE ARE BETTER
Will check back

 

[RonJohn]

Ok, u law suit guys, report what the FSU rulings mean.

Seems like GOOD FOR GT - EXTRND TILL WE ARE BETTER
Will check back

The only thing that has happened so far is that the NC court has said that the lawsuit will remain in North Carolina. It will not be dismissed and it will not be stayed. I think it is believed that the Florida court is likely to stay that lawsuit pending the outcome of the lawsuit in NC.

This is likely is good for the ACC, but it is still just the beginning of the lawsuit. The ACC hasn't won yet. I'm sure that the Twitter and YouTube guys will be hyping this up either as the end of the line for FSU or the end of the line for the ACC, but it isn't. It is just the first step in a very long court process.

 

[ThatGuy]

For those who are looking for it, here's an article on the ruling:

ACC vs. FSU: FSU's motion to dismiss in NC is denied in part and granted in part, motion to stay is dismissed

A judge in North Carolina ruled on Thursday that Florida State's motion to dismiss or stay the case of the ACC vs. FSU was denied.

247sports.com

 

[iceeater1969]

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.

How can i get u to say.
The GOR is an attachment to the ESPN ACC agreement?

 

[Vespidae]

How can i get u to say.
The GOR is an attachment to the ESPN ACC agreement?

Why is that important to you? It is a fact that the GOR conveys individual rights to a collective. That the ESPN -ACC agreements predate it doesn't change that.

 

[FredJacket]

Season opener... who's going to have more penalty yards? Ga Tech or FSU?

...will be the best test ever on theory conference refs have "marching orders" to influence outcomes of games to greater good of the conference.

 

[TooTall]

 

[deeznats]

That's what a little bit of money and no taste looks like.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

What do you think Cabrea and Batt are doing during this cluster ****?

Well, if GT history is any indicator they are not doing much accept updating their resume for their next gig. But, since Cabrera seems to be engaged and JBatt is a young hungry guy maybe they are actually doing more than the bare minimum for their current employer. Time will tell. I sure hope some BIG officials and their spouses are in Augusta next week being accompanied by some GT alum.

 

[roadkill]

The only thing that has happened so far is that the NC court has said that the lawsuit will remain in North Carolina. It will not be dismissed and it will not be stayed. I think it is believed that the Florida court is likely to stay that lawsuit pending the outcome of the lawsuit in NC.

This is likely is good for the ACC, but it is still just the beginning of the lawsuit. The ACC hasn't won yet. I'm sure that the Twitter and YouTube guys will be hyping this up either as the end of the line for FSU or the end of the line for the ACC, but it isn't. It is just the first step in a very long court process.

For those who are looking for it, here's an article on the ruling:

ACC vs. FSU: FSU's motion to dismiss in NC is denied in part and granted in part, motion to stay is dismissed

A judge in North Carolina ruled on Thursday that Florida State's motion to dismiss or stay the case of the ACC vs. FSU was denied.

247sports.com

Based on my non-lawyer reading of the article, the reasons the court stated for denying 5 of the 6 motions from FSU do seem to bode well for the ACC. One of the reasons that the court stated was that the GOR was valid and enforceable.
But yeah this is just the beginning.

 

[g0lftime]

That's what a little bit of money and no taste looks like.

Does one of their boosters own a Dodge dealership?

 

[iceeater1969]

Why is that important to you? It is a fact that the GOR conveys individual rights to a collective. That the ESPN -ACC agreements predate it doesn't change that.

Your reluctance to look at the GOR ageeement relationship is a curosity.

Sure the GOR conveys individual rights to ACC collective and WOW it has severe penalties for early exit.
Was there a reason for this severe penalty - see BELOW.

This harsh agreement was not written for any other purpose than as a sub part to the ESPN agreement. This is clear to me.

Somewhere besides the GOR somebody thiught it was a good idea, that reqardless of internal cash generation, the media rights should be paid """equally for the WHOLE term"".
Thats dumber than the Tstan contract fot TFP THAT HAD NO ADJUSTMENT FOR BAD RESULTS AT END OF TERM.
No wonder Top schools are pissed.

BELOW
Looks to me that the big 4 ( clem, fsu, mia, unc) who at time could did not get invite to with ESPN SEC , got out voted by the rest of whole conference - and even made them sign the GOR.

ESPN must have hoped that their infusion of media money would add more depth to the conference = lots of quality competitive games. The battle for the top has been a one horse race.

ESPN and the top 4 must have had second thoughts and thus has a walk way provision.

Also , money is going to players, next unions, next strikes. ESPN will insist on a performance based payments.

Now , it appears w a reset that the top 4 have better chances for improvment , middle 6 or so can move and maintain and the bottom gruop better hope a deal can be worked out.

I am hopeful that ESPN ACC can be renegotiated to last 7 years. THE PRELIMINARY SQUABBLE OVER GOR GIVES TIME FOR ACREAL AGREEMENT TO NE REACHED.
Hopefully we can all be flexible and earn based on performance so we get thru to next reset. Be a great year for the middle to beat up on the top ACC.

 

[RonJohn]

Looks to me that the big 4 ( clem, fsu, mia, unc) who at time could did not get invite to with ESPN SEC , got out voted by the rest of whole conference - and even made them sign the GOR.

ESPN must have hoped that their infusion of media money would add more depth to the conference = lots of quality competitive games. The battle for the top has been a one horse race.

ESPN and the top 4 must have had second thoughts and thus has a walk way provision.

The "getting out voted" is wrong. There are quotes from the FSU BOT stating that the GOR is the best thing for FSU and the ACC, and that it will ensure that no further teams leave the conference. FSU wasn't "out voted", they were publicly touting the benefits to FSU of the agreement at the time it was signed.

There is no walk away provision in the GOR. There isn't any proof that there is a walk away provision in the ESPN Agreement, just a lot of YouTubers stating it as fact.

 

[stinger 1957]

Thought this an interesting discussion of the court cases and what is going on with the schools so far mentioned in the legal goings on. One of the participants seems to have some knowledge and a lot of the info that cleared up some of the discrepancies that I had been dealing with through the discussion here and else where. I've paid more attention to the possibilities outside of the legal doings, along with motivations that I could determine with each school etc. Not always easy to do in this case, lot of info I wasn't sure if right.
So this shed light on the area I had done less home work, the legal doings.
Maybe some might find it useful.

 

[RonJohn]

Based on my non-lawyer reading of the article, the reasons the court stated for denying 5 of the 6 motions from FSU do seem to bode well for the ACC. One of the reasons that the court stated was that the GOR was valid and enforceable.
But yeah this is just the beginning.

Non-lawyer also, but my understanding is that at this point in a case you have to be very careful about reading too much into things. I don't think the court has ruled that the GOR is valid and enforceable. It has only allowed the ACC's claims that "Grant of Rights Agreements are valid and enforceable contracts and that the FSU Board is estopped from making or has waived by its conduct any challenge to the Grant of Rights Agreements" to proceed. It hasn't dismissed that claim. The ACC will still have to prove those claims to the court. Much like a criminal case in a state with probable cause hearings instead of indictments, the court deciding that there is enough probable cause to proceed doesn't mean the defendant is guilty. It just means that the case can proceed further. I think that the ACC will likely win if the case goes all the way to a decision. I am just pointing out that we are very, very far away from an actual decision at this point.

 

[orientalnc]

Non-lawyer also, but my understanding is that at this point in a case you have to be very careful about reading too much into things. I don't think the court has ruled that the GOR is valid and enforceable. It has only allowed the ACC's claims that "Grant of Rights Agreements are valid and enforceable contracts and that the FSU Board is estopped from making or has waived by its conduct any challenge to the Grant of Rights Agreements" to proceed. It hasn't dismissed that claim. The ACC will still have to prove those claims to the court. Much like a criminal case in a state with probable cause hearings instead of indictments, the court deciding that there is enough probable cause to proceed doesn't mean the defendant is guilty. It just means that the case can proceed further. I think that the ACC will likely win if the case goes all the way to a decision. I am just pointing out that we are very, very far away from an actual decision at this point.

Technically you are correct. But the judge nudged up very close to saying the GOR is a dead zone for FSU. That is really the only claim the ACC cannot negotiate away and the claim FSU has to win outright to leave with any hope of joining another conference before 2036. This was a very bad day in court for FSU.

 

[RonJohn]

Thought this an interesting discussion of the court cases and what is going on with the schools so far mentioned in the legal goings on. One of the participants seems to have some knowledge and a lot of the info that cleared up some of the discrepancies that I had been dealing with through the discussion here and else where. I've paid more attention to the possibilities outside of the legal doings, along with motivations that I could determine with each school etc. Not always easy to do in this case, lot of info I wasn't sure if right.
So this shed light on the area I had done less home work, the legal doings.
Maybe some might find it useful.

From our posts yesterday, we are not at a point of negotiating an agreement at the present. The agreement was negotiated in 2013 and 2016. We are at the backend when someone wants out of the agreement that was negotiated. That is why I am concentrating on the details of that contract. I haven't been to court over it, but I have been in situations where one party wants out of a contract. I won't say that no negotiations can take place at that time, but the important thing is what the contract actually says. In the instances I was involved in, it came down to who would be paid what, and how you determine the amounts. That was spelled out in the contract and wasn't too difficult to calculate based on the contract. The party leaving could have said that they think they should only pay X. However, if the contract clearly lists out what they have to pay, then what they think doesn't really matter at that point.

The GOR assigned the broadcast rights of all of the athletic associations to the ACC until 2027, and then was extended to 2036. FSU can feel like they should be allowed to market those rights for more money now that the market has changed, but the fact that the ACC owns those rights is clearly stated in the contract that they signed 11 years ago. The negotiating part ended 11 years ago. We are at the enforcement of the contract part.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Your reluctance to look at the GOR ageeement relationship is a curosity.

Sure the GOR conveys individual rights to ACC collective and WOW it has severe penalties for early exit.
Was there a reason for this severe penalty - see BELOW.

This harsh agreement was not written for any other purpose than as a sub part to the ESPN agreement. This is clear to me.

Somewhere besides the GOR somebody thiught it was a good idea, that reqardless of internal cash generation, the media rights should be paid """equally for the WHOLE term"".
Thats dumber than the Tstan contract fot TFP THAT HAD NO ADJUSTMENT FOR BAD RESULTS AT END OF TERM.
No wonder Top schools are pissed.

BELOW
Looks to me that the big 4 ( clem, fsu, mia, unc) who at time could did not get invite to with ESPN SEC , got out voted by the rest of whole conference - and even made them sign the GOR.

ESPN must have hoped that their infusion of media money would add more depth to the conference = lots of quality competitive games. The battle for the top has been a one horse race.

ESPN and the top 4 must have had second thoughts and thus has a walk way provision.

Also , money is going to players, next unions, next strikes. ESPN will insist on a performance based payments.

Now , it appears w a reset that the top 4 have better chances for improvment , middle 6 or so can move and maintain and the bottom gruop better hope a deal can be worked out.

I am hopeful that ESPN ACC can be renegotiated to last 7 years. THE PRELIMINARY SQUABBLE OVER GOR GIVES TIME FOR ACREAL AGREEMENT TO NE REACHED.
Hopefully we can all be flexible and earn based on performance so we get thru to next reset. Be a great year for the middle to beat up on the top ACC.

The language is very clear. There is zero ambiguity. The GOR is through 2036. PERIOD! There is nothing else to look at. There isn't any wiggle room. Why are you questioning this?

 

[ThatGuy]

Non-lawyer also, but my understanding is that at this point in a case you have to be very careful about reading too much into things. I don't think the court has ruled that the GOR is valid and enforceable. It has only allowed the ACC's claims that "Grant of Rights Agreements are valid and enforceable contracts and that the FSU Board is estopped from making or has waived by its conduct any challenge to the Grant of Rights Agreements" to proceed. It hasn't dismissed that claim. The ACC will still have to prove those claims to the court. Much like a criminal case in a state with probable cause hearings instead of indictments, the court deciding that there is enough probable cause to proceed doesn't mean the defendant is guilty. It just means that the case can proceed further. I think that the ACC will likely win if the case goes all the way to a decision. I am just pointing out that we are very, very far away from an actual decision at this point.

Technically you are correct. But the judge nudged up very close to saying the GOR is a dead zone for FSU. That is really the only claim the ACC cannot negotiate away and the claim FSU has to win outright to leave with any hope of joining another conference before 2036. This was a very bad day in court for FSU.

Also a non-lawyer - but someone who's been party to civil lawsuits that have moved through the courts. I think both of the above sentiments can be true here.

This ruling was but one link in the chain. A motion for dismissal is one of the first things in the process that is always thrown against the wall to see if it will stick. It was FSU's way of saying, "Here are our arguments in brief as to why the ACC's arguments are invalid, and don't deserve to even be heard." And by the same token, it was the ACC's way of arguing the counterpoint. The judge's ruling today legally means simply that he sees the ACC's arguments writ large (excluding 1 of 6 counts) as substantial enough to go to trial, and be argued more fully.

By the same token (lots of tokens floating around here), the judge did seem to indicate some of what he was thinking in his ruling. As @orientalnc said, one can read the room and determine his ruling indicates the direction he's leaning WRT the claim that the Grant of Rights is invalid and/or even challengeable.

But leaning does not equal ruling. These claims are still up for debate in trial, and FSU still has the opportunity to make that case.

Ultimately, this ruling simply means 5 out of 6 ACC claims in the lawsuit can go forward, and they can do so in a NC court. The next question is whether the FL court will defer to the NC court proceedings, or if we'll see 2 trials proceeding at the same time. And all of that happens long before any of this is argued in court, should that day even come to pass (it's my thought that it will, as the ACC rightfully understands that it's now in a fight for its own survival, and the Grant of Rights is the levee that's currently holding back the flood).

Putting myself in the shoes of both parties, I agree that it was a bad day in court for FSU - if only because it means their initial salvo was mostly defeated, and a longer, more protracted war (the trial) moves ahead. FSU's attorneys could think that is an advantage, based on the common practice of proposing a settlement to "avoid costly litigation." But IMO that's a miscalculation, given the stakes for the ACC. I personally think this lawsuit is worth every penny for the ACC in legal costs, for the sake of legally clarifying the strength of the Grant of Rights. So I hope it will continue to litigate it all the way through conclusion - which looks more likely with each of these types of rulings.

Again, though, that's just the opinion of one random dude on the internet reading the tea leaves.

 

[gameface]

Thought this an interesting discussion of the court cases and what is going on with the schools so far mentioned in the legal goings on. One of the participants seems to have some knowledge and a lot of the info that cleared up some of the discrepancies that I had been dealing with through the discussion here and else where. I've paid more attention to the possibilities outside of the legal doings, along with motivations that I could determine with each school etc. Not always easy to do in this case, lot of info I wasn't sure if right.
So this shed light on the area I had done less home work, the legal doings.
Maybe some might find it useful.

The expert in this video seems to ignor the fact the NC legislature has joined UNC and NCST at the hip. I believe one cannot leave without the other.