OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

[uconndogs]

Georgia showed up……….big time!

 

[billybud]

Yep. I still think that the FSU starters made the right business decision by moving on

And it was an ugly game. But like UConn can’t let the ugly Maryland game define them, the Seminoles need to try to build and get on track.

 

[Exit 4]

helpful summation

 

[HuskyHawk]

Read the tweet above that explains why that would be a catastrophic and far reaching expansion of "sovereign immunity".

Yes. I'd add that it would make anyone else reluctant to contract with the state. State wants to buy police cars? Computers? Are those contracts now voidable? We already see appropriation language in multi-year state contracts that says that the following year's legislature could decide not to fund the contract, which is ok if performance is then excused.

FSU isn't going to win this one and the state of Florida shouldn't want it to.

 

[KryHavok]

helpful summation

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but this statement "Why would anyone enter a contract with a state entity when it can claim sovereign immunity to undo a deal?" has me thinking if the state believes it can unilaterally back out of deal, aren't they in affect empowering the other party to have the right to also undo the terms of deal? Not like this is valid, but if ESPN says "viewership for ACC games is down, therefore we reduce the contract by x million dollars" as a counterbalance to sovereign immunity. Seems to be an indefensible slippery slope.

 

[Exit 4]

Retired Bob quick to comment. This guy always seems to have sunshine for west coast stuff.

 

[Kolumbo]

Read the tweet above that explains why that would be a catastrophic and far reaching expansion of "sovereign immunity".

I sees that, but the thing is, states aren't commercial enterprises. Florida has over 22 million people who didn't vote for anyone at FSU, the ACC, or espn. Yet they are affected by all of these agreements.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but this statement "Why would anyone enter a contract with a state entity when it can claim sovereign immunity to undo a deal?" has me thinking if the state believes it can unilaterally back out of deal, aren't they in affect empowering the other party to have the right to also undo the terms of deal? Not like this is valid, but if ESPN says "viewership for ACC games is down, therefore we reduce the contract by x million dollars" as a counterbalance to sovereign immunity. Seems to be an indefensible slippery slope.

That's a fair argument. The answer is don't do it if you don't want to do it. The reason they will enter into agreements is profit. Creating a business relationship with a state is a huge money maker but you shouldn't be able to hold the state residents hostage when the terms of the contract become egregiously unfavorable to one side.

You have a contract with a business and if the business starts suffering, you would rather adjust the contract than have the business go bankrupt.

You have a contract with a state and if the state starts suffering you just expect to fleece the state because it can simply raise taxes. In this case it's as if espn wants the ACC to be 2nd tier and there is something very wrong with that tactic.

 

[JohnFSilver]

helpful summation

Where are our lawyers. FSU claiming sovereign immunity? I mean, that’s novel.

 

[CL82]

I sees that, but the thing is, states aren't commercial enterprises. Florida has over 22 million people who didn't vote for anyone at FSU, the ACC, or espn. Yet they are affected by all of these agreements

I'm not sure that this really enters the analysis one way or the other, except perhaps to weeken FSU's claim of sovereign immunity.

For a lot of reasons, which are explained well in that tweet it would be a catastrophic decision. Essentially, it would be giving a get out of jail free card to the state of Florida to leave any contract it doesn't like, even after enjoying its benefits for decades. That change in leverage would make the state of Florida a very unattractive business partner, which, in turn, would cause businesses not to enter contracts with the state, at least without a very, very, significant premium.

But setting all that aside for the moment, the easy decision is for the court to say that by entering into a interstate contract which has incorporated, liquidated damages positions, the state waives any sovereign immunity claim to the extent of those provisions.

Of course, an even easier decision would be to to note that sovereign immunity is a "tort" concept that isn't applicable in a contract action.

 

[Kolumbo]

I'm not sure that this really enters the analysis one way or the other, except perhaps to weeken FSU's claim of sovereign immunity.

"Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts."

 

[Hamms30]

Where are our lawyers. FSU claiming sovereign immunity? I mean, that’s novel.

Lethal Weapon 2.5

 

[CL82]

"Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts."

Thank you. I am familiar with the term.

Your quote was that "no one voted for FSU". My comment was that I didn't think that particularly mattered, but if you gave it any credence at all, it would tend to weaken its claim as a sovereign entity, essentially saying it was more of a "quasi private entity."

 

[Kolumbo]

Thank you. I am familiar with the term.

Your quote was that "no one voted for FSU". My comment was that I didn't think that particularly mattered, but if you gave it any credence at all, it would tend to weaken its claim as a sovereign entity, essentially saying it was more of a "quasi private entity."

Gotcha. But FSU is a major state university, sea grant, space grant, all that fun stuff. I just feel like at some point, if a contract becomes too unfavorable, there has to be remedies. No one can predict the future and if the decision makers failed so badly at creating the terms, a state should have remedies to at least give it a chance if not make it whole. FSU was undefeated and snubbed. FSU performed its side of the contract. The ACC and espn seem to be underperforming their side.

 

[CL82]

Gotcha. But FSU is a major state university, sea grant, space grant, all that fun stuff. I just feel like at some point, if a contract becomes too unfavorable, there has to be remedies. No one can predict the future and if the decision makers failed so badly at creating the terms, a state should have remedies to at least give it a chance if not make it whole. FSU was undefeated and snubbed. FSU performed its side of the contract. The ACC and espn seem to be underperforming their side.

You've been very consistent with this viewpoint. I get you are being driven by a sense of "fairness." I would just note that in a situation where the two parties to the contract have divergent interests to the extent you "rewrite the contract" to make it less disavantageous to one party you are making it more disadvantageous to the other party.

The reason why you have contracts is to promote certainty among the parties. It provides a framework so that everyone understands what their obligations and benefits are. If a single party gets to abandon it because they see a better opportunity elsewhere than it undercuts the fundamental purpose of having a contract in the first place.

FSU has the opportunity to leave the conference. It comes at specific costs, which it agreed to at the time of signing. That is the "remedy" for FSU, perhaps wrongly, believing it can do better elsewhere.

In any event, we shall see what the courts decide on this.

 

[Waquoit]

I just feel like at some point, if a contract becomes too unfavorable, there has to be remedies...FSU performed its side of the contract. The ACC and espn seem to be underperforming their side.

That's not how the world works. And in this case, how has the contract become too unfavorable to FSU? And how is the ACC and ESPN underperforming? Have they missed any payments?

 

[uconndogs]

Something about bringing sovereign immunity and crown immunity into the discussion about conference realignment just reinforces to me exactly how duck** up college athletics has become.

 

[Kolumbo]

That's not how the world works. And in this case, how has the contract become too unfavorable to FSU? And how is the ACC and ESPN underperforming? Have they missed any payments?

FSU performed the way an elite football program should perform and yet did not make the playoff. It is making less money than your Rutgerses and Indianas. In the real world, you get what you pay for, but not in FSU's case. Could espn and the ACC fix the problem by increasing payouts, or is the ACC simply not worth it on the media side? Everyone says espn has no reason to increase payouts because they have FSU locked in at a lower rate. So is espn keeping the extra profits? That's how I see it as underperforming and unfavorable to one side. In business there are ways to terminate or annul contracts especially when they don't want to be partners anymore or their costs change drastically. I get it, GOR. It was a very bad deal. All of this CR and yet the 15 ACC programs are prevented from going to the market.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Retired Bob quick to comment. This guy always seems to have sunshine for west coast stuff.

Agreed - some sort of bias it seems. If west coast football was so valuable, then why did the Pac break up? SMH.

 

[Exit 4]

Agreed - some sort of bias it seems. If west coast football was so valuable, then why did the Pac break up? SMH.

Yeah....well on the matter of the PAC, its been reported and I have been told by others that ESPN offered $30 per team per annum which apparently insulted the conf office because they wanted at least $50 to start the discussion. Being that far apart and with some big egos at the table, ESPN exited the process and then as we all know, no one else stepped up anywhere close. Yeah, the P12 schools have value...value on par with the ACC...back when it had USC/UCLA/Wash/Ore. The P12 died over hubris. The reborn P12 will have a much lower valuation....closer to the American or maybe less.

 

[HuskyHawk]

FSU performed the way an elite football program should perform and yet did not make the playoff. It is making less money than your Rutgerses and Indianas. In the real world, you get what you pay for, but not in FSU's case. Could espn and the ACC fix the problem by increasing payouts, or is the ACC simply not worth it on the media side? Everyone says espn has no reason to increase payouts because they have FSU locked in at a lower rate. So is espn keeping the extra profits? That's how I see it as underperforming and unfavorable to one side. In business there are ways to terminate or annul contracts especially when they don't want to be partners anymore or their costs change drastically. I get it, GOR. It was a very bad deal. All of this CR and yet the 15 ACC programs are prevented from going to the market.

I don't really get this take. It's a contract issue. "Performance" of the contract by the ACC and it's media partners means broadcasting the games and paying FSU. Performance by FSU means playing the games and allowing the broadcast.

I get that they feel slighted by making less than Indiana. I feel slighted that I make less than a lot of athletes and celebs who are as dumb as a bag of hammers. If FSU had been in the SEC or B1G they probably wouldn't have been undefeated. Should they have made the playoff anyway? Yes, like TCU the year before. But that problem doesn't exist anymore. It's been solved.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Yeah....well on the matter of the PAC, its been reported and I have been told by others that ESPN offered $30 per team per annum which apparently insulted the conf office because they wanted at least $50 to start the discussion. Being that far apart and with some big egos at the table, ESPN exited the process and then as we all know, no one else stepped up anywhere close. Yeah, the P12 schools have value...value on par with the ACC...back when it had USC/UCLA/Wash/Ore. The P12 died over hubris. The reborn P12 will have a much lower valuation....closer to the American or maybe less.

Don't disagree, but my point was poorly conveyed as I think the Pac's value was overwhelming from USC, UCLA, WA, and OR and after that very slim pickings. Once those four are taken out, there's not much left out west.

 

[Exit 4]

Don't disagree, but my point was poorly conveyed as I think the Pac's value was overwhelming from USC, UCLA, WA, and OR and after that very slim pickings. Once those four are taken out, there's not much left out west.

Yep.

A lot of crazy takes out there today thinking they are going to build up something that is neck and neck with the ACC for example or not far behind the ACC. The ACC is paying out 30M+.....this rebuilt P12 will be more like $7 to 12M.

 

[Kolumbo]

I don't really get this take. It's a contract issue. "Performance" of the contract by the ACC and it's media partners means broadcasting the games and paying FSU. Performance by FSU means playing the games and allowing the broadcast.

I get that they feel slighted by making less than Indiana. I feel slighted that I make less than a lot of athletes and celebs who are as dumb as a bag of hammers. If FSU had been in the SEC or B1G they probably wouldn't have been undefeated. Should they have made the playoff anyway? Yes, like TCU the year before. But that problem doesn't exist anymore. It's been solved.

That's not really what "performance" means unless you enter a contract with both sides agreeing to do the bare minimum required. When the contracts were signed there were 5 "Power" conferences and I'm sure the expectations were that both sides would perform as such. FSU did. The ACC and espn have not. If they had, the ACC would still be a Power conference.

 

[Zissou]

That's not really what "performance" means unless you enter a contract with both sides agreeing to do the bare minimum required. When the contracts were signed there were 5 "Power" conferences and I'm sure the expectations were that both sides would perform as such. FSU did. The ACC and espn have not. If they had, the ACC would still be a Power conference.

I doubt there were any performance metrics in the contract that the ACC or ESPN missed.

It’s a contract, so now both sides will test it legally. ACC appears to have a better position but we’ll see, that’s why they play the games.

 

[CJasmer]

I doubt there were any performance metrics in the contract that the ACC or ESPN missed.

It’s a contract, so now both sides will test it legally. ACC appears to have a better position but we’ll see, that’s why they play the games.

If GOR ends with ESPN not renewing ACC contract in 2026 then ACC teams would owe approximately $145 million. If FSU, UNC, Clemson and UNC can get into either SEC or BIG then worth it to pay $145 million. If these teams cannot get into SEC and BIG then they will stay in ACC and ACC will negotiate on new TV contract. If those teams leave the ACC TV contract will drop significantly since the teams left do not have the Football TV audience of these 4 teams and become a league that has 0% chance to have more than the conference champion making CFP. I believe currently FSU and Clemson alone are 25% of the football TV audience for ACC.