OT: - Florida State to sue ACC over GOR | Page 48 | The Boneyard

OT: Florida State to sue ACC over GOR

Patman said:
I'm a little shocked the acc would tie themselves to espn like that. This gives espn all the leverage
Expand ...
You have to assume ESPN paid for the privilege.
 
CL82 said:
Correct but do you see any language the the GOR is conditioned upon that exercise?
Expand ...
I'm not paying close attention to this soap opera saga, but considering that of this information is coming to light presumably from redacted documents, does that somehow violate confidentiality (or whatever gag order might in place)? Not that I mind as these secrets should be outed, I just wonder if the Clemson or FSU folks are leaking this and giving a silent middle finger to the ACC while doing so.
 
KryHavok said:
I'm not paying close attention to this soap opera saga, but considering that of this information is coming to light presumably from redacted documents, does that somehow violate confidentiality (or whatever gag order might in place)? Not that I mind as these secrets should be outed, I just wonder if the Clemson or FSU folks are leaking this and giving a silent middle finger to the ACC while doing so.
Expand ...
I think both sides are leaking things to influence the public and non-public narratives in hopes of denting the other side's armor.
 
KryHavok said:
I'm not paying close attention to this soap opera saga, but considering that of this information is coming to light presumably from redacted documents, does that somehow violate confidentiality (or whatever gag order might in place)? Not that I mind as these secrets should be outed, I just wonder if the Clemson or FSU folks are leaking this and giving a silent middle finger to the ACC while doing so.
Expand ...
I suspect it's mere speculation being taken as fact. Keep in mind that the plaintiff's complaints aren't the final word in this matter.
 
Actually… it has been Big Ten Information on X that has been leaking info. He puts up the court documents and has attempted to use software to look through the redactions. But the unredacted FSU and Clemson filings can be readily downloaded from court sites.

The filings do not reproduce the ESPN document but they reference some of the provisions.
 
CL82 said:
I suspect it's mere speculation being taken as fact. Keep in mind that the plaintiff's complaints aren't the final word in this matter.
Expand ...
Here's a pretty darn comprehensive and clear way of looking at the FSU/ACC situation. Yes, the attorney is an FSU guy, but he's very level headed and balanced in everything he's commented on the legal situation over the past 6 or so months...

 
.-.
CL82 said:
Correct but do you see any language the the GOR is conditioned upon that exercise?
Expand ...
The only assertions on the GOR being tied specifically to the ESPN contract that I know of were statements on this board by billybud more than once that it was only for that contract.

Not knowing what the actual case is, logically there are only three possibilities on the GOR (which we do know runs through 2036):

1 - it is only tied to the specific ESPN deal and any extensions of that deal through the GOR expiration, with the GOR ending early if that deal ends prior to the GOR end date.

2 - the GOR is for any contract with similar principles/partners of the initial deal until the GOR expiration date.

3 - the GOR is for any and all media deals until its expiration date.

I'm thinking that it is most likely somewhere between possibities one and two and that the language may be vague enough where it would take a court to determine it if it comes to that (ESPN not exercising the option but negotiating a new agreement with the ACC). If it gets to that, all hell may break loose as a number of schools will make very significant decisions on basically faith that the courts will lean in their direction.
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
Here's a pretty darn comprehensive and clear way of looking at the FSU/ACC situation. Yes, the attorney is an FSU guy, but he's very level headed and balanced in everything he's commented on the legal situation over the past 6 or so months...

Expand ...


I have almost no skin in the game other than several good friends with kids at FSU.

But there's no one from Florida, South Carolina or North Carolina putting out balanced unbiased social media on this topic. You don't even need AI to know what perspective they'll find most intriguing. Even if they make their case in front of shelves full of leather bound books.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
I'm thinking that it is most likely somewhere between possibities one and two and that the language may be vague enough where it would take a court to determine it if it comes to that (ESPN not exercising the option but negotiating a new agreement with the ACC). If it gets to that, all hell may break loose as a number of schools will make very significant decisions on basically faith that the courts will lean in their direction.
Expand ...

If it does come down to a court deciding, the ACC schools outside of FSU and Clemson have a serious prisoner dilemma type scenario to contemplate. They'll have to weigh the consequences and probability of a court ruling in favor of the Darling Duo against the probability court rules in favor of ACC. And then figure out how their school fits in to either situation.

F 'em. You sleep in the bed you make.
 
Chin Diesel said:
I have almost no skin in the game other than several good friends with kids at FSU.

But there's no one from Florida, South Carolina or North Carolina putting out balanced unbiased social media on this topic. You don't even need AI to know what perspective they'll find most intriguing. Even if they make their case in front of shelves full of leather bound books.
Expand ...
Seems like you're being very biased.
 
Chin Diesel said:
If it does come down to a court deciding, the ACC schools outside of FSU and Clemson have a serious prisoner dilemma type scenario to contemplate. They'll have to weigh the consequences and probability of a court ruling in favor of the Darling Duo against the probability court rules in favor of ACC. And then figure out how their school fits in to either situation.

F 'em. You sleep in the bed you make.
Expand ...
I'm not sure it would be much if a dilemma nor would their concerns play much of a role.

The scenario I spelled out would only happen if a) ESPN does not extend the option and b) ESPN signs the ACC to a new contract with both ESPN and the ACC believing the initial GOR will remain in force.

If they were to do that, it would be far easier to just extend the current deal by exercising the option.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
The only assertions on the GOR being tied specifically to the ESPN contract that I know of were statements on this board by billybud more than once that it was only for that contract.

Not knowing what the actual case is, logically there are only three possibilities on the GOR (which we do know runs through 2036):

1 - it is only tied to the specific ESPN deal and any extensions of that deal through the GOR expiration, with the GOR ending early if that deal ends prior to the GOR end date.

2 - the GOR is for any contract with similar principles/partners of the initial deal until the GOR expiration date.

3 - the GOR is for any and all media deals until its expiration date.

I'm thinking that it is most likely somewhere between possibities one and two and that the language may be vague enough where it would take a court to determine it if it comes to that (ESPN not exercising the option but negotiating a new agreement with the ACC). If it gets to that, all hell may break loose as a number of schools will make very significant decisions on basically faith that the courts will lean in their direction.
Expand ...
If I understand it correctly, Clemson's lawsuit argues that they can exit the ACC (i.e. pay an exit fee) and because the way the agreement is worded that they immediately take their media rights with them and don't have to pay GOR penalties. If Clemson's case goes to trial and they win, then the other most valuable ACC schools (i.e. the top 6-8) would then have to consider exiting as well.
 
.-.
CTFAN4LIFE said:
Here's a pretty darn comprehensive and clear way of looking at the FSU/ACC situation. Yes, the attorney is an FSU guy, but he's very level headed and balanced in everything he's commented on the legal situation over the past 6 or so months...

Expand ...

Oh well if he's level headed...
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
If I understand it correctly, Clemson's lawsuit argues that they can exit the ACC (i.e. pay an exit fee) and because the way the agreement is worded that they immediately take their media rights with them and don't have to pay GOR penalties. If Clemson's case goes to trial and they win, then the other most valuable ACC schools (i.e. the top 6-8) would then have to consider exiting as well.
Expand ...
I would imagine that some, if not all of the ACC schools already have had some sort of third party conversations with the other conferences to know what their options are. Even if they believe that the GoR will hold until 2036, they would have to do their due diligence.
 
The GOR is easy to access....as are the court documents...for FSU, it is all in one site...

ACC Lawsuit & Settlement

• ACC, Clemson, and Florida State settle litigation, Mar. 4, 2025 • FSU Petition to NC Supreme Court to Issue Writ of Certiorari filed May 17, 2024 • FSU
news.fsu.edu news.fsu.edu
 
CL82 said:
I think those "people" are FSU and Clemson. I take their interpretation with a grain of salt.
Expand ...
CL82, all of the documents are readily available online with the exception of the full ESPN/ACC contract. The GOR agreements are unredacted and available. The original GORs was signed in 2013 and were set to expire on June 30, 2027. The amended GORs were signed in 2016 and extended the GORs to June 20, 2036. The way the GORs are written, the schools gave their media rights to the conference in order to execute the media contract with ESPN with ESPN providing consideration to the conference to extend the GORs which is the launch of the ACC Network. My interpretation of the GORs contract is that if ESPN walked away from the ACC, the GORs contract would be found invalid as the GORs specifically refer to consideration from ESPN and not any other media company.

In addition, there appears to be some legal concerns IF the ACC Commissioner extended the media contract extension option with ESPN without the approval of the ACC Board as that would seem to go against the ACC Bylaws which are also available online. And, it could be that the 2016 GORs extension was tied to the media contract extension option. If that extension option expired and ESPN did not act, it would be possible that the 2016 GORs extension could be found invalid.
 
“ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the “Extension Option”), but not the obligation, to extend this Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted]) the “Extension Term”) by providing written notice to the conference no later than two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network.”

From ESPN Agreement obtained by the Florida AG..
 
A judge will decide the meaning of the contract (GOR) and if only tied to ESPN media contract. The 2nd extension provided to ESPN will also be reviewed if the ACC board actually voted on or did the commissioner provide the extension without Board approval.

I find it quite funny how people on this board believe Title IX legislation covers sports when in fact it was Court interpretations that added sports under Title IX. It is quite possible the current Supreme Court will not interpret that Title IX does cover sports. If that happens the paying of athletes in just football and basketball could happen. A precedence was set with Roe vs Wade by this same court.
 
.-.
billybud said:
“ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the “Extension Option”), but not the obligation, to extend this Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted]) the “Extension Term”) by providing written notice to the conference no later than two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network.”

From ESPN Agreement obtained by the Florida AG..
Expand ...
When was the network launched?
 
billybud said:
August 22, 2019
Expand ...
CTFAN4LIFE said:
August 22, 2019
Expand ...
If you go by that, the GoR will end in 2027 as the last date to pick up the contract was August 22, 2021? Is that correct? That’s where the commissioners out stepping his bounds on extending the date they can pick up the extension until Feb 2025 comes into effect.

Again, assuming that the above is correct, the ACC is trying to stall to see if ESPN will grant a new contract and hopefully a judge will rule that the GoR is still valid as there will be an ESPN contract in place. FSU and Clemson will state that the original contract was not extended and thus the GoR has expired allowing themselves to become free agents.

The ACC is saying the extension date was extended to Feb 2025 and the GoR will be extended through 2036 if ESPN picks up the extension. Phillips saying they are in negotiations leads me to believe that they believe that the extension doesn’t matter as long as ESPN has a contract by Feb 2025.

Is this a correct summary of the issue or am I off base here?
 
Last edited:
dayooper said:
If you go by that, the GoR will end in 2027 as the last date to pick up the contract was August 22, 2021? Is that correct? That’s where the commissioners out stepping his bounds on extending the date they can pick up the extension until Feb 2025 comes into effect.

Again, assuming that the above is correct, the ACC is trying to stall to see if ESPN will grant a new contract and hopefully a judge will rule that the GoR is still valid as there will be an ESPN contract in place. FSU and Clemson will state that the original contract was not extended and thus the GoR has expired allowing themselves to become free agents.

The ACC is saying the extension date was extended to Feb 2025 and the GoR will be extended through 2036 if ESPN picks up the extension. Phillips saying they are in negotiations leads me to believe that they believe that the extension doesn’t matter as long as ESPN has a contract by Feb 2025.

Is this a correct summary of the issue or am I off base here?
Expand ...
This is getting a bit outside my realm, but sounds generally accurate/plausible. Certainly this will play out in the next 6+ months - in the courts and in the negotiating rooms.
 
dayooper said:
If you go by that, the GoR will end in 2027 as the last date to pick up the contract was August 22, 2021? Is that correct? That’s where the commissioners out stepping his bounds on extending the date they can pick up the extension until Feb 2025 comes into effect.

Again, assuming that the above is correct, the ACC is trying to stall to see if ESPN will grant a new contract and hopefully a judge will rule that the GoR is still valid as there will be an ESPN contract in place. FSU and Clemson will state that the original contract was not extended and thus the GoR has expired allowing themselves to become free agents.

The ACC is saying the extension date was extended to Feb 2025 and the GoR will be extended through 2036 if ESPN picks up the extension. Phillips saying they are in negotiations leads me to believe that they believe that the extension doesn’t matter as long as ESPN has a contract by Feb 2025.

Is this a correct summary of the issue or am I off base here?
Expand ...
From what I understand, that is pretty much correct. The second ESPN/ACC agreement was amended and signed by ESPN reps and Phillips. This amendment extended ESPN’s option to extend to 2036.

The question is if this amendment was approved by the presidents. It seems that according to the bylaws, such an amendment would have to be approved by the presidents. I guess Florida St. contends no vote was taken, but should have.

Not sure if that means the GOR ends in 2027, even if ESPN agrees to extend by the “new” deadline. What if the presidents voted yes on the extension retroactively?
 
.-.
Pretty much...

Issues that matter....

1..Whether the Commisioner could unilaterally offer an extension to the time that the contract states that ESPN has to exercise the extension past 2027.

....My view....That when the option expired, 2021, the media contract ends in 2027. Period. Full Stop.

2...That the ACC, through the GOR, is only granted the media rights as necessary to meet the requirements of the ESPN contract. The ESPN contract...not any future ESPN contract.

...My view...It stands to reason that the then GOR also ends in 2027...even though it states 2036. This is my starting point. The option that was signed by ESPN and Phillips later that year can not be an extension of the expired option....it's a new option. The only way now to extend the contract after Feb 2021 is to amend the media contract and grant another option. That move required a vote by Members and a new GOR.

Basically, I am thinking that when the option was not exercised in 2021, the media contract clearly ends in 2027 and the GOR, by its language, has to align with that expiration date. And changing any of that requires a vote.

Phillips is basically treating the 2016 GOR - with the ending date in 2036 - as a document that controls how the media contract is to be interpreted. Basically, he is having the tail (GOR) wag the dog (the media contract) that the GOR is created to serve.
 
Billy,

Why do I have the feeling that you'd try to put a positive spin on a giant sink hole opening up in Tallahassee and swallowing up the entire FSU campus?

If I remember correctly, a huge part of your early argument was that the case would be heard in the state of Florida and they would rule more favorably towards FSU as FSU's interests and the state of Florida's interests would overlap.

I'm paraphrasing but that was one of your early points of emphasis
 
And why do I think that you hope for anything that is not favorable to FSU...

The court case in Florida in Judge Cooper's Court in Tallahassee is very much alive...and Judge Cooper received the unredacted ACC and had FSU receive it. And you are not informed if you think that it would be tried by the AG...not her jurisdiction notr job.

The Florida AG was instrumental in getting the portion of the ACC-ESPN Agreement, regarding it only being through 2027, out into the open and into public discourse. No longer can the ACC obfuscate and give 2036 as the date. She did her job...of enforcing Florida's Public Information law (which does include exempting trade secrets).

But as I stated way back, I think that the networks are complicit in moving to a P2....ESPN, owning both the ACC and SEC as properties, has to tread carefully to avoid interference suits. FSU and Clemson have made it clear that they are going to leave the ACC come hell or high water. That absolves ESPN and all other networks.

It is Kabuki theatre..as I have been posting..we'll see one way or the other.
 
billybud said:
And why do I think that you hope for anything that is not favorable to FSU...

It is Kabuki theatre..as I have been posting..we'll see one way or the other.
Expand ...
Not my place to speak for others, but FSU made its bed by staying and originally agreeing to the GOR with the ACC, voted or exerted its influence to keep UConn out of the ACC, and is merely mad that it can't make the money it thinks it deserves or gain the acceptance by its peers to be in the football championship hunt. It wants more yet thinks nothing of its hubris in screwing over UConn just so that the ACC can have Loserville (and oh my, has that worked out to the ACC's benefit). There may not be much sympathy for FSU round these parts. Who knows, maybe FSU "wins" and goes where it wants, and things finally break for UConn regarding CR...or not.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,205
Messages
4,556,825
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom