Let's see how it plays out...I will stay tuned but I will also point out that normally the bulk of what you hear in terms of allegations in suits where one side is attempting to terminate a binding agreement is loaded with exaggerations and intentionally misleading interpretations.
I will also add that Raycom had television rights with the ACC going back decades before the GOR was signed by any member schools in the ACC (I first heard of Raycom in the early 1980's and I doubt they were brand new at that time). I imagine all parties involved knew of the close relationship between the ACC and Raycom and were aware of employment benefits occurring between the two. On that part of FSU's complaint I would ask: when did they first know and why did they not bring this forward earlier?
So far your imagination about everyone knowing about Raycom hasn't been borne out. I just want to hear the major players speak under oath. (Even if the power of the oath doesn't always work, it will likely give us some good leads...)