OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

[Rufus]

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).

 

[billybud]

....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.

 

[billybud]

....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."

 

[billybud]

...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.

 

[billybud]

Harvard law paper on GOR enforcibility....for law weenies..

https://www.troutman.com/a/web/344419/Wilhelm.pdf

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[billybud]

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".

 

[billybud]

...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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[billybud]

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...

 

[billybud]

...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.

 

[billybud]

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.

 

[huskymedic]

Billable hours for the win:

 

[billybud]

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.

 

[Rufus]

I want to see UNC and Miami file lawsuits in the coming months.

 

[KryHavok]

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...

 

[Chin Diesel]

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.

 

[CL82]

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?

 

[billybud]

Right. End result is same.

 

[Yardigan]

In a nutshell, if the ACC loses and the GOR is invalidated, ESPN may not renew the ESPN-ACC Agreement in 2027 and the ACC could go the way of the PAC 12. If the ACC settles with Clemsom/FSU, then the ACC may survive.

until the next wave wants to bolt

 

[Yardigan]

The only time they would sue is if they had somewhere to go. Not everyone has a soft landing spot. If the situation benefits you, are going to try and change to something else?

can't ever see FSU f'ball with no place to go

 

[MilliniumPrince]

It was a good day for the ACC

 

[Chin Diesel]

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?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's billybud's roundup of what FSU is saying.

Basically any school can buy their way out of the conference via exit fee and then they are released from the GoR.

How these cases play out in terms of timeline, commitments and money is beyond me. I'll go on a limb and say the Florida judge is sympathetic to FSU, the South Carolina judge is sympathetic towards Clemson and the North Carolina judge is the same towards the conference.

One side note, the overall college football implications of these cases is much less now because the Big12 is relatively stable and the Pac12 is gone. ACC is only conference left with a GoR that has any supposed teeth left in it.

 

[CL82]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's billybud's roundup of what FSU is saying.

Basically any school can buy their way out of the conference via exit fee and then they are released from the GoR.

How these cases play out in terms of timeline, commitments and money is beyond me. I'll go on a limb and say the Florida judge is sympathetic to FSU, the South Carolina judge is sympathetic towards Clemson and the North Carolina judge is the same towards the conference.

One side note, the overall college football implications of these cases is much less now because the Big12 is relatively stable and the Pac12 is gone. ACC is only conference left with a GoR that has any supposed teeth left in it.

Ah okay. I believe that Billy Budd has me blocked since I don't see his posts anymore.

The notion that a GOR is somehow rescinded by leaving the conference misses the point of the conveyance. It's like a car dealership deciding to terminate your three year lease after six months because it needs the car back.

As a rule contracts cannot be terminated merely because you've changed your mind and don't like what you agreed to. At least, not for free.

FSU liked this deal when it entered into it. Subsequently, it believes that its market value has changed and now wants to set aside the deal that it made FSU liked this deal when it entered into it. Subsequently, it believes that it's market value has changed and now wants to set aside the deal that it made disregarding every other party to that contract. Ultimately, they may be able to get those right back, but it won't be at no cost.