Conference Realignment

[Augusta_Jacket]

You can't use the restrictiveness of a contract to argue it isn't legally valid IF you sign it with full knowledge of the consequences. FSU specifically said "Nobody can afford to leave now", BEFORE they signed the contract.

You can't use that argument in a court of law, but it's been proven that people will argue it to death anyways in the court of public opinion.

 

[WreckinGT]

That is not true.

FSU can leave without their media rights if the choose to. The just have to pay the $130 million exit fee and they are no longer a member of the ACC. Whether FSU would want to do that or not is a different question.

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that FSU absolutely knew that the GOR would effectively lock them into the ACC back WHEN THEY SIGNED the document. You can't use the restrictiveness of a contract to argue it isn't legally valid IF you sign it with full knowledge of the consequences. FSU specifically said "Nobody can afford to leave now", BEFORE they signed the contract.

Also, consider that FSU did not announce they are leaving the ACC and then file their lawsuit. They are trying to get the court to tell them BEFORE they have any risk. Courts are usually reluctant to do so. IF FSU was as confident in their legal arguments as you seem to be, they would have announced in August and would be in court to get the court to reduce the financial impact that their actions had already caused.

This is like being stuck in a hut on an island with starving lions surrounding the outside. Sure, you are free to leave anytime you want. Assuming you don't care about existing.

 

[RonJohn]

How much guaranteed money will the ACC make in 2028? When the original GOR was signed what was the guaranteed amount of money the ACC network would make?

Have you read the ESPN contract? Do you know FOR A FACT that ESPN can simply walk away from the entire contract? None of us do. You are relying on FSU's Lawyers interpretation of FSU's statements about the contract. I don't think FSU's lawyers (for the lawsuit) have even read the ESPN contract. The public DOES NOT KNOW whether ESPN can just walk away or not.

However, even if ESPN can just walk away, FSU absolutely knew that in 2016 when they signed the extension of the GOR. This is once again trying to cancel a contract that FSU agreed to simply because other entities have been able to get better contracts.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The weeds are pretty thick here and I confess I’m reading less and less of the lengthier posts. Someone suggested that the members of the ACC could vote to dissolve the GOR. Is that true? Does the vote have to be unanimous? If not, what percentage?

If any of this true it tells me there is probably not a single member of the ACC who is not furiously, behind the scenes, looking for a landing spot outside of the ACC.

 

[orientalnc]

That is not true.

FSU can leave without their media rights if the choose to. The just have to pay the $130 million exit fee and they are no longer a member of the ACC. Whether FSU would want to do that or not is a different question.

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that FSU absolutely knew that the GOR would effectively lock them into the ACC back WHEN THEY SIGNED the document. You can't use the restrictiveness of a contract to argue it isn't legally valid IF you sign it with full knowledge of the consequences. FSU specifically said "Nobody can afford to leave now", BEFORE they signed the contract.

Also, consider that FSU did not announce they are leaving the ACC and then file their lawsuit. They are trying to get the court to tell them BEFORE they have any risk. Courts are usually reluctant to do so. IF FSU was as confident in their legal arguments as you seem to be, they would have announced in August and would be in court to get the court to reduce the financial impact that their actions had already caused.

This is what Maryland did when they left the ACC and is the primary reason for the GOR.

 

[RonJohn]

This is like being stuck in a hut on an island with starving lions surrounding the outside. Sure, you are free to leave anytime you want. Assuming you don't care about existing.

And the FSU BOT knew that when they signed the GOR. I keep reposting a quote from the FSU BOT in which that member states that exact thing. You can't break a contract you signed with full knowledge just because you don't like it anymore.

 

[stech81]

I"m not as smart as most of y'all But I seem to remember the reason for the GOR was to get the ACC their own network (ACCN)

On July 21, 2016, at a media event in Charlotte, North Carolina, ESPN announced a 20-year extension of its contract with the ACC, and that it would launch a cable channel dedicated to the ACC in 2019 known as the ACC Network. The announcement was attended by then-On July 21, 2016, at a media event in Charlotte, North Carolina, ESPN announced a 20-year extension of its contract with the ACC, and that it would launch a cable channel dedicated to the ACC in 2019 known as the ACC Network. The announcement was attended by then-ESPN president John Skipper and ACC commissioner John Swofford. Ahead of the television network's launch, ESPN announced that it would begin to stream ACC events beginning in the upcoming 2016 season.[4][5] Following the announcement, Skipper defended the decision to go on with launching a linear television network, arguing that sports were the most valuable property on television because they are "the only thing you have to watch live".[1]and ACC commissioner John Swofford. Ahead of the television network's launch, ESPN announced that it would begin to stream ACC events beginning in the upcoming 2016 season.[4][5] Following the announcement, Skipper defended the decision to go on with launching a linear television network, arguing that sports were the most valuable property on television because they are "the only thing you have to watch live".[1]

 

[RonJohn]

The weeds are pretty thick here and I confess I’m reading less and less of the lengthier posts. Someone suggested that the members of the ACC could vote to dissolve the GOR. Is that true? Does the vote have to be unanimous? If not, what percentage?

If any of this true it tells me there is probably not a single member of the ACC who is not furiously, behind the scenes, looking for a landing spot outside of the ACC.

The GOR requires the signature of every single member to change. There has been a lot of discussion about dissolving the ACC. The ACC bylaws require a 3/4 majority to change the bylaws, which dissolving the conference would be. It would take 100% to change the GOR. I takes 12 currently to dissolve the ACC. When the new members join it will require 14 to dissolve.

 

[RonJohn]

I"m not as smart as most of y'all But I seem to remember the reason for the GOR was to get the ACC their own network (ACCN)

On July 21, 2016, at a media event in Charlotte, North Carolina, ESPN announced a 20-year extension of its contract with the ACC, and that it would launch a cable channel dedicated to the ACC in 2019 known as the ACC Network. The announcement was attended by then-On July 21, 2016, at a media event in Charlotte, North Carolina, ESPN announced a 20-year extension of its contract with the ACC, and that it would launch a cable channel dedicated to the ACC in 2019 known as the ACC Network. The announcement was attended by then-ESPN president John Skipper and ACC commissioner John Swofford. Ahead of the television network's launch, ESPN announced that it would begin to stream ACC events beginning in the upcoming 2016 season.[4][5] Following the announcement, Skipper defended the decision to go on with launching a linear television network, arguing that sports were the most valuable property on television because they are "the only thing you have to watch live".[1]and ACC commissioner John Swofford. Ahead of the television network's launch, ESPN announced that it would begin to stream ACC events beginning in the upcoming 2016 season.[4][5] Following the announcement, Skipper defended the decision to go on with launching a linear television network, arguing that sports were the most valuable property on television because they are "the only thing you have to watch live".[1]

The GOR was first signed in 2013. It was a reaction to Maryland leaving the conference. It was extended in 2016 in order to get the new ESPN contract, which included the ACCN.

 

[WreckinGT]

Have you read the ESPN contract? Do you know FOR A FACT that ESPN can simply walk away from the entire contract? None of us do. You are relying on FSU's Lawyers interpretation of FSU's statements about the contract. I don't think FSU's lawyers (for the lawsuit) have even read the ESPN contract. The public DOES NOT KNOW whether ESPN can just walk away or not.

However, even if ESPN can just walk away, FSU absolutely knew that in 2016 when they signed the extension of the GOR. This is once again trying to cancel a contract that FSU agreed to simply because other entities have been able to get better contracts.

Thats really all that we have to go off of. If big name lawyers are willing to put the following in a complaint:

It is a widely repeated misconception that the ACC’s multi-media rights agreement expires in 2036. As explained below, in truth, the multi-media rights agreement expires in 2027 unless ESPN chooses to exercise its unilateral option through 2036, a decision ESPN has no duty to make until February 2025, thanks to other additional conference mismanagement detailed below.

Then I am going to take that at somewhat face value. Assuming they aren't trying to get disbarred. If we are going to assume that everything in the complaint is a lie then there is no point in discussing anything at all.

 

[RonJohn]

Thats really all that we have to go off of. If big name lawyers are willing to put the following in a complaint:

Then I am going to take that at somewhat face value. Assuming they aren't trying to get disbarred. If we are going to assume that everything in the complaint is a lie then there is no point in discussing anything at all.

I don't assume that everything in the complaint is a "lie". However, does that quote from the complaint include quotes from the ESPN contract? Do the words they used actually mean that the entire contract expires in 2027 unless ESPN extends it? Could it mean that portions of the agreement expire? Could it be that FSU explained things to the lawyers, but didn't include every detail? Could it be that the agreement for the ACCN expires, but the broadcast of games would still be intact?

We don't know, other than FSU's interpretation of what it says. Try to step back from emotion and look at things logically. Don't put pure faith in how FSU describes things. Don't put pure faith in how the ACC describes things. Try to find backup information. Try to find facts to judge FSU's and ACC's interpretation of the issues. My complaint with FSU's filing is that it doesn't follow a logical path. It mixes ideas instead of clearly stating issues and specifying what law provides a remedy for that issue. It may seem as though they are clearly stating things, such as -- It costs $572 million to leave the ACC. However, that is not a true factual statement. It costs $130 million to leave the ACC. There would be an additional cost to get their media rights back, but that is an entirely separate issue under an entirely separate area of law. It may work well to convince the public, and it has apparently convinced you. However, it is not a legal argument.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Thats really all that we have to go off of. If big name lawyers are willing to put the following in a complaint:

Then I am going to take that at somewhat face value. Assuming they aren't trying to get disbarred. If we are going to assume that everything in the complaint is a lie then there is no point in discussing anything at all.

Frivolous lawsuits rarely get lawyers disbarred. Lawsuits like this are common practice. They generally aren't ever intended to be litigated in court but rather to wage enough of a PR campaign that the defending party chooses to settle out of court. I am fairly certain that's what FSU is attempting here.

 

[billga99]

I tried to stay out of this, but I thought no one has seen the contract with ESPN. Lot of people keep saying that in 2027 ESPN could walk away. Now I know the little girl (Swofford) was not the best, but could it be possible the way the contract reads is in 2027 that ESPN still has to honor the contract till 2036 at the same price or increase the payout after 2027 as long as all the teams signed the GOR.

Another thing is streaming services such as Apple TV and Amazon have aligned with professional sports. It is not inconceivable they might want entry into College Sports to have more content. While not ideal, the ACC is in a lot of large markets.

 

[WreckinGT]

I don't assume that everything in the complaint is a "lie". However, does that quote from the complaint include quotes from the ESPN contract? Do the words they used actually mean that the entire contract expires in 2027 unless ESPN extends it? Could it mean that portions of the agreement expire? Could it be that FSU explained things to the lawyers, but didn't include every detail? Could it be that the agreement for the ACCN expires, but the broadcast of games would still be intact?

We don't know, other than FSU's interpretation of what it says. Try to step back from emotion and look at things logically. Don't put pure faith in how FSU describes things. Don't put pure faith in how the ACC describes things. Try to find backup information. Try to find facts to judge FSU's and ACC's interpretation of the issues. My complaint with FSU's filing is that it doesn't follow a logical path. It mixes ideas instead of clearly stating issues and specifying what law provides a remedy for that issue. It may seem as though they are clearly stating things, such as -- It costs $572 million to leave the ACC. However, that is not a true factual statement. It costs $130 million to leave the ACC. There would be an additional cost to get their media rights back, but that is an entirely separate issue under an entirely separate area of law. It may work well to convince the public, and it has apparently convinced you. However, it is not a legal argument.

I mean, of course it doesn't have quotes from the ESPN contract. FSU doesn't even have a copy of the ESPN contract, nor are they even allowed to take notes on it after viewing it in a secure location. But the claim is fairly straight forward. I'm not sure there is much interpretation you can give to it outside of what it says. ESPN and the ACC sure didn't seem to think it was a lie, or falsely represented. Shortly after the complaint was filed ESPN and the ACC both notified FSU that it had disclosed confidential information. The ACC then added release of trade secrets to its follow up complaint amendment. Pretending all of this is made up is really grasping for straws at this point.

 

[WreckinGT]

Frivolous lawsuits rarely get lawyers disbarred. Lawsuits like this are common practice. They generally aren't ever intended to be litigated in court but rather to wage enough of a PR campaign that the defending party chooses to settle out of court. I am fairly certain that's what FSU is attempting here.

Frivolous lawsuit is different than completely lying about sensitive contract details in a legal complaint. It may not lead to disbarment but at the very least it poses significant legal problems for FSU and their legal team when it is very easily disproven.

 

[RonJohn]

I mean, of course it doesn't have quotes from the ESPN contract. FSU doesn't even have a copy of the ESPN contract, nor are they even allowed to take notes on it after viewing it in a secure location. But the claim is fairly straight forward. I'm not sure there is much interpretation you can give to it outside of what it says. ESPN and the ACC sure didn't seem to think it was a lie, or falsely represented. Shortly after the complaint was filed ESPN and the ACC both notified FSU that it had disclosed confidential information. The ACC then added release of trade secrets to its follow up complaint amendment. Pretending all of this is made up is really grasping for straws at this point.

The ACC nor ESPN are going to respond to clarify things. It is a confidential agreement. You shouldn't release confidential information, like FSU apparently did. You don't try to mitigate misrepresentation of a confidential agreement by publicly saying what the agreement actually is.

"Lies", "pretending this is all made up", etc. Those are not logical statements or arguments. If you want to try to convince me, then go into details about the law and what law FSU is going to use to force the ACC to sell their media rights back. Point out to me what laws are going to force the ACC to allow FSU to leave the ACC without paying the contractually agreed to exit fee. I am not interested in arguing about feelings, or what someone thinks the ACC contract or law should be. I am interested in how the law applies to FSU's claims.

 

[GTpdm]

More money? There are reasons to want to join in with the P2. If we don't, it won't be the end of Tech football. But it will be different.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Frivolous lawsuit is different than completely lying about sensitive contract details in a legal complaint. It may not lead to disbarment but at the very least it poses significant legal problems for FSU and their legal team when it is very easily disproven.

Not really. This is the textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit. Launch an all out media blitz to announce a public relations nightmare of a lawsuit on shaky (at best) legal grounds with just enough "truth" conflated with misconstrued assertions and hope that the ACC decides not to spend money on the defense of a contract holding a school that clearly wants to leave in place. I've spoken with two friends who are lawyers, both fans of SEC teams, and both have said that the only chance FSU has in court is if they get an extremely sympathetic judge in a South Florida venue on a snow day that keeps the ACC lawyers from showing up. Barring that, they see no legal path forward for FSU regaining their rights unless the ACC agrees to sell them back to them.

 

[yeti92]

This is like being stuck in a hut on an island with starving lions surrounding the outside. Sure, you are free to leave anytime you want. Assuming you don't care about existing.

No it's not. It's like FSU and every other ACC member agreeing they should go to an island, and once there, they will all donate their boats to be used for wood to build a big hut. Now FSU sees that the SEC and BIG have managed to build bigger huts on their islands, so FSU wants its wood back to sail over to join them.

No you can't have your wood back, the hut is already built. But you can start swimming, and maybe you won't drown.

 

[WreckinGT]

The ACC nor ESPN are going to respond to clarify things. It is a confidential agreement. You shouldn't release confidential information, like FSU apparently did. You don't try to mitigate misrepresentation of a confidential agreement by publicly saying what the agreement actually is.

"Lies", "pretending this is all made up", etc. Those are not logical statements or arguments. If you want to try to convince me, then go into details about the law and what law FSU is going to use to force the ACC to sell their media rights back. Point out to me what laws are going to force the ACC to allow FSU to leave the ACC without paying the contractually agreed to exit fee. I am not interested in arguing about feelings, or what someone thinks the ACC contract or law should be. I am interested in how the law applies to FSU's claims.

We are speaking about the claim made by FSU that the media rights agreement with ESPN will expire in 2027 unless ESPN exercises their unilateral right to extend it. You seem to be convinced that FSU made this up or completely twisted something else. I think "lies" or "made this up" fit pretty well here. Either that or you are asserting that FSU's general council is horribly incompetent and can't read a contract and thinks they read something that never existed. That one seems unlikely.

What we know is FSU made the assertion that they did. ESPN and the ACC notified them of exposing confidential information. The ACC quoted their statement about the rights expiration in their amended complaint and blacked out what FSU actually said, while accusing them of exposing trade secrets. I'm not sure which part of that sequence has led you to believe there is no truth to the original assertion. Frankly, your extreme dislike of FSU appears to be clouding your judgement here.