OT: - Florida State to sue ACC over GOR | Page 43 | The Boneyard

OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

freescooter said:
I suspect that there will be a settlement. The ACC’s interest is to make it high enough that others will think twice before leaving. I’m among those who doubt that a settlement opens the floodgates for the league. I keep asking what other ACC school is worth $60 million? Or what ACC school are the Big 10 or SEC members willing to reduce their shares to add? And I keep coming up with none.

Sometimes, too, value is tied to who you play. Is UNC worth as much without its rivalry with Duke? Is Michigan without Ohio State? Texas without Oklahoma? Though they don’t want to admit it, many teams lose their identity when they change leagues at least partly for that reason. It was funny watching the ACC try to make BC-Clemson something based on them having played each other in a bowl game in the 40s. It was basically ConFLiCT 2.0. I doubt either school can find the trophy they ginned up. I doubt Carolina is worth $60 million. I seriously doubt it without Duke as its foil.
Expand ...
If you look at UNC from the old way of valuing schools by state cable subscribers, they are worth $60 million plus to a conference. For example, the in market rate for the BTN is about $1.50 vs. the out of market rate of $0.10 so the value of a cable sub in UNC goes up by $1.40. If there are 3.5 million cable subs in NC, that is worth ~$60 million just for the potential BTN subscribers. Add in the content they provide and they are worth more than $60 million for their media rights. Of course, there is cord cutting, but going forward, schools will be valued by how many subscribers they can bring to a conference network and UNC would bring subscribers.
 
If there is movement...it will be the networks that decide it...not the teams or maybe even the conferences.

ESPN almost needed FSU/Clemson to go to court.

ESPN, having a contract relationship with both the SEC and ACC, needs to be seen not as the "prime mover" of a breakup of the current ACC.

I suspect that ESPN does not intend to extend the current ACC contract through 2036...and that is why they missed the 2021 required date to renew (as now found in the ESPN Agreement). The cat is now out of the bag.

....In February of 2021, on Jim Phillips 1st day in office, it was supposed to be the day ESPN renewed the ACC contract through 2036. It ends in 2027.

....No company waits until the day-of to just come in and sign.

....With discovery soon underway in Judge Cooper's court, will there be a found bomb exposing the fact that ESPN had officially told Swofford and the conference office they were not picking it up as it currently exists back in 2021 prior to Phillips taking over and nothing has been related to conference Members ? Certainly Cal, Stanford, SMU would have had an interest in that. And any school desiring to shop another conference.

....Clemson is suing for damages they believe was caused by such.

It will provide summer entertainment on X.
 
freescooter said:
I suspect that there will be a settlement. The ACC’s interest is to make it high enough that others will think twice before leaving. I’m among those who doubt that a settlement opens the floodgates for the league. I keep asking what other ACC school is worth $60 million? Or what ACC school are the Big 10 or SEC members willing to reduce their shares to add? And I keep coming up with none.

Sometimes, too, value is tied to who you play. Is UNC worth as much without its rivalry with Duke? Is Michigan without Ohio State? Texas without Oklahoma? Though they don’t want to admit it, many teams lose their identity when they change leagues at least partly for that reason. It was funny watching the ACC try to make BC-Clemson something based on them having played each other in a bowl game in the 40s. It was basically ConFLiCT 2.0. I doubt either school can find the trophy they ginned up. I doubt Carolina is worth $60 million. I seriously doubt it without Duke as its foil.
Expand ...
That's really the biggest fallacy of realignment, looking at programs in a vacuum. Pitt-WVU. Oklahoma-Okie State. UConn-cuse. There are synergies and rivalries among programs. Separate Pitt and WVU and neither program is as valuable.
 
Kolumbo said:
That's really the biggest fallacy of realignment, looking at programs in a vacuum. Pitt-WVU. Oklahoma-Okie State. UConn-cuse. There are synergies and rivalries among programs. Separate Pitt and WVU and neither program is as valuable.
Expand ...

I have pointed out that it may not have been a coincidence that USC-UCLA...Oregon-Washington...Texas-Oklahoma were picked up...

Would it make sense to split up the UNC-Duke basketball rivalry?

And that was FSU's dilemma in the ACC...Other than Miami, no real rival. Yeah, some would throw out Clemson, but that is too recent in history to make a heated rivalry...now, Clemson-South Carolina, FSU-Florida...they have history.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
www.tallahassee.com

Leon County judge could order ACC to give Florida State confidential ESPN agreements

The ACC could soon be ordered to give Florida State's legal teams a copy of the highly confidential ESPN agreements.
www.tallahassee.com www.tallahassee.com

-> In proposed language that both sides agreed upon, the court order was drafted and submitted July 2 at 3 p.m. to Leon Circuit Judge John C. Cooper. If Cooper signs the court order, the ACC must hand over an unredacted version of the sought-after ESPN agreement to FSU within seven days of the order. <-

-> The ESPN agreements contain six documents:
  • The initial 2010 multi-media agreement with ESPN
  • The 2012 amendment and extension agreement
  • Second amendment and extension agreement in 2014
  • Amended and restated multi-media agreement in 2016
  • ACC-ESPN Network agreement also from 2016
  • Letter amendment to amend and restated multi-media agreement from 2021<-
-> The proposed interim protective order submitted by both the conference and FSU would allow the school's legal team to review the documents and create copies for use in the school's court battle. The order states that the documents remain confidential and only be seen by those involved with the case or authorized consultation.

Once the litigation between the school and the conference ends, FSU will return the documents to the ACC and destroy any copies of it within 60 days in accordance with the order. <-
Expand ...
Billable hours…

 
Yeah...of course the North Carolina judge wants to rule and protect North Carolina...But Judge Cooper in Florida does not agree....and you know what? I'll bet the judge in South Carolina does not either.
 
For those following this more closely…. Is the high end of the negotiation for exit $120M exit plus $30M x 12 years of GOR? So $480M?

At what number does Clemson and FSU accept a settlement and leave the conference? $300M?
 
Excalibur said:
At the end of the day, the ACC as the party enforcing contractual rights, is the natural plaintiff. If the system functions correctly, the NC suit is the only one that matters.
Expand ...
Maybe...in the end it is the ACC that has been purposefully mischaracterizing the contract, the so called "locked in until 2036"...that will be found out..

That the ACC and ESPN have no contract, at this point, past 2026 has already been ferreted out, They tried their best to hide that.

Heck, there is a chance that the ACC will be paying Clemson...and, if so, FSU.
 
.-.
Kolumbo said:
That's really the biggest fallacy of realignment, looking at programs in a vacuum. Pitt-WVU. Oklahoma-Okie State. UConn-cuse. There are synergies and rivalries among programs. Separate Pitt and WVU and neither program is as valuable.
Expand ...
billybud said:
Yeah...of course the North Carolina judge wants to rule and protect North Carolina...But Judge Cooper in Florida does not agree....and you know what? I'll bet the judge in South Carolina does not either.
Expand ...
Typically agreements have specific language on jurisdiction. And most often it is the headquarters of the league. The other courts are the ones who most likely overstepped. Seems like this might be headed to federal court.
 
.-.
There is no way the ACC will voluntarily let Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, and this will be a multi-year litigation. Since the SEC doesn't want those two schools, and there is not a material financial benefit of leaving for the Big 12, all of this work is so FSU and Clemson might be able to procure an invitation from the Big 10? How much would the Big 10 realistically pay them? Does the Big 10 need 2 more schools, or would the current members be better off if FSU and Clemson simply went into permanent decline?

So why do we think this impacts UConn in the near term?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is no way the ACC will voluntarily let Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, and this will be a multi-year litigation. Since the SEC doesn't want those two schools, and there is not a material financial benefit of leaving for the Big 12, all of this work is so FSU and Clemson might be able to procure an invitation from the Big 10? How much would the Big 10 realistically pay them? Does the Big 10 need 2 more schools, or would the current members be better off if FSU and Clemson simply went into permanent decline?

So why do we think this impacts UConn in the near term?
Expand ...
The ACC can't voluntarily let anyone out because it will destroy the conference. I'm sure ESPN doesn't want this to set a precedent either.

The reason it could impact us near term is that the ACC potential leftovers could want add more properties at a discount to hopefully stabilize the conference more, and the Big XII could want us off the board before this plays out to keep the ACC from further stabilizing. I'm not saying I believe that but it's a (small) possibility. Yormark seemed to enjoy destroying the PAC. He's ok with destroying the ACC too. More money to go around with fewer conferences
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is no way the ACC will voluntarily let Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, and this will be a multi-year litigation. Since the SEC doesn't want those two schools, and there is not a material financial benefit of leaving for the Big 12, all of this work is so FSU and Clemson might be able to procure an invitation from the Big 10? How much would the Big 10 realistically pay them? Does the Big 10 need 2 more schools, or would the current members be better off if FSU and Clemson simply went into permanent decline?

So why do we think this impacts UConn in the near term?
Expand ...
I think a conference which includes rutgers should add a program like FSU if it is available no matter the financial impact. I know people will say, this program has to be worth an additional $60 million (whatever the average take is) or it's not worth it. I've always felt it would be worth it if it is better than a few programs already in the conference. Long Term. We don't know how many programs they ultimately need or want but if you have a program, the other conferences don't. And it's Florida.

This will without a doubt have a negative impact on UConn. It always does. ACC completely implodes and they scatter to the P3. ACC hangs on and backfills with USF, Tulane, Coastal Carolina, ECU, etc.
 
freescooter said:
Typically agreements have specific language on jurisdiction. And most often it is the headquarters of the league. The other courts are the ones who most likely overstepped. Seems like this might be headed to federal court.
Expand ...

Well...if you are keeping abreast with this...the ACC agreements are fairly faulty in construction.

1...There is no language regarding jurisdiction. There is a lack of a jurisdiction clause expressly setting out which courts have the power to hear a dispute. Thus suits will continue in three states. Each party has a suit with home field advantage.

2...There is a lack of delineated definitions in the ESPN contract. Parties are lining up to argue their version of meaning.
 
What’s a game? The 9-figure answer will shape FSU, Clemson, ACC lawsuits

The most important argument in the ongoing lawsuits between Florida State/Clemson and the ACC became slightly clearer this week thanks to a newly unredacted South Carolina court filing.

The answer to this dispute partially lies in the ACC-ESPN contracts — documents Clemson has had for weeks, FSU will soon receive and Florida’s Attorney General claims should be public. Because ESPN and the ACC contend those deals include trade secrets, references to them have been so heavily redacted in court filings that some arguments have been impossible to follow.

Until Thursday’s filing in Pickens County, South Carolina (where Clemson has sued the ACC).

Clemson and the ACC agreed to remove some redactions from the school’s complaint. It turns out that an entire round of conference realignment could turn on the contracts’ definition of “game.”

The ACC gave ESPN the rights to broadcast contests, “in which any Conference Institution is the home team, or which the Conference or any Conference Institution otherwise Controls the distribution rights.”

Which brings us to Clemson’s now-public argument: If the Tigers leave the ACC, they’re no longer a “Conference Institution.” They won’t be an ACC home team, and they won’t play in games where the league controls distribution rights (like a conference tournament).

Though Clemson gave its TV rights to the ACC through what’s called a grant of rights, the school contends that document only applies to rights necessary to fulfill the ACC’s ESPN agreements.

“The ESPN Agreements do not require the ACC to provide ESPN with the rights to games in which the home team is not a member of the ACC, so were Clemson not in the ACC, the Conference would not have the contractual obligations to provide ESPN with the rights to produce, distribute and sublicense Clemson’s home games,” a newly unredacted part of the suit said.

And if the conference doesn’t have the contractual obligations to give those rights to ESPN, they’d belong to Clemson. Millions of corresponding TV dollars would, too.

It’s unclear whether a judge will agree with that interpretation. Different courts could read it differently as suits play out in South Carolina, Leon County (where FSU sued the ACC) and North Carolina (where the ACC separately sued FSU and Clemson).

www.tampabay.com

What’s a game? The 9-figure answer will shape FSU, Clemson, ACC lawsuits

Newly unredacted lines finally help us understand Clemson’s legal argument against the ACC.
www.tampabay.com www.tampabay.com
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
There is no way the ACC will voluntarily let Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, and this will be a multi-year litigation. Since the SEC doesn't want those two schools, and there is not a material financial benefit of leaving for the Big 12, all of this work is so FSU and Clemson might be able to procure an invitation from the Big 10? How much would the Big 10 realistically pay them? Does the Big 10 need 2 more schools, or would the current members be better off if FSU and Clemson simply went into permanent decline?

So why do we think this impacts UConn in the near term?
Expand ...
The ACC network is owned by ESPN, and they made 140 million profit on it.
There is no way they are going to throw that money away.
And then pay additional money to FSU, and Clemson to leave.
That would be Stupid, and they may be the ones who caused all the problems.
But they aren't throwing away a cash cow.
 
baggerbob said:
The ACC network is owned by ESPN, and they made 140 million profit on it.
There is no way they are going to throw that money away.
And then pay additional money to FSU, and Clemson to leave.
That would be Stupid, and they may be the ones who caused all the problems.
But they aren't throwing away a cash cow.
Expand ...

The ACCN is owned by ESPN...and profits are split 50-50 with the ACC...

If you are correct about ESPN receiving a 140 million profit, that would mean that the ACC made 140 million as well...$9.3 million per school. Seems high,

Maybe total profit, including ESPN's share, is $140 million ?
 
Why "home court" advantage in the courts has been contentious...

Judge Bledsoe in the North Carolina suit is the Chief Business Court Judge of NC. That position is nominated by the governor and confirmed by the legislature for an 8 year term. So he essentially supervises the business court of NC which specializes iin "complex" business cases. The process of creating the NC business court is steeped in NC power politics.

FSU in the Florida court and Clemson in the South Carolina court fought to have jurisdiction because they suspect he will take the position that the ACC is a major NC business that requires his close protection.
 
baggerbob said:
The ACC network is owned by ESPN, and they made 140 million profit on it.
There is no way they are going to throw that money away.
And then pay additional money to FSU, and Clemson to leave.
That would be Stupid, and they may be the ones who caused all the problems.
But they aren't throwing away a cash cow.
Expand ...
The ACCN doesn't go away without FSU/Clemson. The network is part of the bundled package of channels that ESPN sells to cable companies and the only state they would lose in-market channel price would be South Carolina. LT, it would seem that conference networks are going to have to stream as the cable bundle continues to decline and will there be enough interest in the ACCN? The ACCN is at peak revenues right now as they added 2 new markets (Texas and California) and revenues will decline with cord cutting offset somewhat by pricing if they can get it. ESPN had to twist arms to get cable companies to take the ACCN and they might not be convinced to keep it when they renegotiate their contracts with ESPN.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,439
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom