OT: - Florida State to sue ACC over GOR | Page 29 | The Boneyard

OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

The SEC-ESPN Agreement has been found. If the ACC-ESPN Agreement has the same boilerplate...it is huge for Clemson and FSU and I could see why it would be kept on the hush-hush.

The language "for as long as as the Institution is a member of the SEC..." ...means that if an Institution leaves the conference, the conference does not control rights into the future.

The ACC governing documents...By laws, Constitution allow an Institution to leave the conference upon notice and payment of an Exit Fee. The ACC GOR states that the Institution grants the ACC rights for the sole purpose of fulfilling the duties of the ESPN Agreement.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the market or contract dynamics. That's not boilerplate - it's a fundamental negotiated term of the agreement. The SEC didn't need the same sort of lock-in as the ACC because when you are on the top of the financial pyramid, there's little or no risk of parties exiting. The ACC members, however, recognized that they were at risk of getting picked off one-by-one with the remaining parties potentially getting screwed. Further, it wasn't even apparent which players would be chosen. At that time accumulating set top boxes on a state by state basis was the goal and conferences were essentially contiguous. Few anticipated the rate of decline of linear TV or the emergence of nationwide conferences. So it was not at all obvious that FSU and Clemson, the schools that now have the highest opinion of themselves, would be the prime targets because they were distant from the Big 10 and Big 12 while being potentially redundant for the SEC due to UF and the eastern USC. So the schools decided as a group, including FSU and Clemson, that the best path was to sign the GOR. Now some think they can do better and want out. It's that simple.
 
The "bottom" group is praying that the GOR is ironclad AND lasts until 2036!! Can you imagine if BC and Syracuse ended up free agents and looked to the SW and SE respectively at having to compete with UConn for a Conference spot? We are a couple of good FB seasons away from eclipsing them. All they can hope for is to hang on to the ACC. (we did just beat BC 2 years ago in FB, yes?)
 
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the market or contract dynamics. That's not boilerplate - it's a fundamental negotiated term of the agreement. The SEC didn't need the same sort of lock-in as the ACC because when you are on the top of the financial pyramid, there's little or no risk of parties exiting. The ACC members, however, recognized that they were at risk of getting picked off one-by-one with the remaining parties potentially getting screwed. Further, it wasn't even apparent which players would be chosen. At that time accumulating set top boxes on a state by state basis was the goal and conferences were essentially contiguous. Few anticipated the rate of decline of linear TV or the emergence of nationwide conferences. So it was not at all obvious that FSU and Clemson, the schools that now have the highest opinion of themselves, would be the prime targets because they were distant from the Big 10 and Big 12 while being potentially redundant for the SEC due to UF and the eastern USC. So the schools decided as a group, including FSU and Clemson, that the best path was to sign the GOR. Now some think they can do better and want out. It's that simple.

This is exactly correct.
 
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the market or contract dynamics. That's not boilerplate - it's a fundamental negotiated term of the agreement. The SEC didn't need the same sort of lock-in as the ACC because when you are on the top of the financial pyramid, there's little or no risk of parties exiting. The ACC members, however, recognized that they were at risk of getting picked off one-by-one with the remaining parties potentially getting screwed. Further, it wasn't even apparent which players would be chosen. At that time accumulating set top boxes on a state by state basis was the goal and conferences were essentially contiguous. Few anticipated the rate of decline of linear TV or the emergence of nationwide conferences. So it was not at all obvious that FSU and Clemson, the schools that now have the highest opinion of themselves, would be the prime targets because they were distant from the Big 10 and Big 12 while being potentially redundant for the SEC due to UF and the eastern USC. So the schools decided as a group, including FSU and Clemson, that the best path was to sign the GOR. Now some think they can do better and want out. It's that simple.

Fundamental lack of understanding of the GOR/ESPN contract and ACC By Laws/Constitution you have....

The GOR is a fairly simple piece...but it does not stand alone...it speaks of "rights" being granted only for the ACC to meet their contract obligations with ESPN....

Now, with those obligations kept a secret by the conference, two schools have asked the courts to declare just what does this binding agreement entail ?

And...if what many of us think has happened, there has been misrepresentation of those obligations by the conference.

Why...why do you think that the conference has been keeping everything secret ? Already it has come out they have lied to the membership. It would not have been known without FSU insisting they needed more than.."this is the way it is because we tell you it is".

Now, you are right about the motivation...FSU and Clemson believe there has been an inept conference administration and that they could do better in another conference...They see the ACC administration as driving the same bus towards the boat launch that the PAC 12 did.

The ACC's heart beats in Tobacco Road. They all play each other while it is FSU that travels to Syracuse and Boston....And..Although Wake Forest is in FSU's division (no Duke or UNC), they have played 10 games combined against North Carolina and Duke in the last five seasons (to FSU's 4).

The court filings are simple...they ask the court to pierce the secret veil and define just what are the contracted obligations of the conference members...neither Clemson nor FSU has resigned from the conference. But they will if the court finds that the contract obligations have been kept secret because they have been misrepresented and the schools may pay the Exit Fee (per the By Laws) and that the ACC may meet their ESPN contract obligations.

I would not be at all surprised if ESPN did not meet their obligation to announce an extension of their ACC contract by 2021 (extend option was from 2027 to 2036) because they have no intention to extend).
 
I guess that I'll be checking for look in updates from the Tallahassee court house today...

Shoot ! I remember when updates from the Tallahassee courthouse meant something different....the good ole days.
 
The GOR is a fairly simple piece...but it does not stand alone...it speaks of "rights" being granted only for the ACC to meet their contract obligations with ESPN....

Now, with those obligations kept a secret by the conference, two schools have asked the courts to declare just what does this binding agreement entail ?

Facinating! The ACC, a member institution, had its members enter into a contract with those members not knowing or understanding key provisions of the contracts. Makes me question the overall competence of the respective ADs who, presumably, recommended entering into these contracts to their respective schools.
 
.-.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the market or contract dynamics. That's not boilerplate - it's a fundamental negotiated term of the agreement. The SEC didn't need the same sort of lock-in as the ACC because when you are on the top of the financial pyramid, there's little or no risk of parties exiting. The ACC members, however, recognized that they were at risk of getting picked off one-by-one with the remaining parties potentially getting screwed. Further, it wasn't even apparent which players would be chosen. At that time accumulating set top boxes on a state by state basis was the goal and conferences were essentially contiguous. Few anticipated the rate of decline of linear TV or the emergence of nationwide conferences. So it was not at all obvious that FSU and Clemson, the schools that now have the highest opinion of themselves, would be the prime targets because they were distant from the Big 10 and Big 12 while being potentially redundant for the SEC due to UF and the eastern USC. So the schools decided as a group, including FSU and Clemson, that the best path was to sign the GOR. Now some think they can do better and want out. It's that simple.
Exactly. The SEC top dogs will always reserve the right to leave Vanderbilt and Mississippi St and Missouri behind.
 
lol! That's really what you took away from that post?
"The SEC didn't need the same sort of lock-in as the ACC because when you are on the top of the financial pyramid, there's little or no risk of parties exiting."
 
courthouse...updates

...The ACC attorney saying FSU's lawsuit is asking the court to do something that is "improper." She's saying the judge doesn't have the authority to do what FSU is asking him to do -- to give an opinion on a contract when FSU hasn't even decided if it is going to leave. She says the court isn't supposed to give "advisory opinions."

...Attorney Peter Rush for FSU is now responding. He explains that FSU isn't asking for improper guidance. They're asking him to resolve a "contract dispute." He's saying FSU and the ACC are in conflict about terms of their deal. And a judge does have the authority to decide those matters.

...FSU attorney says there are three contracts involved here: the ESPN agreement, the ACC Constitution bylaws and the Grant of Rights. Says that FSU still hasn't gotten the ESPN agreement despite asking for it several times. And he says the other two never mention the Grant of Rigfhts.
 
Even though the talking heads said the GOR was ironclad in the beginning, I have never believed that. If it was so ironclad, the ACC wouldn't have been so secretive with the document. Now that it is being ripped apart, it clearly has multiple flaws. I hope this all goes to discovery before a settlement with FSU, Clemson, and whoever else is going to take this to court (looking at you UNC and Miami).
 
....FSU lawyer finally bringing ACC's self-arguments against them and pointing out the GOR is limited solely to the ESPN Agreement AND that the ACC argued in court that ESPN has no rights to FSU games after FSU leaves.

ACC admits that ESPN has no rights to FSU games after FSU leaves (they claim the ACC does), however- GOR is plain that only rights surrendered are those only necessary to perform the ESPN Agreement.
 
.-.
....Can't give play-by-play. But basically, FSU's attorney is arguing why the Grant of Rights doesn't really bind FSU. He's saying that FSU leaving does not stop the ACC from having a TV deal with ESPN. "Bottom line ... the ESPN agreement does not extend to the home games Florida State plays after it leaves."
 
...The ACC attorneys are now arguing that FSU's case shouldn't be handled in Leon County because FSU hasn't established that this is the proper jurisdiction. ... Judge Cooper asking for clarity of the ACC's argument.
 
Facinating! The ACC, a member institution, had its members enter into a contract with those members not knowing or understanding key provisions of the contracts. Makes me question the overall competence of the respective ADs who, presumably, recommended entering into these contracts to their respective schools.
Yeah. I’m sort of skeptical myself. These are large public institutions for the most part. They have very large legal staffs both in the institutions and outside. Having worked with many public institutions, I find it difficult to believe they signed any agreement without a very thorough legal review. Plus I doubt the AD signed off. Most likely it was the university President/Chancellor/Board Chair or someone at that level.
 
No school signed nor had access to the ESPN Agreement...nor is a direct party to it.

The ACC contracted with ESPN and then said.."guys, it's a secret, but believe us when we tell you the gist of it".
 
...Judge Cooper is bringing up cases in Florida where people came together to hold meetings and conduct business in Florida. One where people agreed to financially support a pro golfer, and he would then split proceeds with them. The golfer lived in Florida, so the case was decided in Florida. ... He's pointing out that FSU is arguing that their home games are played in Florida. So that should be the jurisdiction. He's explaining FSU's argument.
 
.-.
Even though the talking heads said the GOR was ironclad in the beginning, I have never believed that. If it was so ironclad, the ACC wouldn't have been so secretive with the document. Now that it is being ripped apart, it clearly has multiple flaws. I hope this all goes to discovery before a settlement with FSU, Clemson, and whoever else is going to take this to court (looking at you UNC and Miami).

You talk such utter nonsense. There is a very specific reason FSU may have a gap to slip through here, which is the ESPN "look in", and since you didn't know that prior to this lawsuit, if you "never believed" that the GORs were enforceable then you were a moron.
 
Even though the talking heads said the GOR was ironclad in the beginning, I have never believed that. If it was so ironclad, the ACC wouldn't have been so secretive with the document. Now that it is being ripped apart, it clearly has multiple flaws. I hope this all goes to discovery before a settlement with FSU, Clemson, and whoever else is going to take this to court (looking at you UNC and Miami).
Everything about this seems weird. I don’t think I have ever seen a contract that doesn’t specify which state court will have jurisdiction in disputes. Even when one institution is from another state, and files in that state, eventually both courts agree as to which has jurisdiction. Otherwise it is a mess. Normally the agreements specifically state which one applies.

Eventually I still think this will be settled. Every single one of these ultimately has settled. This will be no different.
 
I think that FSU wants Judge Cooper to rule that the GOR says what both FSU and the ACC agree it says: that ESPN has no right to broadcast a member's home games once that member leaves the acc.

That would, inherently, mean that the GOR no longer applies to the withdrawing member, as the GOR only applies to the ESPN agreement (which the acc admits would no longer include the withdrawing member).

The GOR would not be invalidated, just not enforceable...FSU seems to be requesting that the GOR be interpreted and enforced exactly how it was written

I do think the Judge Cooper will push mediation...
 
...ACC attorney is reiterating her argument that FSU's complaint doesn't meet the requirements for "long-arm statute" for personal jurisdiction.

...Judge Cooper is ruling that FSU will have to amend its complaint to make a clear statement of personal jurisdiction. Makes it clear that he’s not ruling against FSU in the big picture. But with so much at stake, he wants the complaint to be more clear.

... “The case is not over. The case will continue.” But they’ll have to have a hearing on personal jurisdiction after FSU files amended complaint.

...Cooper also is ordering mediation within 120 days. He's advocating for the two sides to go the mediation route. (They don't have to actually come to an agreement. But he is ordering them to talk and see if there's a way to resolve out of court. ... This is something his court does with all cases)

...The ACC attorneys now asking for 20 days from the date that they receive the amended complaint.
 
2 pm... Cooper reiterating that this is not a dismissal of the case, but a "dismissal with leave to amend." He says that is very common in civil cases and doesn't mean anything in the big picture. Just that he wants the FSU attorneys to file a more clear amended complaint. But it does mean a delay of another month or so, while the North Carolina case moves forward.
 
.-.
Looking OK for FSU so far...judge held for fSU on two out of three issues and the third issue will be argued after an amended filing. Judge Cooper is being diligent.

Re what this means in terms of settlement ? Who knows.

The case has not really begun...nobody has been disposed, no records ordered...and the Clemson case will be moving forward and I'll bet that they have been taking notes.
 
Eventually I still think this will be settled. Every single one of these ultimately has settled. This will be no different.
A wise man once said...
1000007151.jpg
 
I think that FSU wants Judge Cooper to rule that the GOR says what both FSU and the ACC agree it says: that ESPN has no right to broadcast a member's home games once that member leaves the acc.

That would, inherently, mean that the GOR no longer applies to the withdrawing member, as the GOR only applies to the ESPN agreement (which the acc admits would no longer include the withdrawing member).

The GOR would not be invalidated, just not enforceable...FSU seems to be requesting that the GOR be interpreted and enforced exactly how it was written

I do think the Judge Cooper will push mediation...

A distinction without a difference. If they GOR only applies so long as an institution is a member fo the ACC, they can leave just by paying and exit fee and immediately retain their GoR going forward, then the GoR is worthless to 90% of the ACC.
 
A distinction without a difference. If they GOR only applies so long as an institution is a member fo the ACC, they can leave just by paying and exit fee and immediately retain their GoR going forward, then the GoR is worthless to 90% of the ACC.
So... the grant of rights is designed to add value to immediate contract by guaranteeing that member schools conveyance of their rights can't be terminated before the end of the term of the grant. But, you're saying that it can be ended at any time by school leaving the conference. How do those two things reconcile if you are ESPN and want certainty about the institutions for which you've purchased broadcast rights?
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,225
Messages
4,558,121
Members
10,443
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom