- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,371
- Reaction Score
- 46,740
It doesn't matter.
By not leaving and taking the money, they've effectively agreed to it
OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR
- Thread starter Greedo
- Start date
By not leaving and taking the money, they've effectively agreed to it
UNC’s known for its basketball, not for its football, kinda similar to a school in Storrs that I’m familiar with. So you think an ACC basketball power will pay up on the GOR just to play basketball in the SEC and go 1-9 every year playing football. Great logic.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 15,356
- Reaction Score
- 16,690
or perhaps UNC considers their athletic department more holistically than we do.UNC’s known for its basketball, not for its football, kinda similar to a school in Storrs that I’m familiar with. So you think an ACC basketball power will pay up on the GOR just to play basketball in the SEC and go 1-9 every year playing football. Great logic.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 88,245
- Reaction Score
- 330,470
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 20,610
- Reaction Score
- 44,832
Yeah UNC football and UConn football are comparable. I think they'll put up with some extra losses in FB for double the money. I know we would.UNC’s known for its basketball, not for its football, kinda similar to a school in Storrs that I’m familiar with. So you think an ACC basketball power will pay up on the GOR just to play basketball in the SEC and go 1-9 every year playing football. Great logic.
UConn isn’t in any football conference, so of course they would. UNC is better off not paying the GOR penalty while staying in the ACC, and to wave around what would’ve been the $150,000,000 GOR penalty money to hire a new coaching staff and to buy every recruit in sight.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2016
- Messages
- 2,010
- Reaction Score
- 4,252
Not every ACC member, even those with a welcome mat to other power conferences, will leave the ACC even if the GOR is torn apart in court.UConn isn’t in any football conference, so of course they would. UNC is better off not paying the GOR penalty while staying in the ACC, and to wave around what would’ve been the $150,000,000 GOR penalty money to hire a new coaching staff and to buy every recruit in sight.
A lawyer who read through complain(s). His take below:
https://www.reddit.com/r/fsusports/search?q=flair_name:"FOOTBALL :newhelmet:"&restrict_sr=1
Its been almost a week since this early Christmas present and I’ve re-read FSU’s complaint. I have a few new thoughts about FSU’s lawsuit.
First, FSU’s lawsuit asks for only 2 things – · for the Court to interpret the contract to determine the amount of the exit fee. FSU argues that various penalty clauses are not enforceable. The result will be judicial certainty as to how much FSU owes.
Also, there is no request for damages from either the ACC for its anticompetitive behavior. Presumably, if FSU wins its suit then it can also demonstrate violation of state and federal antitrust laws, economic damages, and potentially receive treble damages. I’m guessing FSU is prioritizing exiting the ACC and finding a landing spot in a Power 2 conference before attempting to be made whole. But such a suit is possible down the road, and will be bolstered by the Florida AG’s investigation (which may expand to ESPN).
FSU in the last paragraph asks the court to deem its lawsuit as official notice of intent to withdraw as a member from the ACC and that such notice be effective as of August 14, 2023 (i.e. backdated).
Together, these mean that FSU is leaving, the only question is when and how much it will cost.
What’s not in the lawsuit
What is not in FSU’s suit may be as interesting as what is in it.
First, there is mention of Tier I and Tier III rights, but no mention of Tier II rights. Are these the rights that Swofford directed to Raycom?
Also, there is no request for damages from either the ACC for its anticompetitive behavior. Presumably if FSU wins its suit then it can also demonstrate violation of state and federal antitrust laws, economic damages, and potentially receive treble damages. I’m guessing FSU is prioritizing exiting the ACC and finding a landing spot in a Power 2 conference before attempting to be made whole. But such a suit is possible down the road, and will be bolstered by the Florida AG’s investigation (which may expand to ESPN).
Part I – Exit Fees
The crux of FSU’s lawsuit is to get the court to determine how much, if any, FSU owes the ACC to leave. There are 2 main “fees,” both of which were amended so I’ll analyze them as if they are 4 different fees.
Original Termination Fee – 1.25X operating budget (1.25* $43.3 million = $54 million). This exit fee was first added in September 2011 following the initial multimedia contract with ESPN. FSU refers to this fee as the ACC Withdrawal Penalty. The ACC made an attempt to justify this a liquidated damages, and a NC court apparently enforced this provision against Maryland a decade ago.
If this is all FSU has to pay its hard not to characterize the result as anything other than a home run (or a touchdown, as the case may be). Still, based on the ACC’s bad faith, I would say there is only an 85% chance that the court does not even enforce this provision whether due to bad faith, unclean hands, etc. Florida is a blue pencil state so I think there is a very large possibility this will be enforced, although that concept is not entirely on point here.
Severe Termination Fee – 3X operating budget (3* $43.3 million = $130 million). In September 2012 the conference increased the exit fee from 1.25 to 3.0X following a new 15 year agreement with ESPN. Its unclear what if any increase the ACC got over the prior agreement with ESPN. FSU refers to this fee as the Severe ACC Withdrawal Penalty.
Interestingly, a North Carolina court already ruled that this fee was an unenforceable penalty back in 2012 when Maryland exited. That was a different time and different circumstances, since Maryland didn’t “agree” to that amendment.
Still, I would say that the ACC will have a hard time enforcing this since the case has already been made that its an unenforceable penalty.
2013 GOR through 2027 (4 years remining *$13 million = $52 million). The initial GOR was agreed to in 2013 when the ACCN was contemplated. But according to FSU the ACC provided no additional consideration beyond the existing agreements. Further, the ACC made no attempt to justify the fee as liquidated damages as it had no relation to an estimate of future damages. And the ACC Constitution was not amended and still allows members to come and go.
This has been referred to in the media as the “ironclad” GOR but I fail to seen anything that makes this any more enforceable than the Severe Withdrawal Penalty that a court already ruled was not enforceable. The ACC in its answer may point to supposed consideration; all of this has been conducted behind closed doors so we will have to wait and see.
Without knowing more, I estimate a 90% chance that this will not be enforced for the reasons that convinced the North Carolina court to not enforce it against Maryland.
GOR through 2028 – 2036 (9 years remining * $13 million = $117 million). The amended GOR was agreed to in 2016 when Notre Dame joined as a partial member. ESPN was dragging its fee creating the ACCN (which competes for carriage with its SECN) and the ACC claimed ESPN required this amendment. But the ACC got no additional consideration beyond the existing agreements, which did not obligate ESPN to do anything beyond 2027.
For non-lawyers, “consideration” is a legal concept. There has to be a give and take for a promise to be the sort of promise a court will enforce as a contract. Imagine if you hire movers and agree to pay $1000 for your move. After they load your stuff on their truck, they change the price to $2000. You agree to this because your stuff was held hostage. So even though you sign a contract, a court won’t enforce the $2,000 amount because you didn’t receive anything additional for the increase. So the lack of additional consideration for the new promise (extension to 2036) is an additional, important reason why a court is not likely to enforce the GOR beyond 2027.
That said, this is based on reading FSU’s complaint alone. It looks like payouts increased from adding ND so maybe there was consideration. The ACC in its answer may point to supposed consideration; all of this has been conducted behind closed doors so we will have to wait and see.
As an aside, FSU labels these rights as worth $13 million a year. I don’t know where they got that figure. This is not a fee FSU would pay. Instead, if enforced FSU would not take its rights with it. That makes it less valuable to a future conference, and those rights might be worth far more than $13 million.
Without knowing more, I would estimate only a 10% chance this gets enforced. I see a Florida court having a really difficult time enforcing such a large penalty.
Withdrawal from ACC
I see no reason why a court won’t deem the lawsuit as notice to the ACC of FSU’s intent to withdraw. FSU did ask for this to be effective as of August 2023, which if honored would allow them to play in a different conference in 2024. As this is only a complaint, FSU didn’t provide reasons for why the Court should honor this request. I’m not aware of any but if I was FSU’s lawyer I would point to actions by the ACC last year to hinder or delay FSU’s notice. Without knowing more, getting out a year early is probably a stretch.
ACC’s lawsuit
The ACC’s lawsuit basically says that FSU has breached the ACC contracts by suing the ACC. FSU hasn’t answered the ACC lawsuit but FSU’s lawsuit lists many reasons why FSU’s performance of that clause should be excused. Its never easy to gauge the magnitude of a breach that will be sufficient to excuse the other side’s performance, but FSU makes a very strong case that its performance is excused.
Oddly, the interpretation of this contract may be a North Carolina issue, but FSU’s defense will be demonstrated under Florida law. It might happen that FSU is found to have breached the ACC agreement but is not liable for damages beyond the exit fee determined by the court above.
Conclusion
I think there is a very good chance FSU is able to exit on terms it finds attractive.
There is still probably a lot that we don’t know yet.
The backdating the notice of withdrawal is very interesting and makes one want to read between the lines.
Not sure why this complaint couldn’t have been filed in August last year or several years ago for that matter.
Interested in different opinions or things you think I may missed or gotten wrong – I’m a lawyer but I don’t practice in Floirda. I did have a matter in Leon County once and I can vouch for their love of home cooking lol.
Lawyers’ Thoughts on FSU’s Lawsuit
https://www.reddit.com/r/fsusports/search?q=flair_name:"FOOTBALL :newhelmet:"&restrict_sr=1
Its been almost a week since this early Christmas present and I’ve re-read FSU’s complaint. I have a few new thoughts about FSU’s lawsuit.
First, FSU’s lawsuit asks for only 2 things – · for the Court to interpret the contract to determine the amount of the exit fee. FSU argues that various penalty clauses are not enforceable. The result will be judicial certainty as to how much FSU owes.
Also, there is no request for damages from either the ACC for its anticompetitive behavior. Presumably, if FSU wins its suit then it can also demonstrate violation of state and federal antitrust laws, economic damages, and potentially receive treble damages. I’m guessing FSU is prioritizing exiting the ACC and finding a landing spot in a Power 2 conference before attempting to be made whole. But such a suit is possible down the road, and will be bolstered by the Florida AG’s investigation (which may expand to ESPN).
FSU in the last paragraph asks the court to deem its lawsuit as official notice of intent to withdraw as a member from the ACC and that such notice be effective as of August 14, 2023 (i.e. backdated).
Together, these mean that FSU is leaving, the only question is when and how much it will cost.
What’s not in the lawsuit
What is not in FSU’s suit may be as interesting as what is in it.
First, there is mention of Tier I and Tier III rights, but no mention of Tier II rights. Are these the rights that Swofford directed to Raycom?
Also, there is no request for damages from either the ACC for its anticompetitive behavior. Presumably if FSU wins its suit then it can also demonstrate violation of state and federal antitrust laws, economic damages, and potentially receive treble damages. I’m guessing FSU is prioritizing exiting the ACC and finding a landing spot in a Power 2 conference before attempting to be made whole. But such a suit is possible down the road, and will be bolstered by the Florida AG’s investigation (which may expand to ESPN).
Part I – Exit Fees
The crux of FSU’s lawsuit is to get the court to determine how much, if any, FSU owes the ACC to leave. There are 2 main “fees,” both of which were amended so I’ll analyze them as if they are 4 different fees.
Original Termination Fee – 1.25X operating budget (1.25* $43.3 million = $54 million). This exit fee was first added in September 2011 following the initial multimedia contract with ESPN. FSU refers to this fee as the ACC Withdrawal Penalty. The ACC made an attempt to justify this a liquidated damages, and a NC court apparently enforced this provision against Maryland a decade ago.
If this is all FSU has to pay its hard not to characterize the result as anything other than a home run (or a touchdown, as the case may be). Still, based on the ACC’s bad faith, I would say there is only an 85% chance that the court does not even enforce this provision whether due to bad faith, unclean hands, etc. Florida is a blue pencil state so I think there is a very large possibility this will be enforced, although that concept is not entirely on point here.
Severe Termination Fee – 3X operating budget (3* $43.3 million = $130 million). In September 2012 the conference increased the exit fee from 1.25 to 3.0X following a new 15 year agreement with ESPN. Its unclear what if any increase the ACC got over the prior agreement with ESPN. FSU refers to this fee as the Severe ACC Withdrawal Penalty.
Interestingly, a North Carolina court already ruled that this fee was an unenforceable penalty back in 2012 when Maryland exited. That was a different time and different circumstances, since Maryland didn’t “agree” to that amendment.
Still, I would say that the ACC will have a hard time enforcing this since the case has already been made that its an unenforceable penalty.
2013 GOR through 2027 (4 years remining *$13 million = $52 million). The initial GOR was agreed to in 2013 when the ACCN was contemplated. But according to FSU the ACC provided no additional consideration beyond the existing agreements. Further, the ACC made no attempt to justify the fee as liquidated damages as it had no relation to an estimate of future damages. And the ACC Constitution was not amended and still allows members to come and go.
This has been referred to in the media as the “ironclad” GOR but I fail to seen anything that makes this any more enforceable than the Severe Withdrawal Penalty that a court already ruled was not enforceable. The ACC in its answer may point to supposed consideration; all of this has been conducted behind closed doors so we will have to wait and see.
Without knowing more, I estimate a 90% chance that this will not be enforced for the reasons that convinced the North Carolina court to not enforce it against Maryland.
GOR through 2028 – 2036 (9 years remining * $13 million = $117 million). The amended GOR was agreed to in 2016 when Notre Dame joined as a partial member. ESPN was dragging its fee creating the ACCN (which competes for carriage with its SECN) and the ACC claimed ESPN required this amendment. But the ACC got no additional consideration beyond the existing agreements, which did not obligate ESPN to do anything beyond 2027.
For non-lawyers, “consideration” is a legal concept. There has to be a give and take for a promise to be the sort of promise a court will enforce as a contract. Imagine if you hire movers and agree to pay $1000 for your move. After they load your stuff on their truck, they change the price to $2000. You agree to this because your stuff was held hostage. So even though you sign a contract, a court won’t enforce the $2,000 amount because you didn’t receive anything additional for the increase. So the lack of additional consideration for the new promise (extension to 2036) is an additional, important reason why a court is not likely to enforce the GOR beyond 2027.
That said, this is based on reading FSU’s complaint alone. It looks like payouts increased from adding ND so maybe there was consideration. The ACC in its answer may point to supposed consideration; all of this has been conducted behind closed doors so we will have to wait and see.
As an aside, FSU labels these rights as worth $13 million a year. I don’t know where they got that figure. This is not a fee FSU would pay. Instead, if enforced FSU would not take its rights with it. That makes it less valuable to a future conference, and those rights might be worth far more than $13 million.
Without knowing more, I would estimate only a 10% chance this gets enforced. I see a Florida court having a really difficult time enforcing such a large penalty.
Withdrawal from ACC
I see no reason why a court won’t deem the lawsuit as notice to the ACC of FSU’s intent to withdraw. FSU did ask for this to be effective as of August 2023, which if honored would allow them to play in a different conference in 2024. As this is only a complaint, FSU didn’t provide reasons for why the Court should honor this request. I’m not aware of any but if I was FSU’s lawyer I would point to actions by the ACC last year to hinder or delay FSU’s notice. Without knowing more, getting out a year early is probably a stretch.
ACC’s lawsuit
The ACC’s lawsuit basically says that FSU has breached the ACC contracts by suing the ACC. FSU hasn’t answered the ACC lawsuit but FSU’s lawsuit lists many reasons why FSU’s performance of that clause should be excused. Its never easy to gauge the magnitude of a breach that will be sufficient to excuse the other side’s performance, but FSU makes a very strong case that its performance is excused.
Oddly, the interpretation of this contract may be a North Carolina issue, but FSU’s defense will be demonstrated under Florida law. It might happen that FSU is found to have breached the ACC agreement but is not liable for damages beyond the exit fee determined by the court above.
Conclusion
I think there is a very good chance FSU is able to exit on terms it finds attractive.
There is still probably a lot that we don’t know yet.
The backdating the notice of withdrawal is very interesting and makes one want to read between the lines.
Not sure why this complaint couldn’t have been filed in August last year or several years ago for that matter.
Interested in different opinions or things you think I may missed or gotten wrong – I’m a lawyer but I don’t practice in Floirda. I did have a matter in Leon County once and I can vouch for their love of home cooking lol.
The GOR can’t be torn apart in a state court, the ACC is a multi state entity. It’ll end up in a federal court where it will be upheld as long as the ACC has its contractual papers in order, to which I think they do.
The only thing the ACC has in order is the GOR through 2027. The additional 9 years were illegally extended because the original timeframe for ESPN to opt into the 9-year renewal has passed. The ACC Commissioner illegally extended the timeline for ESPN to opt in to a 9 year renewal (which it still has not yet done). Conference bylaws specifically state that the member schools must vote on this extension of the deadline and they did not. Therefore, the GOR was illegally extended by 9 years.
FSU has a strong case here and it would be wise for the ACC to settle with FSU or risk losing the case entirely, in which most members will scatter to the wind just like in the PAC-12. With a settlement, the amount FSU pays will at least make it difficult for most other schools to afford that exit fee. At least for a few more years. With each passing year, that amount will come down.
FSU has a strong case here and it would be wise for the ACC to settle with FSU or risk losing the case entirely, in which most members will scatter to the wind just like in the PAC-12. With a settlement, the amount FSU pays will at least make it difficult for most other schools to afford that exit fee. At least for a few more years. With each passing year, that amount will come down.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 20,610
- Reaction Score
- 44,832
The point of suing is to say the GOR is null and void based on a myriad of circumstances. Whether FSU or anyone else is right or wrong i don't have faintest clue. I tend to think FSU is stuck, but they're rolling the dice.UConn isn’t in any football conference, so of course they would. UNC is better off not paying the GOR penalty while staying in the ACC, and to wave around what would’ve been the $150,000,000 GOR penalty money to hire a new coaching staff and to buy every recruit in sight.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,050
- Reaction Score
- 32,126
They aren’t stuck. They found the loophole they needed to find.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 20,610
- Reaction Score
- 44,832
We will see. Hope you're right.
People seem to be forgetting this point.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction Score
- 8,438
It does matter - it's going to help their settlement cause.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,447
- Reaction Score
- 42,719
It was the option to extend the media deal that was extended, not the GOR. As far as that extension being illegal, we do not have sufficient information to determine this at this point. Time will tell.
If the ACC settles with FSU, it will open the door for others to consider departure and it will have set the price for departure.
They have a strong case in a Florida state court or county court. It’s a joke. The ACC is headquartered in North Carolina anyway, and there are 11 other states that have a say as well.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2022
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction Score
- 1,126
UNC has a perennially good football program that sold out every game this year in a 50k+ stadium in a football state. They will be just fine in a P2 conference (especially the B10) and will easily come up with the buyout $ from their massive base of athletic givers/P2 money. They aren’t taking any partial share either. We are not even in their stratosphere with the exception of tops bball. Their women’s/ non-rev sports are in constant contention for NCs. Top to bottom arguably the best athletic department in the country.UNC’s known for its basketball, not for its football, kinda similar to a school in Storrs that I’m familiar with. So you think an ACC basketball power will pay up on the GOR just to play basketball in the SEC and go 1-9 every year playing football. Great logic.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,447
- Reaction Score
- 42,719
No it can't. What can happen however is (if the Florida courts find some means to take this stance) is a state, such as Florida can rule it unenforceable within that state, which would effectively kill the GOR.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction Score
- 8,438
This is not going to court. The conference is made up of individual schools - schools that will go off and get themselves positioned for life away from the ACC. The conference as we know it will implode once 8 schools find landing spots. The remnants will expand in an effort to be the best of the non-power conferences (i.e. B1G, SEC and Big12).
Depends on their priority. Football or AAU membership?
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,545
- Reaction Score
- 13,406
i agree with those who believe
They’ill settle out of court on an exit fee that large enough to prevent anyone escaping to
the B12 but small enough that FSU will do it > $100 <200million
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction Score
- 8,438
They've historically been negotiated down to 60%.