If you took him as I did... iffy gameday coach, great talent evaluator, then you knew he was cooked no matter where he went because they wanted improvements right away with no backwards steps. It hurt more that over the time the game also passed him by. Edsall had so much at UConn but like all people he got an ego thinking he was better than what he was getting. Hathaway harmed the school so bad by his inactivity around the school. So i'm sure Edsall wanted to get out while the price was good.
OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR
- Thread starter Greedo
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 12,972
- Reaction Score
- 22,240
I put a ton of blame on Warde too. He was hired because he had an award from the NCAA for cleaning up Buffalo’s APR mess. But he was never ever committed to UConn. Nothing but a stepping stone for him. He was talking about Michigan from his first day on the job it seemed. He and Lax Susie were a horrible team at a critical moment. He hired both Diaco AND Ollie. He didn’t take Louisville seriously as a rival for the ACC.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,054
- Reaction Score
- 364,571
Florida AG files lawsuit against ACC in FSU case
Florida's attorney general sued the Atlantic Coast Conference on Thursday in an attempt to receive the media rights contracts with Florida State University as part of an ongoing dispute as FSU seeks to leave the conference.www.espn.com
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
McMurpjy is uninformed on the subject re Florida..obviously.
...just maybe different states have different laws re what are confidential and not public information.
But...that is not as click worthy as his "rah, rah, Big 12" comment.
Case Law exists in Florida...the NCAA tried to maintain that a record that they let FSU attorneys access in a read only mode were confidential and thus were not released. The Associated Press filed suit to access that information.
Judge Cooper in Florida's Leon County Court (the same judge hearing FSU vs NCAA currently) ruled that the NCAA must release the documents.
It was appealed to the Appeals Court...the NCAA lost..
Records created and maintained by the NCAA are not generally subject to public disclosure. However, the documents at issue in this case were examined by lawyers for a public agency, Florida State University, and used in the course of the agency's business. Because the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records. The NCAA has failed to show that an exception applies under state or federal law, and thus the records must be disclosed.
.....
The term “received” in section 119.011(12) refers not only to a situation in which a public agent takes physical delivery of a document, but also to one in which a public agent examines a document residing on a remote computer. If that were not the case, a party could easily circumvent the public records laws. The appeal by the University is a matter of public concern. It is not transformed into a private matter merely because the documents the University lawyers used to prepare the appeal reside on a computer owned by a private organization. As the plaintiffs expressed this point, the definition of a public record does not turn on the sender's method of transmission.
The lawyers signed a confidentiality agreement with the NCAA, but that has no impact on our decision that the transcript and response are public records. A public record cannot be transformed into a private record merely because an agent of the government has promised that it will be kept private. See Gadd v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 412 So.2d 894, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Browning v. Walton, 351 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Nor is it material that the NCAA had an expectation that the documents would remain private. As we explained in Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), “[A] private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information it furnishes a governmental agency confidential.” The right to examine these records is a right belonging to the public; it cannot be bargained away by a representative of the government.
For law weenies only:
...just maybe different states have different laws re what are confidential and not public information.
But...that is not as click worthy as his "rah, rah, Big 12" comment.
Case Law exists in Florida...the NCAA tried to maintain that a record that they let FSU attorneys access in a read only mode were confidential and thus were not released. The Associated Press filed suit to access that information.
Judge Cooper in Florida's Leon County Court (the same judge hearing FSU vs NCAA currently) ruled that the NCAA must release the documents.
It was appealed to the Appeals Court...the NCAA lost..
Records created and maintained by the NCAA are not generally subject to public disclosure. However, the documents at issue in this case were examined by lawyers for a public agency, Florida State University, and used in the course of the agency's business. Because the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records. The NCAA has failed to show that an exception applies under state or federal law, and thus the records must be disclosed.
.....
The term “received” in section 119.011(12) refers not only to a situation in which a public agent takes physical delivery of a document, but also to one in which a public agent examines a document residing on a remote computer. If that were not the case, a party could easily circumvent the public records laws. The appeal by the University is a matter of public concern. It is not transformed into a private matter merely because the documents the University lawyers used to prepare the appeal reside on a computer owned by a private organization. As the plaintiffs expressed this point, the definition of a public record does not turn on the sender's method of transmission.
The lawyers signed a confidentiality agreement with the NCAA, but that has no impact on our decision that the transcript and response are public records. A public record cannot be transformed into a private record merely because an agent of the government has promised that it will be kept private. See Gadd v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 412 So.2d 894, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Browning v. Walton, 351 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Nor is it material that the NCAA had an expectation that the documents would remain private. As we explained in Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), “[A] private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information it furnishes a governmental agency confidential.” The right to examine these records is a right belonging to the public; it cannot be bargained away by a representative of the government.
For law weenies only:
The ACC vs. Florida State and Clemson: The courtroom clash on which realignment’s future hangs
Everyone agrees that if FSU and/or Clemson are successful in court in nullifying a grant of rights, the results could be paradigm-shifting.
theathletic.com
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 93,054
- Reaction Score
- 364,571
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 13,359
- Reaction Score
- 48,401
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?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
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.
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.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 13,359
- Reaction Score
- 48,401
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.
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.
FfldCntyFan
Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 13,359
- Reaction Score
- 48,401
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?
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.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction Score
- 718
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.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
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.
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.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
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.
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.
which one?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 8,896
- Reaction Score
- 8,431
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
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
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 7,596
- Reaction Score
- 28,653
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?