For the ACC matters, I think ESPN is usually the best source.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-answered

What are people saying about FSU's chances of winning?

The short answer is no one knows. One high-level administrator who has worked with legal teams to evaluate various grant-of-rights agreements said there are potential legal avenues that could negate the contract, but the truth is a school has never tried to challenge a modern grant of rights in court, and no one is quite certain how a judge might interpret legal arguments.

While the grant of rights and the league's TV contract are different documents, there is some overlap, and, as one league administrator noted, with the additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU, the ACC has enough teams to insulate itself against a dissolution of the TV deal even if FSU departs. In a technical sense, that means FSU could leave without costing any other schools TV revenue through 2036.

On the other hand, the loss of FSU would certainly devalue the overall product in the minds of TV partners, and no one would see Florida State for Cal, Stanford and SMU as an even trade.

Moreover, "winning," in this case, is a nebulous term. Certainly Florida State hopes for a ruling that would entirely negate the grant of rights and the exit fee. Its lawyers argue in the filing that both are "unreasonable restraints of trade in the State of Florida." They argue that the GOR and withdrawal penalty "operate in a way that prevents Florida State from competing and making the highest and best use of its media rights, and restrains the trade thereof which directly and adversely impacts not just Florida State, but all its student-athletes, coaches, staff and employees connected with its athletic programs."

But even a favorable ruling would invariably be followed by appeals from the ACC or lawsuits from other member schools. Fighting this to the end figures to be extremely ugly for all parties concerned, so the best outcome might be a negotiated exit fee that would recoup some portion of FSU's media valuation but not require the Seminoles to pay the whole amount.
...

What is a timeline for an ultimate resolution here?
As one ACC AD told ESPN, realignment has ruined the past two summers, and they already told their staff not to let this latest unrest unravel any holiday plans. The takeaway: This is just the start of a very, very long process.

The majority of administrators who spoke with ESPN said they expected it would be at least two to three years before any final resolution, and given the dollar figures at stake and the existential threat FSU's departure presents to the league, neither side has much incentive to roll over without a serious fight.

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The majority of administrators who spoke with ESPN said they expected it would be at least two to three years before any final resolution, and given the dollar figures at stake and the existential threat FSU's departure presents to the league, neither side has much incentive to roll over without a serious fight.

On the field and court: FSU's exit from the ACC is going to make OU's and Texas' last three Big 12 years look like a family reunion. Our exit has been ugly, but it's nothing compared to what FSU is about to experience.

Here's a thread we had a while back that had an interesting twist:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-955928.html

TLDR: Frank the Tank was quoted in a Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article. The link is no longer valid, and the guy who wrote the article sent me the following in May:

I wish I could comment, but unfortunately my firm has rules about what I can say publicly about the topic, and so I won't be able to post.

There is an article in the Athletic that came out a little while ago with some more information and additional thoughts. And if realignment heats back up, there will also likely be some more content coming.

The gist of his article as I recall it was "Nobody knows if a GoR challenge in court would be successful or not". Certainly nothing like the certainty that many here have expressed about it. My contention has been that it wouldn't be worth it financially to roll the dice on a unilateral withdrawal b/c the costs of losing the case would be so extreme, but FSU seems to think they have found a way to sue without actually leaving the Conference yet. ie, they can either force a settlement or obtain certainty on the actual costs of departure by going through a lawsuit before they actually decide to withdraw.

The article states that it could take two to three years.

(12-22-2023 01:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Here's a thread we had a while back that had an interesting twist:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-955928.html

TLDR: Frank the Tank was quoted in a Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article. The link is no longer valid, and the guy who wrote the article sent me the following in May:

I wish I could comment, but unfortunately my firm has rules about what I can say publicly about the topic, and so I won't be able to post.

There is an article in the Athletic that came out a little while ago with some more information and additional thoughts. And if realignment heats back up, there will also likely be some more content coming.

The gist of his article as I recall it was "Nobody knows if a GoR challenge in court would be successful or not". Certainly nothing like the certainty that many here have expressed about it. My contention has been that it wouldn't be worth it financially to roll the dice on a unilateral withdrawal b/c the costs of losing the case would be so extreme, but FSU seems to think they have found a way to sue without actually leaving the Conference yet. ie, they can either force a settlement or obtain certainty on the actual costs of departure by going through a lawsuit before they actually decide to withdraw.

Yes and that has always been my contention: I’ve never thought that the GOR is “ironclad” (as certain posters like to mock around here), but rather the potential liability is so massive that it’s a legal version of Russian Roulette to challenge it.

What’s interesting is that FSU has effectively conceded that the calculation of damages are $570 million-plus. So, FSU isn’t disputing the calculation of damages, but rather that such an amount is unconscionable. It’s definitely an interesting gamble there because they themselves say that the damages are either $570 million-plus or zero (exactly what I said in the blog post that I wrote and why I defined it as legal Russian Roulette) since a court cannot adjust that calculation. The entire FSU case rests on whether the contract is enforceable or not and they’re conceding the damages calculation (probably in part because the higher the damages the number, the better argument for an unconscionable damages case).

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  For the ACC matters, I think ESPN is usually the best source.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...s-answered

What are people saying about FSU's chances of winning?

The short answer is no one knows. One high-level administrator who has worked with legal teams to evaluate various grant-of-rights agreements said there are potential legal avenues that could negate the contract, but the truth is a school has never tried to challenge a modern grant of rights in court, and no one is quite certain how a judge might interpret legal arguments.

While the grant of rights and the league's TV contract are different documents, there is some overlap, and, as one league administrator noted, with the additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU, the ACC has enough teams to insulate itself against a dissolution of the TV deal even if FSU departs. In a technical sense, that means FSU could leave without costing any other schools TV revenue through 2036.

On the other hand, the loss of FSU would certainly devalue the overall product in the minds of TV partners, and no one would see Florida State for Cal, Stanford and SMU as an even trade.

Moreover, "winning," in this case, is a nebulous term. Certainly Florida State hopes for a ruling that would entirely negate the grant of rights and the exit fee. Its lawyers argue in the filing that both are "unreasonable restraints of trade in the State of Florida." They argue that the GOR and withdrawal penalty "operate in a way that prevents Florida State from competing and making the highest and best use of its media rights, and restrains the trade thereof which directly and adversely impacts not just Florida State, but all its student-athletes, coaches, staff and employees connected with its athletic programs."

But even a favorable ruling would invariably be followed by appeals from the ACC or lawsuits from other member schools. Fighting this to the end figures to be extremely ugly for all parties concerned, so the best outcome might be a negotiated exit fee that would recoup some portion of FSU's media valuation but not require the Seminoles to pay the whole amount.
...

What is a timeline for an ultimate resolution here?
As one ACC AD told ESPN, realignment has ruined the past two summers, and they already told their staff not to let this latest unrest unravel any holiday plans. The takeaway: This is just the start of a very, very long process.

The majority of administrators who spoke with ESPN said they expected it would be at least two to three years before any final resolution, and given the dollar figures at stake and the existential threat FSU's departure presents to the league, neither side has much incentive to roll over without a serious fight.

This is FSU saying, "tell us how much you want." If it goes to court, its a 3 to 5 year process. FSU wants out. The ACC can fight them, lose and get nothing while spending millions on lawyers, settle for a big number, or fight and spend millions, win and create a lot of bad will, bad publicity and they still leave in 12 years without paying a bunch of money. The GOR may be enforceable, but the 3 years exit fee certainly is not.

(12-22-2023 02:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Here's a thread we had a while back that had an interesting twist:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-955928.html

TLDR: Frank the Tank was quoted in a Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article. The link is no longer valid, and the guy who wrote the article sent me the following in May:

I wish I could comment, but unfortunately my firm has rules about what I can say publicly about the topic, and so I won't be able to post.

There is an article in the Athletic that came out a little while ago with some more information and additional thoughts. And if realignment heats back up, there will also likely be some more content coming.

The gist of his article as I recall it was "Nobody knows if a GoR challenge in court would be successful or not". Certainly nothing like the certainty that many here have expressed about it. My contention has been that it wouldn't be worth it financially to roll the dice on a unilateral withdrawal b/c the costs of losing the case would be so extreme, but FSU seems to think they have found a way to sue without actually leaving the Conference yet. ie, they can either force a settlement or obtain certainty on the actual costs of departure by going through a lawsuit before they actually decide to withdraw.

Yes and that has always been my contention: I’ve never thought that the GOR is “ironclad” (as certain posters like to mock around here), but rather the potential liability is so massive that it’s a legal version of Russian Roulette to challenge it.

What’s interesting is that FSU has effectively conceded that the calculation of damages are $570 million-plus. So, FSU isn’t disputing the calculation of damages, but rather that such an amount is unconscionable. It’s definitely an interesting gamble there because they themselves say that the damages are either $570 million-plus or zero (exactly what I said in the blog post that I wrote and why I defined it as legal Russian Roulette) since a court cannot adjust that calculation. The entire FSU case rests on whether the contract is enforceable or not and they’re conceding the damages calculation (probably in part because the higher the damages the number, the better argument for an unconscionable damages case).

Well I think the issue with the GOR is that they can't just write a check for damages. The ACC doesn't have to give those TV rights back at any price. It will take a lawsuit for FSU to get those rights back.

It's not about winning which would take a long time, but a cheaper and quicker exit.

(12-22-2023 02:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Here's a thread we had a while back that had an interesting twist:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-955928.html

TLDR: Frank the Tank was quoted in a Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article. The link is no longer valid, and the guy who wrote the article sent me the following in May:

I wish I could comment, but unfortunately my firm has rules about what I can say publicly about the topic, and so I won't be able to post.

There is an article in the Athletic that came out a little while ago with some more information and additional thoughts. And if realignment heats back up, there will also likely be some more content coming.

The gist of his article as I recall it was "Nobody knows if a GoR challenge in court would be successful or not". Certainly nothing like the certainty that many here have expressed about it. My contention has been that it wouldn't be worth it financially to roll the dice on a unilateral withdrawal b/c the costs of losing the case would be so extreme, but FSU seems to think they have found a way to sue without actually leaving the Conference yet. ie, they can either force a settlement or obtain certainty on the actual costs of departure by going through a lawsuit before they actually decide to withdraw.

Yes and that has always been my contention: I’ve never thought that the GOR is “ironclad” (as certain posters like to mock around here), but rather the potential liability is so massive that it’s a legal version of Russian Roulette to challenge it.

What’s interesting is that FSU has effectively conceded that the calculation of damages are $570 million-plus. So, FSU isn’t disputing the calculation of damages, but rather that such an amount is unconscionable. It’s definitely an interesting gamble there because they themselves say that the damages are either $570 million-plus or zero (exactly what I said in the blog post that I wrote and why I defined it as legal Russian Roulette) since a court cannot adjust that calculation. The entire FSU case rests on whether the contract is enforceable or not and they’re conceding the damages calculation (probably in part because the higher the damages the number, the better argument for an unconscionable damages case).

Well I think the issue with the GOR is that they can't just write a check for damages. The ACC doesn't have to give those TV rights back at any price. It will take a lawsuit for FSU to get those rights back.

Oh - I agree. I’m just saying that if FSU wants to write a check for $570 million, then the parties would likely settle and move on. Of course, FSU is saying that number should be $0 (at least regarding the GOR portion). I’m just fascinated that FSU actually admitted that these damages are in excess of a half billion dollars. We’ve thrown that number out here in this forum frequently (including me), but seeing in the court filing itself and calculated by the *plaintiff* of FSU as opposed to the ACC making a claim for it is a big-time wrinkle. FSU must see no other way outside of getting the contract thrown out entirely.

(12-22-2023 02:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  What are people saying about FSU's chances of winning?

The short answer is no one knows.

Moreover, "winning," in this case, is a nebulous term.

But even a favorable ruling would invariably be followed by appeals from the ACC or lawsuits from other member schools. Fighting this to the end figures to be extremely ugly for all parties concerned, so the best outcome might be a negotiated exit fee that would recoup some portion of FSU's media valuation but not require the Seminoles to pay the whole amount.

This is FSU saying, "tell us how much you want." If it goes to court, its a 3 to 5 year process. FSU wants out. The ACC can fight them, lose and get nothing while spending millions on lawyers, settle for a big number, or fight and spend millions, win and create a lot of bad will, bad publicity and they still leave in 12 years without paying a bunch of money. The GOR may be enforceable, but the 3 years exit fee certainly is not.

As to the quotes from the OP above, I have felt this way for some time. Contractual agreements can be broken but there is a price for everything. Time, money and bad blood isn't good for anyone - including for the ACC/ESPN. IMO, FSU already has a number that it is willing to pay in a negotiated settlement. It just comes down to how long does this process last to get there. It may not even take 3-5 years. Time will tell.

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Certainly Florida State hopes for a ruling that would entirely negate the grant of rights and the exit fee. Its lawyers argue in the filing that both are "unreasonable restraints of trade in the State of Florida." They argue that the GOR and withdrawal penalty "operate in a way that prevents Florida State from competing and making the highest and best use of its media rights, and restrains the trade thereof which directly and adversely impacts not just Florida State, but all its student-athletes, coaches, staff and employees connected with its athletic programs."

The gist of FSU's argument seems to be that since market conditions have changed and it can now earn a lot more money outside the ACC, the court should deem it unreasonable for the ACC to hold FSU to the terms of an agreement it was previously happy to earn millions of dollars from.

That sounds a bit like a husband arguing that because he's been successful in his career and has the opportunity to start a relationship with a woman more appealing to him, the court should deem it unreasonable that he should have to pay his current wife the amount specified in their prenuptial agreement.

I must be a little dense because I don't see why it should take any judge long at all to throw FSU's lawsuit out of court.

(12-22-2023 04:04 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Certainly Florida State hopes for a ruling that would entirely negate the grant of rights and the exit fee. Its lawyers argue in the filing that both are "unreasonable restraints of trade in the State of Florida." They argue that the GOR and withdrawal penalty "operate in a way that prevents Florida State from competing and making the highest and best use of its media rights, and restrains the trade thereof which directly and adversely impacts not just Florida State, but all its student-athletes, coaches, staff and employees connected with its athletic programs."

The gist of FSU's argument seems to be that since market conditions have changed and it can now earn a lot more money outside the ACC, the court should deem it unreasonable for the ACC to hold FSU to the terms of an agreement it was previously happy to earn millions of dollars from.

That sounds a bit like a husband arguing that because he's been successful in his career and has the opportunity to start a relationship with a woman more appealing to him, the court should deem it unreasonable that he should have to pay his current wife the amount specified in their prenuptial agreement.

I must be a little dense because I don't see why it should take any judge long at all to throw FSU's lawsuit out of court.

Not at all.

Their argument is that those agreements are unreasonable and punitive.

Now what you described is their real reason, so I don't know how much they really have in grounds. They did go into it eyes open.

Excerpt from Pete Thamel interview with Kelsey Riggs on ESPN's College Football Live about what might be next with Florida State and the ACC:

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/17...3458587031

There is one thing you have to look at this from a different picture since FSU is a state run school. The state is at all with Disney, and Disney is a business. Bring up the fact that the state of Florida have been trying to harm a business where a government is interfering would fall against the state and with FSU. If this was Georgia Tech or UNC filling this suit? Both those states' government is not trying to harm Disney. I could see the judges may throw this case out of court and told FSU that they have no leg to stand on.

(12-22-2023 04:04 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Certainly Florida State hopes for a ruling that would entirely negate the grant of rights and the exit fee. Its lawyers argue in the filing that both are "unreasonable restraints of trade in the State of Florida." They argue that the GOR and withdrawal penalty "operate in a way that prevents Florida State from competing and making the highest and best use of its media rights, and restrains the trade thereof which directly and adversely impacts not just Florida State, but all its student-athletes, coaches, staff and employees connected with its athletic programs."

The gist of FSU's argument seems to be that since market conditions have changed and it can now earn a lot more money outside the ACC, the court should deem it unreasonable for the ACC to hold FSU to the terms of an agreement it was previously happy to earn millions of dollars from.

That sounds a bit like a husband arguing that because he's been successful in his career and has the opportunity to start a relationship with a woman more appealing to him, the court should deem it unreasonable that he should have to pay his current wife the amount specified in their prenuptial agreement.

I must be a little dense because I don't see why it should take any judge long at all to throw FSU's lawsuit out of court.

Every day in this country there are judges who rule that provisions in a signed pre-nup are unreasonable. Every day there are judges who rule that provisions in a signed lease are unreasonable. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I get that if you signed an agreement, you should live up to it. Totally. Flip side though, it just seems wrong for a school to be 'held hostage' if they really don't want to play there... It's an ugly look for a conference. Big enough payment should make it palatable to let em go... just have to pay the price. Just don't make the mistake the Big East, and later the PAC did... have the next up programs ready to go sooner rather than later. The B12 did it right.

I don't think anyone wants this to get into the 'discovery' phase of the lawsuit, I think both sides will settle before then.

(12-22-2023 05:21 PM)Bull Wrote:  I get that if you signed an agreement, you should live up to it. Totally. Flip side though, it just seems wrong for a school to be 'held hostage' if they really don't want to play there... It's an ugly look for a conference. Big enough payment should make it palatable to let em go... just have to pay the price. Just don't make the mistake the Big East, and later the PAC did... have the next up programs ready to go sooner rather than later. The B12 did it right.

Except it does look more FSU is greedy for the money to leave, and not want to stay to keep long standing rivals together. FSU and the state of Florida are doing this to shame Disney. Why? Because that state is at war with Disney. Disney decided to bad mouthed FSU most of the season, and wanted Alabama in the college football playoffs, and now Florida State is suing the ACC since the ACC Network is signed to Disney. FSU is doing this for their state government to try and harm a legal business which is Disney. Which is why I am not hearing FSU to the SEC going on here. That is why I am seeing more Big 10 or Big 12 as the front runners as well since Big 12 is half of Big 10 media.

(12-22-2023 02:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:58 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Here's a thread we had a while back that had an interesting twist:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-955928.html

TLDR: Frank the Tank was quoted in a Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law article. The link is no longer valid, and the guy who wrote the article sent me the following in May:

I wish I could comment, but unfortunately my firm has rules about what I can say publicly about the topic, and so I won't be able to post.

There is an article in the Athletic that came out a little while ago with some more information and additional thoughts. And if realignment heats back up, there will also likely be some more content coming.

The gist of his article as I recall it was "Nobody knows if a GoR challenge in court would be successful or not". Certainly nothing like the certainty that many here have expressed about it. My contention has been that it wouldn't be worth it financially to roll the dice on a unilateral withdrawal b/c the costs of losing the case would be so extreme, but FSU seems to think they have found a way to sue without actually leaving the Conference yet. ie, they can either force a settlement or obtain certainty on the actual costs of departure by going through a lawsuit before they actually decide to withdraw.

Yes and that has always been my contention: I’ve never thought that the GOR is “ironclad” (as certain posters like to mock around here), but rather the potential liability is so massive that it’s a legal version of Russian Roulette to challenge it.

What’s interesting is that FSU has effectively conceded that the calculation of damages are $570 million-plus. So, FSU isn’t disputing the calculation of damages, but rather that such an amount is unconscionable. It’s definitely an interesting gamble there because they themselves say that the damages are either $570 million-plus or zero (exactly what I said in the blog post that I wrote and why I defined it as legal Russian Roulette) since a court cannot adjust that calculation. The entire FSU case rests on whether the contract is enforceable or not and they’re conceding the damages calculation (probably in part because the higher the damages the number, the better argument for an unconscionable damages case).

Well I think the issue with the GOR is that they can't just write a check for damages. The ACC doesn't have to give those TV rights back at any price. It will take a lawsuit for FSU to get those rights back.

Oh - I agree. I’m just saying that if FSU wants to write a check for $570 million, then the parties would likely settle and move on. Of course, FSU is saying that number should be $0 (at least regarding the GOR portion). I’m just fascinated that FSU actually admitted that these damages are in excess of a half billion dollars. We’ve thrown that number out here in this forum frequently (including me), but seeing in the court filing itself and calculated by the *plaintiff* of FSU as opposed to the ACC making a claim for it is a big-time wrinkle. FSU must see no other way outside of getting the contract thrown out entirely.

They're still lowballing the damages though, aren't they? If, as they contended earlier this years, they're worth ~ double the average "old" ACC school, say 14% of the media rights deal instead of 7% per year, and said media rights deal pays ~ $420m, then (math):

$420m x .14 = $58.8m per year
$58.8m x 12 years = $705.6m over 12 years

Though even that would appear to be a lowball, as there's no point in them leaving at all if they're not worth more like $75m per year, otherwise the P2 would be giving the "keep away" vibe and they'd just unhappily sit tight where they are.

$75m x 12 years = $900m over 12 years

Throw in something for exit fee, say round it down to a cool $100m, and you get a media rights + exit fee cost of between $800m - $1b. Not sure how that could be considered "unconscionable damages", as both numbers are quite easy to justify.

Regardless, the ACC was already sort of on the clock, but now they're REALLY on the clock. The Sharks and the Yormarks are circling. The ACC will have a very strong incentive here to drag this out through the courts for years while simultaneously pursuing a full merger with the Big 12. Something which, by the way, has the nice benefit of allowing negotiation rather than litigation to sort everything out. Big 12 schools get even more stability and assurance of continued power status, ACC left-behinds get about the same money and assurance that they will remain in the new Power structure, and ESPN and Fox get 5 more years of Big 12 control without worrying about pesky start ups moving in on their action, ESPN gets much greater reach and strength for the ACCN. I kind of thought the "ACC and Big 12 merger" idea was a pipe dream in the past, but now the stars might be aligning to encourage a closer look at it.

IMO the FSU challenge is important because no matter what happens, it has stripped away the "cloak of invulnerability" that GORs had heretofore been shrouded in.

The best kind of defense is one that intimidates your opponent in to never trying to test it. Now, the GOR is being tested.