I would look for this to wrap up toward the end of the decade. It will be timed to happen as Big 12's latest contract expires. One of the ACC's biggest demands will be ESPN guarantees the future of the ACC in the conference hierarchy. The ACC will simply demand that The ACC's contract makes it more attractive to Big 12 teams the conference might pursue if or when FSU or others exit.

The ACC will force ESPN to fracture its relationship with The Big 12. A small price to pay to keep The Big Ten out of the Southeast and to weaken another Fox property.

(12-26-2023 02:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would look for this to wrap up toward the end of the decade. It will be timed to happen as Big 12's latest contract expires. One of the ACC's biggest demands will be ESPN guarantees the future of the ACC in the conference hierarchy. The ACC will simply demand that The ACC's contract makes it more attractive to Big 12 teams the conference might pursue if or when FSU or others exit.

The ACC will force ESPN to fracture its relationship with The Big 12. A small price to pay to keep The Big Ten out of the Southeast and to weaken another Fox property.

And ESPN will be rolling on the floor laughing when they make that demand

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 10:24 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Let's say you're a landlord in Florida. You write a lease where you are allowed to enter the premises at any time, for any reason, with no prior notice even if it's not an emergency. We both sign it. However, even though I signed it, you can't enforce that term of the lease because it's a violation of state law.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's legally enforceable.

True. But I have a hard time believing that any state has a law that says a sales contract becomes unenforceable solely because the seller determines after signing that it can make more money selling to someone else.

That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

(12-26-2023 04:08 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 10:24 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Let's say you're a landlord in Florida. You write a lease where you are allowed to enter the premises at any time, for any reason, with no prior notice even if it's not an emergency. We both sign it. However, even though I signed it, you can't enforce that term of the lease because it's a violation of state law.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's legally enforceable.

True. But I have a hard time believing that any state has a law that says a sales contract becomes unenforceable solely because the seller determines after signing that it can make more money selling to someone else.

That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

I wonder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we have more than a few wandering around here.

Did FSU:

sell or
license or
lend or
cede

their media rights?

Or something else?

In other words, what - legally - does "grant" mean?

(12-26-2023 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:08 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 10:24 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Let's say you're a landlord in Florida. You write a lease where you are allowed to enter the premises at any time, for any reason, with no prior notice even if it's not an emergency. We both sign it. However, even though I signed it, you can't enforce that term of the lease because it's a violation of state law.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's legally enforceable.

True. But I have a hard time believing that any state has a law that says a sales contract becomes unenforceable solely because the seller determines after signing that it can make more money selling to someone else.

That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

I wonder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we have more than a few wandering around here.

Did FSU:

sell or
license or
lend or
cede

their media rights?

Or something else?

In other words, what - legally - does "grant" mean?

(12-26-2023 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:08 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 10:24 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Let's say you're a landlord in Florida. You write a lease where you are allowed to enter the premises at any time, for any reason, with no prior notice even if it's not an emergency. We both sign it. However, even though I signed it, you can't enforce that term of the lease because it's a violation of state law.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't necessarily mean it's legally enforceable.

True. But I have a hard time believing that any state has a law that says a sales contract becomes unenforceable solely because the seller determines after signing that it can make more money selling to someone else.

That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

I wonder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we have more than a few wandering around here.

Did FSU:

sell or
license or
lend or
cede

their media rights?

Or something else?

In other words, what - legally - does "grant" mean?

Some synonyms to consider: transfer, give, confer

But, that's not the main issue. FSU isn't contending whether they granted their rights to the ACC. The primary legal issues are whether that grant was unfairly induced and whether the penalty for breaking that grant is too high and unreasonable.

The buzz words are:

- whether the grant and the penalty for going against that grant were 'unfair' or 'unconscionable' - think unjust, unreasonable.

- whether the ACC made 'misrepresentations' to obtain FSU's grant of rights - think false, misleading, deceive...

(12-26-2023 03:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would look for this to wrap up toward the end of the decade. It will be timed to happen as Big 12's latest contract expires. One of the ACC's biggest demands will be ESPN guarantees the future of the ACC in the conference hierarchy. The ACC will simply demand that The ACC's contract makes it more attractive to Big 12 teams the conference might pursue if or when FSU or others exit.

The ACC will force ESPN to fracture its relationship with The Big 12. A small price to pay to keep The Big Ten out of the Southeast and to weaken another Fox property.

And ESPN will be rolling on the floor laughing when they make that demand

Why?
Each university in the ACC could file lawsuits in each of their states and make the process the punishment. If ESPN allows 1 university to change the terms of the contract every other university will do the same thing.

If ESPN really supports FSU's endeavour they will look for a way to keep them in an ESPN property and happy.

What many here have forgotten is nothing in conference realignment happens in a vacuum. Killing The PAC last summer did nothing but put The Big 12 and/or The ACC another step closer to extinction.

(12-26-2023 05:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 03:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would look for this to wrap up toward the end of the decade. It will be timed to happen as Big 12's latest contract expires. One of the ACC's biggest demands will be ESPN guarantees the future of the ACC in the conference hierarchy. The ACC will simply demand that The ACC's contract makes it more attractive to Big 12 teams the conference might pursue if or when FSU or others exit.

The ACC will force ESPN to fracture its relationship with The Big 12. A small price to pay to keep The Big Ten out of the Southeast and to weaken another Fox property.

And ESPN will be rolling on the floor laughing when they make that demand

Why?
Each university in the ACC could file lawsuits in each of their states and make the process the punishment. If ESPN allows 1 university to change the terms of the contract every other university will do the same thing.

If ESPN really supports FSU's endeavour they will look for a way to keep them in an ESPN property and happy.

What many here have forgotten is nothing in conference realignment happens in a vacuum. Killing The PAC last summer did nothing but put The Big 12 and/or The ACC another step closer to extinction.

ESPN probably won't guarantee anything. But if the consolidation pressure continues, what ESPN could do for its own interest is

1) not renew the B12 contract (similar to what Fox did to the Pac 12)
2) move some B12 schools to the ACC
3) get a B12 media deal at a very cheap price OR keep only SEC, ACC, and AAC.

This would result in some cost saving. Also it would keep its property (ACC) valuable.

(12-22-2023 02:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  The article states that it could take two to three years.

It won't take that long.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(12-26-2023 05:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:08 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  True. But I have a hard time believing that any state has a law that says a sales contract becomes unenforceable solely because the seller determines after signing that it can make more money selling to someone else.

That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

I wonder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we have more than a few wandering around here.

Did FSU:

sell or
license or
lend or
cede

their media rights?

Or something else?

In other words, what - legally - does "grant" mean?

Some synonyms to consider: transfer, give, confer

But, that's not the main issue. FSU isn't contending whether they granted their rights to the ACC. The primary legal issues are whether that grant was unfairly induced and whether the penalty for breaking that grant is too high and unreasonable.

The buzz words are:

- whether the grant and the penalty for going against that grant were 'unfair' or 'unconscionable' - think unjust, unreasonable.

- whether the ACC made 'misrepresentations' to obtain FSU's grant of rights - think false, misleading, deceive...

And what fans aren’t fully internalizing (or don’t want to fully internalize) is that those theories are INSANELY hard to prove and for good reason. Courts simply don’t like throwing out contracts at all - that’s the default position from day one in Contracts law in law school.

As I keep saying, the most amazing thing is that FSU isn’t challenging a single thing about the terms of the GOR itself. They aren’t even trying to argue that the ESPN early termination option allows FSU to get out of the GOR early and/or have lower damages (even though it’s brought up every 10 minutes on this forum). I emphasize again: FSU is straight up admitting in the complaint that the GOR terms do exactly what they’re intended to do (lock a school’s rights in until 2036) and are trying to get an outside force to invalidate it. That is REALLY hard to prove (and it’s supposed to be REALLY hard to prove, especially when every signatory is a sophisticated business entity with their own lawyers).

(12-26-2023 06:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 05:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 04:08 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-26-2023 02:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  That would not be the 'sole' reason in this case.

I've read FSU's legal complaint in its entirety. I'm not a lawyer but it's easy to see that the whole thing basically boils down to "We want to leave the ACC because its members are being paid less than Big 10 and SEC members, which is the ACC's fault because it has mismanaged media rights negotiations and membership additions, and we should be allowed to leave without penalty because the ACC's exit fees and GOR terms are unreasonably harsh."

The complaint conveniently fails to address the reality that Big 10 and SEC members are being paid more than ACC members primarily because the marketplace has determined that Big 10 and SEC media rights are worth significantly more than ACC media rights.

Moreover, to the extent that the payout differential is in fact due ACC mismanagement of media rights negotiations, the complaint attempts to absolve FSU of any responsibility for this mismanagement. It does so by claiming that, although FSU approved the ACC's agreements with ESPN, it only did so because ACC officials lied to FSU and other member schools about ESPN's negotiating position. However it cites no evidence to support this claim.

Finally, the complaint doesn't acknowledge that the ACC's exit fees, GOR terms, and membership additions were either approved by FSU directly or were approved by a supermajority of ACC members in accordance with by-laws that FSU agreed to subject itself to by joining the the ACC.

In my admittedly layman's opinion most of the arguments in the complaint are paper-thin, and when all of the excuses and obfuscations are peeled away, what's left is a bald assertion that FSU should be allowed to disentangle itself from its prior commitments and walk away from the ACC scot-free because those commitments are preventing it from making a lot more money.

I wonder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think we have more than a few wandering around here.

Did FSU:

sell or
license or
lend or
cede

their media rights?

Or something else?

In other words, what - legally - does "grant" mean?

Some synonyms to consider: transfer, give, confer

But, that's not the main issue. FSU isn't contending whether they granted their rights to the ACC. The primary legal issues are whether that grant was unfairly induced and whether the penalty for breaking that grant is too high and unreasonable.

The buzz words are:

- whether the grant and the penalty for going against that grant were 'unfair' or 'unconscionable' - think unjust, unreasonable.

- whether the ACC made 'misrepresentations' to obtain FSU's grant of rights - think false, misleading, deceive...

And what fans aren’t fully internalizing (or don’t want to fully internalize) is that those theories are INSANELY hard to prove and for good reason. Courts simply don’t like throwing out contracts at all - that’s the default position from day one in Contracts law in law school.

As I keep saying, the most amazing thing is that FSU isn’t challenging a single thing about the terms of the GOR itself. They aren’t even trying to argue that the ESPN early termination option allows FSU to get out of the GOR early and/or have lower damages (even though it’s brought up every 10 minutes on this forum). I emphasize again: FSU is straight up admitting in the complaint that the GOR terms do exactly what they’re intended to do (lock a school’s rights in until 2036) and are trying to get an outside force to invalidate it. That is REALLY hard to prove (and it’s supposed to be REALLY hard to prove, especially when every signatory is a sophisticated business entity with their own lawyers).

But aren't they only admitting to being locked in until 2027 now, not 2036?