OT: - Florida State to sue ACC over GOR | Page 32 | The Boneyard

OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

If you read Clemson's filing (posted up a bit)...you will see that portions of the ESPN contract are referenced in the filing and are blacked out on the court documents available to the public...
 
billybud said:
If you read Clemson's filing (posted up a bit)...you will see that portions of the ESPN contract are referenced in the filing and are blacked out on the court documents available to the public...
Expand ...
And (per the tweet) they'll get the entire contract but will be required to keep it confidential. The blacked out portions will still not be available to the public.

Are you claiming that because the public doesn't know all of the details of hundreds of millions of dollars in the agreed upon business dealings between ESPN and the ACC it should be invalidated?
 
Are you claiming that because the public doesn't know all of the details of hundreds of millions of dollars in the agreed upon business dealings between ESPN and the ACC it should be invalidated?

nope...What the public knows has no bearing. What the Members know of the ESPN Agreement is what they have been told for years by the ACC

What seems important has already been outlined....a quickie summation for you since you seem to have not followed the issue. Read Clemson's brief for detail.

...The GOR, the ESPN Agreement, and the By Laws work together to define the obligations of an ACC Member. The GOR has been available and states that the Members assign their "rights" to the ACC for the sole purpose of meeting the obligations of the ESPN Agreement...but with the ESPN Agreement kept secret, no Member knew what the obligations were. They had to rely on the ACC saying....this is what they are because we told you so.

...Clemson and FSU desire the courts to issue a judicial declaration of legal rights since they can not determine the obligations without the linked GOR AND ESPN contract. They claim that the ACC has made erroneous assertions. And continues to do so.

The ACC is also being charged, in the Clemson suit, with proliferating to the media, and to Members, incorrect information about the obligations of the Grant of Rights, and information about the ESPN Agreement being in force through 2036 while knowing that the ESPN Agreement ends in 2026.... and not letting Members know that ESPN had until 2021 to extend the Agreement to 2036 (which ESPN did not do)....not letting the Members know that Jim Phillips unilaterally gave ESPN an extension to 2025 to declare that they would or would not take up the option.

Clemson is suing the Conference for damages claiming that the ACC misled with intent...

Now...Re public information...the schools got rebuffed when asking for the ESPN Agreement...the ACC refused to make it available to them...Trade Secrets.

The problem for all will be the law...Florida has a robust public information law (and so does South Carolina)...what will happen is that the court will review the super top secret ESPN Agreement during their deliberations and determine, with input from the parties, what is actually protected as a "trade secret" and what is not....only 13 pages of a 161 page document was submitted to the court in Leon County.
 
I know what Clemson's claims are. I also know that normal course in legal disagreements such as this is exaggeration, willful misinterpretation or out and out puffery when presenting their side.

I am not sure what point you were trying to make with your post that I replied to. If you would like to explain, I'm all ears.
 
You replied to a unadorned informational link to the Clemson suit...

You don't think that Clemson has any legs...OK...goody for you.

Other than antagonism...what point are you trying to make ?

Nah...belay that.
 
.-.
billybud said:
If you read Clemson's filing (posted up a bit)...you will see that portions of the ESPN contract are referenced in the filing and are blacked out on the court documents available to the public...
Expand ...
The above is the full text of your post which I responded to.

I ask again, if my initial response was off point (as you claimed) what was the point that you were attempting to make?
 
No point other than that you can’t tell much about the case since the most relevant portions were redacted. And that none of us have access so we only know the allegations.
 
Both suits hinge on the ESPN Agreement. We can surmise but can’t really have a too educated opinion. Personally, I think that the ACC has liabilities in this case. You may think differently and that’s ok.
 
There is a lot of fact finding to go before a judge makes a decision based on found facts and points of law.
 
I don't understand this great moral affront that people don't have access to the contract. Those who signed it agreed to the restrictions. Now we can argue they never had the right to make that agreement but the time to make that objection was at signing.
 
.-.
Patman said:
I don't understand this great moral affront that people don't have access to the contract. Those who signed it agreed to the restrictions. Now we can argue they never had the right to make that agreement but the time to make that objection was at signing.
Expand ...
I agree somewhat with your point. For example, for something cut and dry, like the exit fee, it was crystal clear what it was. Clemson voted for it. While Florida St. voted against it, their agreeing to the GOR and its extension is clear that they eventually accepted the exit fee, or they were too stupid to insist on amending it before voting for the GOR.

But with regards to the GOR itself, Florida St., Clemson, North Carolina, and others were inexplicably gullible and foolish to trust the ACC with their agreement with ESPN. But that doesn’t excuse the ACC if they lied to their member schools during the course of the agreement. I can’t see a judge siding with the ACC for being corrupt, because Florida St. and their attorneys were grossly incompetent when they signed the GORs.
 
Everybody signed the GOR...so all schools in the ACC are thus grossly incompetent.

The problem is not the GOR...it is that no schools could see the ESPN contract and all schools took the word of the ACC re contents. And the GOR and the ESPN Agreement together make up the Member obligation to the conference.

Now it appears that the ACC was not above board, and in acts of existential desperation has been misleading their members regarding the ESPN Agreement.

Some Members don't care about the ACC's putative misrepresentation because they need the conference to stay as it is (think BC, Cuse, Wake, etc)....some Members think that they might have a spot in a conference they would prefer better.
Clemson has gone as far as to sue the ACC for damages caused by fraudulent misrepresentations.
 
Some may wonder why FSU has not yet sued for damages while Clemson has...

States differ...

In Florida, a party must seek leave of court to plead punitive damages and must demonstrate to the court through a proffer of evidence that there is a reasonable basis for which the trier of fact (a jury or the judge in a bench trial) could ultimately find that conduct rises to the level where punitive damages may be awarded. Because leave of court is required, a party cannot just simply request punitive damages in an initial court filing but has to do so during a later proceeding where the pleadings are sought to be amended.
 
Me, most likely

I enjoy conversing...but don't converse when someone gets personal or ugly...I don't remember Excalibur...but by his acronym use, I could see me saying..."this isn't about sports, it is an attack". Since I can not remember..I have unignored him and he can now ignore me...LOL
 
Why are these schools even suing? What do they hope to get out of it? Surely the ACC isn't going to just wake up one morning and go "you know what those schools are right, let's give them more money." Why not just honor your side of the deal but make it clear that when it ends you will be exploring other options?
 
.-.
hoopsfan22 said:
Why are these schools even suing? What do they hope to get out of it? Surely the ACC isn't going to just wake up one morning and go "you know what those schools are right, let's give them more money." Why not just honor your side of the deal but make it clear that when it ends you will be exploring other options?
Expand ...
To reduce the settlement that will inevitably happen.

Or to entice enough schools to agree on o implode the conference
 
billybud said:
Me, most likely

I enjoy conversing...but don't converse when someone gets personal or ugly...I don't remember Excalibur...but by his acronym use, I could see me saying..."this isn't about sports, it is an attack". Since I can not remember..I have unignored him and he can now ignore me...LOL
Expand ...
Hang tough Billybud, love your takes and more importantly how closely you follow and inform us of the goings on during this insane process. Take the high road and always remember, it's never about you, rather the poster who likes to trash you
 
hoopsfan22 said:
Why are these schools even suing? What do they hope to get out of it? Surely the ACC isn't going to just wake up one morning and go "you know what those schools are right, let's give them more money." Why not just honor your side of the deal but make it clear that when it ends you will be exploring other options?
Expand ...

Fair enough...Clemson and FSU have just asked the courts "what is our side of the deal?"...

The problem for the ACC is that it appears that they have misrepresented just what the deal is...

Through 2036 as they have stated over and over..or through 2026 ? Have they hidden the fact that ESPN only has through 2026 and did not exercise their option to extend to by the date in the ESPN Agreement (2021) ?

Clemson is getting the ESPN Agreement...receipt of the ESPN agreement is still problematic for FSU since, under the law of the state, it will become public information. And the State AG is already suing to enforce the laws of the state.

One might well ask, while you are at it.."why has the whole 161 page ESPN Agreement, that impacts the duties schools owe the conference, been kept top secret...contents hidden from the schools that it effects ?

Trade Secrets ? The whole dang contract ?
 
IIRC, the initial dismissal by a Florida court was due to the court not being allowed to 'interpret' until a suit specifically asking the court to do so is brought forward.

It sounds to me that FSU, Clemson and any other member of the conference now has full ability to view wh a's t they claimed they had been prevented from viewing. Unless any school views the confidentiality as unreasonable, there is no reason for things to move forward. The schools can have their legal teams review the documents and then decide if they do or do not have cause to bring a suit (and let the courts decide if the legality of the agreements in question).
 
billybud said:
Fair enough...Clemson and FSU have just asked the courts "what is our side of the deal?"...

The problem for the ACC is that it appears that they have misrepresented just what the deal is...

Through 2036 as they have stated over and over..or through 2026 ? Have they hidden the fact that ESPN only has through 2026 and did not exercise their option to extend to by the date in the ESPN Agreement (2021) ?

Clemson is getting the ESPN Agreement...receipt of the ESPN agreement is still problematic for FSU since, under the law of the state, it will become public information. And the State AG is already suing to enforce the laws of the state.

One might well ask, while you are at it.."why has the whole 161 page ESPN Agreement, that impacts the duties schools owe the conference, been kept top secret...contents hidden from the schools that it effects ?

Trade Secrets ? The whole dang contract ?
Expand ...

So, this basically comes down to the universities may have been naive and gave the conference full autonomy to negotiate on behalf of the universities and then lock the universities in to the deal the conference negotiated.

OTOH, while holding all those Trump cards, the conference may have deceived or withheld info from those same universities.
 
.-.
FSU has not been able to get a copy of the ESPN Agreement nor has the Florida Attorney General ....In South Carolina, the judge has ordered that Clemson receive within seven days, an unredacted copy of the ESPN Agreement. He has declared that, for now, that it was confidential and could only be reviewed by the attorneys.

No school has the ESPN Agreement as of now.

Florida law and the case law supporting that (as I linked in this thread) mean that if FSU receives a copy of the ESPN Agreement to review than it becomes public information.
 
Last edited:
I believe that Judge Cooper, in Florida, will have the ACC/ESPN declare just what in the ESPN contract is a "trade secret"...and surely not the entire contract. Florida law does make an allowance for the protection of trade secrets...but nobody has declared that the whole contract is a trade secret.. The judge will than issue a decision on what is protected and what is not.
 
Chin Diesel said:
So, this basically comes down to the universities may have been naive and gave the conference full autonomy to negotiate on behalf of the universities and then lock the universities in to the deal the conference negotiated.

OTOH, while holding all those Trump cards, the conference may have deceived or withheld info from those same universities.
Expand ...
I guess that is possible, though I would think it is unlikely. I would assume that the CEO of the Conference wasn’t authorized to sign an agreement without a vote of the Board which consists of the Member Presidents and Chancellors. And I highly doubt they would authorize such an agreement without reviewing it. No board would. I guess it is possible that the President of Clemson today wouldn’t agree with what her predecessor did, but we all live with contacts our predecessors made that we wish they hadn’t.
 
But. The ESPN contract was secret. The schools never could review it. Until now. And Clemson will get a non redacted copy.

If there have been willful misrepresentations, the ACC will be in a bad way. Clemson is suing for damages and, I’d suppose, FSU might follow. I hear old Dandy Don singing softly..”Close the door, turn out the lights, the party’s over”.
 
Chin Diesel said:
So, this basically comes down to the universities may have been naive and gave the conference full autonomy to negotiate on behalf of the universities and then lock the universities in to the deal the conference negotiated.

OTOH, while holding all those Trump cards, the conference may have deceived or withheld info from those same universities.
Expand ...
Hard to see it this way. The schools make up the conference. Unless 1 group of schools within the conference set out to deceive the other group.

I just think Clemson and FSU and to a lesser degree UNC now see that if they were paired with a different group of schools they stand to make more money. The schools left behind will make less so they have every right to put up a stink.

The only logical conclusion is certain schools representatives were really bad in relation to "not knowing" what is and isn't in the agreement.
 
billybud said:
But. The ESPN contract was secret. The schools never could review it. Until now. And Clemson will get a non redacted copy.

If there have been willful misrepresentations, the ACC will be in a bad way. Clemson is suing for damages and, I’d suppose, FSU might follow. I hear old Dandy Don singing softly..”Close the door, turn out the lights, the party’s over”.
Expand ...
But the ACC IS the schools. If a 30 year agreement was signed without their concurrence as is being claimed, there is a huge problem
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,221
Messages
4,557,838
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom