(12-23-2023 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for post #14 I think it would be a big mistake for the ACC to try any officiating things (I am sure you were being wishful), but that would certainly be in the favor of FSU and against the ACC

Agreed. That's bush league anyway.

Quote:for post #15 I would imagine the ACC has a much better contact than the PAC 12 had, but it is an interesting question if suing to leave (while having nowhere to go yet and having not said "we are leaving") means you are removed from decision making....I would think what happened with the PAC 12 sets some precedent

California/Washington state precedent is irrelevant. North Carolina precedent was set when Maryland declared it was leaving - and they lost their voting rights, IIRC.

Quote:FSU is making the opposing claims that they are/were "locked in for 20 years".....but yet they are also saying the conference did not look out for them because the contract is really only to 2027......which means in a couple of more years FSU and the ACC WILL have a chance to "go to market" [if ESPN does NOT extend to 2036] a few years before the Big 10 and Big 12... so the claim that there is no ability to "go to market" for 20 years from the 2016 contract is in fact false...

Good point. Should ESPN decide not to extend (unlikely, IMO), that might be doing the ACC a favor!

Quote:if FSU is looking at the SEC SEC SEC as an option why are they not concerned about the length of their contract...does FSU know that ESPN does not have similar language in the SEC SEC SEC contract that requires an option in the future to go until 2036

Another good point.

Quote:...is FSU really claiming that their administration and the other university administrations allowed the conference to negotiate a contract and none of them looked it over or had inside and outside legal counsel look it over.....that sounds like a breach on the part of the presidents and BORs of the various members for their own best interest not "the conference"

Yep. Get mad at the right people!

Quote:this seems like a really poorly thought out and planned move by FSU for many reasons and they are doing a lot of arguing of both sides of an argument to try and pretend they are stuck in the middle and powerless

So far it's playing out more like theater than a court case.

ACC Lawsuit vs FSU:

In 2013 and 2016, Florida State, along with the other Members of the ACC, agreed to and executed a Grant of Rights through which it transferred the exclusive media rights to all its home games contests to the Conference (the MediaRights). Florida State and the other Members of the ACC made these grants so that the Conference could negotiate along term contract and agreements with ESPN. By aggregating these collective Media Rights in the Conference, the Members were able to realize more value from those Media Rights than if they had each attempted to market them separately. These aggregated MediaRights, in turn, led to the negotiations of agreements and contracts that provided a predictable source of income to the Members and ultimately resulted in the creation of the ACC Network. By the end of the contracts and agreements with ESPN, the Conference will have received and distributed to its Members $$$$$$$. Under these agreements, Florida State has received more than $$$$$$$$ to date, and will receive $$$$$$$ more through 2036.



Link
https://www.wctv.tv/2023/12/22/acc-sues-...ainst-acc/

It also spells out other areas that the FSU has received more Monies then their lawsuit claims, however these number are blacked out.

(12-22-2023 07:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If FSU wins that case, doesn't that essentially blow up ALL Grant-of-Rights contracts everywhere? In turn, doesn't that mean TV networks can no longer sign with whole conferences? So EVERY team will become... independent? (Terry should love that)

impetus for settlement ...

COITUS INTERRUPTUS

(12-22-2023 03:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Is challenging the GoRs the same as withdrawing from the ACC?

It will be interesting to see if the ACC treats this as notice of withdrawl. If so. No more voting rights for FSU.

It looks like the courts will create a sliding scale from 2024-2036 on Buyout to appese all parties involved.

So FSU thinks the buyout is 529M, the ACC has it at 750M..... Once that number is figured out... then they can come to a agreement and create the sliding scale.... For Example:

2024 - 529M
2025 - 475M
....
2036 - 50M

(12-23-2023 06:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for post #15 I would imagine the ACC has a much better contact than the PAC 12 had, but it is an interesting question if suing to leave (while having nowhere to go yet and having not said "we are leaving") means you are removed from decision making....I would think what happened with the PAC 12 sets some precedent

California/Washington state precedent is irrelevant. North Carolina precedent was set when Maryland declared it was leaving - and they lost their voting rights, IIRC.

I disagree here....Maryland made a clear statement they were leaving.....just as Texas and OU did with the Big 12 and just as USC and UCLA did with the PAC 12

the recent lawsuit with the PAC 12 was that AU, ASU, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford had not actually submitted their resignation (it has been said that CU did)

and thus without the formal "we are leaving letter" they should still have voting rights in the conference even though it is clear they are leaving and clear they have other conferences that have voted them in for the future

it is a stupid argument in terms of common sense and reality, but if the contract for PAC 12 membership (that was apparently hand written on a Big Chief Tablet in 1942) specifically called for a formal notice (written) then there is a LEGAL argument to be made even if the court of common sense and Judge Judy would laugh the PAC 12 members that are leaving out of court

it will depend on what the ACC requires as "notice of intent to leave" before it is really known if suing to break the GOR and reduce or eliminate an exit fee (while seemingly having no place to go yet) is seen as a formal notice of intent to leave

(12-23-2023 12:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 06:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for post #15 I would imagine the ACC has a much better contact than the PAC 12 had, but it is an interesting question if suing to leave (while having nowhere to go yet and having not said "we are leaving") means you are removed from decision making....I would think what happened with the PAC 12 sets some precedent

California/Washington state precedent is irrelevant. North Carolina precedent was set when Maryland declared it was leaving - and they lost their voting rights, IIRC.

I disagree here....Maryland made a clear statement they were leaving... the recent lawsuit with the PAC 12 was that AU, ASU, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford had not actually submitted their resignation (it has been said that CU did)

Fair enough (more on that in a moment). However, according to my sources, the Pac-12 never had any provision whatsoever that would result in a team losing its voting rights - even after announcing it was leaving.

Quote: it will depend on what the ACC requires as "notice of intent to leave" before it is really known if suing to break the GOR and reduce or eliminate an exit fee (while seemingly having no place to go yet) is seen as a formal notice of intent to leave

I'm fairly confident that FSU's actions WILL be deemed as notice of intent to leave - but as you say, until that decision is made, they still have a vote.

(12-23-2023 12:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 12:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 06:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  for post #15 I would imagine the ACC has a much better contact than the PAC 12 had, but it is an interesting question if suing to leave (while having nowhere to go yet and having not said "we are leaving") means you are removed from decision making....I would think what happened with the PAC 12 sets some precedent

California/Washington state precedent is irrelevant. North Carolina precedent was set when Maryland declared it was leaving - and they lost their voting rights, IIRC.

I disagree here....Maryland made a clear statement they were leaving... the recent lawsuit with the PAC 12 was that AU, ASU, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford had not actually submitted their resignation (it has been said that CU did)

Fair enough (more on that in a moment). However, according to my sources, the Pac-12 never had any provision whatsoever that would result in a team losing its voting rights - even after announcing it was leaving.

Quote: it will depend on what the ACC requires as "notice of intent to leave" before it is really known if suing to break the GOR and reduce or eliminate an exit fee (while seemingly having no place to go yet) is seen as a formal notice of intent to leave

I'm fairly confident that FSU's actions WILL be deemed as notice of intent to leave - but as you say, until that decision is made, they still have a vote.

I agree the actions should be seen as an intent to leave.....if not that at least intent to harm the conference which should void voting rights (suing to break contracts is much different than voting differently than other members in an issue like adding new teams)

I think it is pretty clear the PAC 12 was run by people that collected dust on themselves most of the time as they sat back and watched times move on by

I think what hurt the argument of the PAC 12 members besides Oregon State and WSU is all those other members were very willing and eager to immediately remove the voting rights of USC and UCLA at the first mention of leaving

It is hard to argue that "well there is no formal notice to leave so you cannot take our voting rights" while at the same time trying to say that you only "let" two other members no longer vote on conference issues because they stopped caring and were gone and ready to hit the door ASAP

or even in the case of USC and UCLA saying you did not care to vote on conference business until you found out that future votes might cost you a lot of money (I cannot remember if they were a party to the lawsuit or not I want to say they were not)

(12-22-2023 07:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:24 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  I believe the total was $572 Million?

Not if there's no T1 contract past 2027. That makes the value of the GoR somewhere around $328 million, give or take.

What does Florida State’s lawsuit against the ACC seek?
The suit does not outright say it plans to withdraw from the league but wants the court to essentially wipe out prohibitive penalties the Seminoles would face under the current disputed agreements if they left the ACC now:

∎ A $130 million withdrawal penalty, calculated as three times the ACC's $43.3 million operating budget in 2023.
∎ $429 million in forfeited media rights under its grant-of-rights agreement with the league through 2036, calculated at $33 million per year.

Those penalties and $13 million for unreimbursed broadcast fees add up to a total withdrawal penalty of $572 million, according to the complaint.

Link
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...008839007/

If FSU wins that case, doesn't that essentially blow up ALL Grant-of-Rights contracts everywhere? In turn, doesn't that mean TV networks can no longer sign with whole conferences? So EVERY team will become... independent? (Terry should love that)

Heck of a risk for ESPN. Interesting.

(12-22-2023 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU dropped a few bombshells from the ACC/ESPN Media Rights Contract, including this:

Quote:The ACC is not guaranteed any television revenue after 2027 — something that was unable to be known unless members took the time to fly to Charlotte and review the locked-down contract. ESPN has a unilateral right to extend the ACC’s media deal after 2027 but hasn’t exercised that option yet...

It's over if the rights are only until 2027. That's a wrap for the ACC. Hope we make it to a P2. Hope Clemson, VT, FSU, and UNC are coming along if it's GT to the B1G. Hope Boo Corrigan and NCST get left behind. Hope a home for WF as an all-but-FB can be found in the SEC or B1G.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

Why, you don't think ESPN would extend at fire sale prices?

(12-22-2023 07:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:24 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  I believe the total was $572 Million?

Not if there's no T1 contract past 2027. That makes the value of the GoR somewhere around $328 million, give or take.

What does Florida State’s lawsuit against the ACC seek?
The suit does not outright say it plans to withdraw from the league but wants the court to essentially wipe out prohibitive penalties the Seminoles would face under the current disputed agreements if they left the ACC now:

∎ A $130 million withdrawal penalty, calculated as three times the ACC's $43.3 million operating budget in 2023.
∎ $429 million in forfeited media rights under its grant-of-rights agreement with the league through 2036, calculated at $33 million per year.

Those penalties and $13 million for unreimbursed broadcast fees add up to a total withdrawal penalty of $572 million, according to the complaint.

Link
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...008839007/

If FSU wins that case, doesn't that essentially blow up ALL Grant-of-Rights contracts everywhere? In turn, doesn't that mean TV networks can no longer sign with whole conferences? So EVERY team will become... independent? (Terry should love that)

I think what it really means is there will be a lot more contracts like the AAC had where conference members will be broken down into tiers of value

and if certain members leave the media partners can reduce the payouts not only in an amount equal to what they were paying as broken down on a "payout/number of members basis", but instead they can take a share for that member leaving and they can reduce payouts to those that remain

ESPN really did not enforce that when UConn left the AAC, but I think they did take a "share" from the contract......but when Cincy, UCF, and uH left they did make the 6 new members split the three shares left by the exiting members and they ask for and got a two year extension to what was already a very long 12 year contract

if things play put poorly as they have been lately for all of college sports the "slotting" of programs in pay tiers will probably lead to demands for unequal revenue sharing

I am not sure the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 would be the first to try it, but I think of other conferences did it and a couple of members in those conferences were getting close to making SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 money (while other conference mates make 2X G5 money) well I think some top teams in the two conferences will want some financial differentiation

if a couple of teams in Texas, Florida, or even California were somehow (8 or 10 years down the line) to find themselves in a top slot in their conference and their income was getting close to Big 10 or SEC SEC SEC members in those states.....those members in the two conferences might want open that financial gap back up

it will take a lot of time for that to happen IF it does, but I think ESPN and Fox are fully prepared tomorrow to have contracts that pay more foe certain members remaining in even the two highest paid conferences....and there are probably going to be a lot more teams that are NOT happy with their tier value vs those that are

(12-23-2023 01:01 PM)nole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 07:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:24 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  I believe the total was $572 Million?

Not if there's no T1 contract past 2027. That makes the value of the GoR somewhere around $328 million, give or take.

What does Florida State’s lawsuit against the ACC seek?
The suit does not outright say it plans to withdraw from the league but wants the court to essentially wipe out prohibitive penalties the Seminoles would face under the current disputed agreements if they left the ACC now:

∎ A $130 million withdrawal penalty, calculated as three times the ACC's $43.3 million operating budget in 2023.
∎ $429 million in forfeited media rights under its grant-of-rights agreement with the league through 2036, calculated at $33 million per year.

Those penalties and $13 million for unreimbursed broadcast fees add up to a total withdrawal penalty of $572 million, according to the complaint.

Link
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...008839007/

If FSU wins that case, doesn't that essentially blow up ALL Grant-of-Rights contracts everywhere? In turn, doesn't that mean TV networks can no longer sign with whole conferences? So EVERY team will become... independent? (Terry should love that)

Heck of a risk for ESPN. Interesting.

Not just ESPN - it would also affect Fox (Big Ten), NBC (Notre Dame), even other conferences (Big Ten couldn't keep Michigan and Ohio State, etc.)

(12-23-2023 01:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU dropped a few bombshells from the ACC/ESPN Media Rights Contract, including this:

Quote:The ACC is not guaranteed any television revenue after 2027 — something that was unable to be known unless members took the time to fly to Charlotte and review the locked-down contract. ESPN has a unilateral right to extend the ACC’s media deal after 2027 but hasn’t exercised that option yet...

It's over if the rights are only until 2027. That's a wrap for the ACC. Hope we make it to a P2. Hope Clemson, VT, FSU, and UNC are coming along if it's GT to the B1G. Hope Boo Corrigan and NCST get left behind. Hope a home for WF as an all-but-FB can be found in the SEC or B1G.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

Why, you don't think ESPN would extend at fire sale prices?

You can't pay rights damages for rights that were never exercised. That changes the current effective get out free year to 2027, not 2036. That's close enough for people to leave even they lose the GoR case.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-23-2023 07:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 01:32 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU dropped a few bombshells from the ACC/ESPN Media Rights Contract, including this:

Quote:The ACC is not guaranteed any television revenue after 2027 — something that was unable to be known unless members took the time to fly to Charlotte and review the locked-down contract. ESPN has a unilateral right to extend the ACC’s media deal after 2027 but hasn’t exercised that option yet...

It's over if the rights are only until 2027. That's a wrap for the ACC. Hope we make it to a P2. Hope Clemson, VT, FSU, and UNC are coming along if it's GT to the B1G. Hope Boo Corrigan and NCST get left behind. Hope a home for WF as an all-but-FB can be found in the SEC or B1G.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

Why, you don't think ESPN would extend at fire sale prices?

You can't pay rights damages for rights that were never exercised. That changes the current effective get out free year to 2027, not 2036. That's close enough for people to leave even they lose the GoR case.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

This seems logical, but I don't know if that makes it legally correct.

365 Sports: Zach Barnett of Footballscoop.com: It Will Cost FSU $572 Million to Leave the ACC & Its Grant of Rights

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNBHwqATaJA

John Kurtz KC Sports Network joins 365 Sports to discus shis thoughts on FSU’s attempt to break the Grant of Rights, Big10 or SEC for SEC.


Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn01ItIKGLw

DAVID GLENN SHOW || SPECIAL REPORT: FSU v THE ACC
David Glenn and host Mike Waddell review the lawsuits exchanged between the Atlantic Coast Conference and Florida State University.


Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rSUzIlKVqo

FSU vs ACC: Legal Expert Says One Side ALREADY has UPPER HAND.....Location MATTERS!
What are FSU's chances to BEAT the ACC in a court of law? Will both parties settle? What does each lawsuit mean? Will FSU Football be in a new conference next season?

Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2vSs1IA6UA

(12-23-2023 11:41 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 03:09 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Is challenging the GoRs the same as withdrawing from the ACC?

It will be interesting to see if the ACC treats this as notice of withdrawl. If so. No more voting rights for FSU.

If they try that, then we'll see you in court on that issue as well.

Would be awesome if FSU and Memphis joined the Big 12 and Fox gives them Even more money with the adds... WHAT if Big 12 added FSU Clemson Virginia and Memphis..And Fox added even more money for the new adds...