Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 999596" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>Once again, I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. They are arguing the validity of FSU's argument. They say that "the extension of <strong>any </strong>ESPN deadline does not fall within the definition of a 'Material Media Rights Agreement'" They do not actually say that the ACC agreed to an extension. It looks to me as if the ACC is trying hard to NOT expose confidential contract information regarding ESPN. I think it is likely that whatever the "option" is, it was extended, but the ACC isn't specifically stating that. They are only responding to claims that FSU has made.</p><p></p><p>They also do a good job of pointing out that FSU is relying on emotion in their pleading. In the "option extension" section they say that "<strong>any </strong>action by the conference in this regard has been known to Florida State for over two years, but Florida State did not object either to the agreement or the process by which it was approved." In other sections they discuss FSU's agreement with the ESPN contract and the GOR twice. They discuss the difference between media rights, contractually agreed to withdrawal fees, and "penalties" according to legal and contractual definitions.</p><p></p><p>I am not a lawyer, but I think they make some very strong arguments in this document. There are very few fanboy type statements. (There is at least one in "Count VII" where they said "As a final Hail Mary, ....") However, the FSU complaints are filled with them. "Draconian" GOR. (That the FSU BOT explicitly agreed to twice) They quote the overstatements in the FSU complaint and then quote laws, court precedents, and the ACC bylaws to refute the FSU complaints. </p><p></p><p>However the main request in this document is to stay the proceedings in Florida until the case in NC is resolved. They are not even asking for this case to be dropped, only stayed. Then IF any of the complaints are not handled by the lawsuit in NC, then address them in the court in Florida. I understand that you can't see it, and that you don't care, but the ACC's legal documents read like legal documents, while the FSU legal documents sound like drunk people arguing at a bar.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 999596, member: 2426"] Once again, I think you are reading too much into what they are saying. They are arguing the validity of FSU's argument. They say that "the extension of [B]any [/B]ESPN deadline does not fall within the definition of a 'Material Media Rights Agreement'" They do not actually say that the ACC agreed to an extension. It looks to me as if the ACC is trying hard to NOT expose confidential contract information regarding ESPN. I think it is likely that whatever the "option" is, it was extended, but the ACC isn't specifically stating that. They are only responding to claims that FSU has made. They also do a good job of pointing out that FSU is relying on emotion in their pleading. In the "option extension" section they say that "[B]any [/B]action by the conference in this regard has been known to Florida State for over two years, but Florida State did not object either to the agreement or the process by which it was approved." In other sections they discuss FSU's agreement with the ESPN contract and the GOR twice. They discuss the difference between media rights, contractually agreed to withdrawal fees, and "penalties" according to legal and contractual definitions. I am not a lawyer, but I think they make some very strong arguments in this document. There are very few fanboy type statements. (There is at least one in "Count VII" where they said "As a final Hail Mary, ....") However, the FSU complaints are filled with them. "Draconian" GOR. (That the FSU BOT explicitly agreed to twice) They quote the overstatements in the FSU complaint and then quote laws, court precedents, and the ACC bylaws to refute the FSU complaints. However the main request in this document is to stay the proceedings in Florida until the case in NC is resolved. They are not even asking for this case to be dropped, only stayed. Then IF any of the complaints are not handled by the lawsuit in NC, then address them in the court in Florida. I understand that you can't see it, and that you don't care, but the ACC's legal documents read like legal documents, while the FSU legal documents sound like drunk people arguing at a bar. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top