OT: - Florida State to sue ACC over GOR | Page 26 | The Boneyard

OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

FfldCntyFan said:
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?
Expand ...
Let's see how it plays out...
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...)
 
FfldCntyFan said:
While opinion pieces such as this one offer zero evidence of something happening, I agree fully that the B1G could benefit more (needs is far too strong of a term), but this is only because the SEC doesn't need them at all.
Expand ...
I think FSU is important to the Big10’s strategy. Putting big brand programs in almost every corner of the US is what they are heading for. There’s a huge hole in the SE and FSU is the best school to fill it. Clemson works, but FSU is the big catch and would be a great partner. Miami would be a nice partner instead of Clemson as well.

Only Texas and New England (hello UConn) would be holes left and I don’t see a Texas school that fits the bill.
 
.-.
dayooper said:
I think FSU is important to the Big10’s strategy. Putting big brand programs in almost every corner of the US is what they are heading for. There’s a huge hole in the SE and FSU is the best school to fill it. Clemson works, but FSU is the big catch and would be a great partner. Miami would be a nice partner instead of Clemson as well.

Only Texas and New England (hello UConn) would be holes left and I don’t see a Texas school that fits the bill.
Expand ...
I don't study TV ratings, but is Miami really a big brand these days? It's been 20 years since they were anything approximating a national power team in FB. I can't remember the last time I actually watched one of their games.
 
kibblesnbits said:
I don't study TV ratings, but is Miami really a big brand these days? It's been 20 years since they were anything approximating a national power team in FB. I can't remember the last time I actually watched one of their games.
Expand ...
Their ratings are a notch below FSU and Clemson. I prefer Clemson, but Miami is now AAU and in a huge metro area on the opposite direction of FSU in a very populous state.
 
I don’t get Miami at all.

UNC is the prize. 9th largest state. Not owned by either SEC or BiG.
 
Vowelguy said:
I don’t get Miami at all.

UNC is the prize. 9th largest state. Not owned by either SEC or BiG.
Expand ...
I think the Big10 would love to have UNC, but this is a 2 way street. The impression I get is they want the SEC and that’s where they will end up. The Big10 just can’t say you’re mine and that’s that.

Miami is a unique draw to the Big10. They have a bunch of alumni in the area and a connection to NYC and the NE. They still get ratings and have brand power. I prefer Clemson, but Miami is more of an institutional fit.
 
I think there was a time when UNC and UVA would have been aligned to fit in the Big10 (instead of the SEC) due to academic focus, exclusivity, etc. UNC certainly tarnished their reputation. Maybe better to align with Bama at this point.
 
.-.
Zissou said:
I think there was a time when UNC and UVA would have been aligned to fit in the Big10 (instead of the SEC) due to academic focus, exclusivity, etc. UNC certainly tarnished their reputation. Maybe better to align with Bama at this point.
Expand ...
I don’t think it’s about tarnishing reputations (the Big10 has had too many issues with scandals worse than a academics lately), I just have heard that their current administration (likely due to the donors wishes) currently prefer the SEC. Maybe ESPN has influence, I don’t know, but that’s what has been said. All rumor and speculation, of course.
 
dayooper said:
I don’t think it’s about tarnishing reputations (the Big10 has had too many issues with scandals worse than a academics lately), I just have heard that their current administration (likely due to the donors wishes) currently prefer the SEC. Maybe ESPN has influence, I don’t know, but that’s what has been said. All rumor and speculation, of course.
Expand ...

I agree. I think you are looking at it from the Big 10 perspective. From the UNC perspective, why not have preference for the SEC and drop the pretense of conference academic exclusivity since they have already shown their true colors.
 
No surprise here from a North Carolina Court. I'm waiting for the Florida court ruling.
 
Rufus said:
No surprise here from a North Carolina Court. I'm waiting for the Florida court ruling.
Expand ...
Exactly! I would have been surprised if he did anything differently at this stage of the proceedings. We have some issues of Federalism extant in this litigation and ultimately Federal courts may have to get involved to sort out the jurisdictional, venue and choice of law issues.
There is a long row to hoe...
 
.-.
billybud said:
Expand ...

I am mostly in support of Florida St. here. With the bizarre agreement that virtually no one knew that ESPN could opt out in 2027, I can’t see what insane legal gymnastics would not allow Florida St., Clemson, North Carolina, or whomever to get out by then for the exit fee of about $120 million.

But I am still trying to wrap my head around why Florida St. would even think of signing the GOR extension to 2036?!? when they they apparently did not know all of the terms? Why???
 
FSU's President did not sign until two days after the last school...The BOT did not have a meeting to discuss it (it would have been an open meeting)....Swofford and the ACC's media consultant came down...and it turns out, made false representations.

Everyone knows what the GOR says...but the GOR and the ACC-ESPN contract work together as a document (if you have read the GOR). The "rights" are only pledged to the ACC as necessary to fulfill the requirements of the ESPN contract,,,,which nobody could see. And there must be reasons why no one can see the document.

Even now, responding to the court, ESPN-ACC sent in only 13 pages of the 160 page document for FSU to review.
Something's hinky there.
 
billybud said:
FSU's President did not sign until two days after the last school...The BOT did not have a meeting to discuss it (it would have been an open meeting)....Swofford and the ACC's media consultant came down...and it turns out, made false representations.

Everyone knows what the GOR says...but the GOR and the ACC-ESPN contract work together as a document (if you have read the GOR). The "rights" are only pledged to the ACC as necessary to fulfill the requirements of the ESPN contract,,,,which nobody could see. And there must be reasons why no one can see the document.

Even now, responding to the court, ESPN-ACC sent in only 13 pages of the 160 page document for FSU to review.
Something's hinky there.
Expand ...
If FSU's president signed the document, that he didn't meet with the BOT (even if this allegation is true), that in itself is nothing more than an issue between FSU and its then president.

I'm curious as to what these "false representations" are. It would take quite a bit to a) prove this did actually happen and b) they materially changed the contract terms that were being agreed to.

Prior to accepting that something "hinky" is going on, I would like to see evidence that signatories of the agreement were not given full opportunity to review the agreement (along with their own legal counsel) prior to signing.

As far as the slow play on providing the entirety of the document, there is nothing abnormal here. It is obviously a document that initally all parties involved understood and accepted needed confidentiality. At the moment, at least one party would prefer that it no longer remain confidential. It is very likely that the ACC want more clarity on the language of keeping the contents confidential prior to releasing the entirety of the document. Things like this are very common.

The bulk of this sounds like basic contract law.
 
Pat125 said:
I am mostly in support of Florida St. here. With the bizarre agreement that virtually no one knew that ESPN could opt out in 2027, I can’t see what insane legal gymnastics would not allow Florida St., Clemson, North Carolina, or whomever to get out by then for the exit fee of about $120 million.

But I am still trying to wrap my head around why Florida St. would even think of signing the GOR extension to 2036?!? when they they apparently did not know all of the terms? Why???
Expand ...
I don’t give a sheep about FSU
 
Pat125 said:
I am mostly in support of Florida St. here. With the bizarre agreement that virtually no one knew that ESPN could opt out in 2027, I can’t see what insane legal gymnastics would not allow Florida St., Clemson, North Carolina, or whomever to get out by then for the exit fee of about $120 million.

But I am still trying to wrap my head around why Florida St. would even think of signing the GOR extension to 2036?!? when they they apparently did not know all of the terms? Why???
Expand ...
Don't fool yourself. Nobody signs an agreement of that magnitude without having a team of attorneys scouring every centimeter of the document multiple times.

They knew what they were getting into. What they didn't know was that other conferences would end up landing far better media deals, especially as quickly as they did.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Don't fool yourself. Nobody signs an agreement of that magnitude without having a team of attorneys scouring every centimeter of the document multiple times.

They knew what they were getting into. What they didn't know was that other conferences would end up landing far better media deals, especially as quickly as they did.
Expand ...
Excellent points. And I would think that Florida St. knew what they were signing. But representatives of Florida St. and six others had to go on a secret mission (Mag 007) to find out what the agreement between the ACC and ESPN was. So something doesn’t seem right.

And yes, if the ACC was making money on par with the Big Ten or SEC, there would be no fuss.
 
.-.
FfldCntyFan said:
Don't fool yourself. Nobody signs an agreement of that magnitude without having a team of attorneys scouring every centimeter of the document multiple times.

They knew what they were getting into. What they didn't know was that other conferences would end up landing far better media deals, especially as quickly as they did.
Expand ...

I would phrase it more along the lines of they knew other conferences would have one, two or even three new contracts during the duration of the ACC deal and history heavily suggested each of those contracts would make the ACC contract less and less competitive with peers.

So, technically, "know" is correct, but it also adds no context or represent reality.
 
Chin Diesel said:
I would phrase it more along the lines of they knew other conferences would have one, two or even three new contracts during the duration of the ACC deal and history heavily suggested each of those contracts would make the ACC contract less and less competitive with peers.

So, technically, "know" is correct, but it also adds no context or represent reality.
Expand ...
They misread the landscape, it happens. I imagine none of the key parties anticapted anything close to the contracts that other power conferences ended up receiving and I would wager they (incorrecetly) felt that the longer term was beneficial to them as once the B-12 & P-12 started coming up for renewals, nobody would offer them close to what the ACC was already guaranteed. Not long before this happened there was quite a bit of turmoil and confusion with the B-12 and P-12 and nobody was clear on what the future of either conference would be. For all we know, FSU wanted other ACC members locked in for the long term as they felt it was greatly to their benefit.

I personally do not know what anyone was thinking when this was going down but I do know that no one school had a gun held to their head to sign (although I imagine Wake, BC and perhaps a couple others not only jumped at the opportunity, but also waited impatiently for everyone else to sign). The ability to read the landscape is very important. Luck can also play a small role. Just over the past quarter century we've seen the internet bubble burst, the Enron/Worldcom collapse, the housing bubble, Covid shutdown and now significant inflation. It is quite possible that the expectation when the GOR was signed was that a longer term contract was better for a conference than a shorter term deal. If a handful of thingd shoook out differently, they could have been correct.
 
North Carolina knows...and is not silent.

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy,” UNC Board of Trustees chair John Preyer told Inside Carolina on Wednesday. “I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."
 
billybud said:
North Carolina knows...and is not silent.

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy,” UNC Board of Trustees chair John Preyer told Inside Carolina on Wednesday. “I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."
Expand ...
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the conference basically a collective of all members?

If the members are so opposed to this, they should just call a meeting to instruct the commissioner to follow their wishes.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the conference basically a collective of all members?

If the members are so opposed to this, they should just call a meeting to instruct the commissioner to follow their wishes.
Expand ...
The commissioner is doing what the majority of the members want, but not what the top conference schools want which is exactly what the UNC Board Chair said.

There are 4 ACC schools (plus Notre Dame) that would be of interest to the P2: UNC, UVa, FSU, and Clemson. The only private school or non-state flagship university that has ever been invited to the P2 is USC a blue blood football program. I would ask ESPN if they would cut the media payout per school if they left and if they would keep it flat, let the 4 schools go and rebuild the ACC like the Big 12 is doing. Then you have the P2, the next 2 of ACC and Big 12, and then the G5.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,238
Messages
4,559,298
Members
10,447
Latest member
Theuconnguy


Top Bottom