I suspect that the FSU board of governors is under pressure from the fan base and boosters to do something about increasing revenues. This lawsuit has a few benefits for FSU. They can show to their fan base and boosters that they are doing something by finding out whether the Grant of Rights can be broken and what the cost would be. I am guessing that the lawyers that FSU is picking to represent them are a firm that are friends of FSU so they will be making a lot of money from this lawsuit. This lawsuit is a way of giving their friends in the law firm millions of dollars.

My question in all of this is where are the Wall Street bankers? It seems to me that FSU merely needs to read some analysts reports on the future of cable companies such as ESPN and Fox Sports. If they did this, they would find out that the ACC TV contract will not be too bad as there is a lot of cord cutting going on so cable companies are hurting and it is only going to get worse so ESPN and Fox Sports will not be able to afford to pay higher and higher TV rights money. Again, I look at this more as a show for the fan base and also to give millions of $$$ to their buddies in the law firm.

(12-22-2023 10:03 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I suspect that the FSU board of governors is under pressure from the fan base and boosters to do something about increasing revenues. This lawsuit has a few benefits for FSU. They can show to their fan base and boosters that they are doing something by finding out whether the Grant of Rights can be broken and what the cost would be. I am guessing that the lawyers that FSU is picking to represent them are a firm that are friends of FSU so they will be making a lot of money from this lawsuit. This lawsuit is a way of giving their friends in the law firm millions of dollars.

My question in all of this is where are the Wall Street bankers? It seems to me that FSU merely needs to read some analysts reports on the future of cable companies such as ESPN and Fox Sports. If they did this, they would find out that the ACC TV contract will not be too bad as there is a lot of cord cutting going on so cable companies are hurting and it is only going to get worse so ESPN and Fox Sports will not be able to afford to pay higher and higher TV rights money. Again, I look at this more as a show for the fan base and also to give millions of $$$ to their buddies in the law firm.

Makes sense and ordinarily, I could see that. However, the ACC's lawsuit now puts this in a very different light, IMO.

David Teel’s article on this topic.

https://richmond.com/sports/fsu-sues-acc...9cb1c.html

(12-22-2023 11:33 AM)mike012779 Wrote:  Espn and Acc needs to send FSU a plaque saying. Remember you’re here forever :)

Texas aggy has one they will sell cheap that can probably be repurposed......it might even be a bit familiar to them

(12-22-2023 05:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 04:25 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 07:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Another solid, informative article from Brett McMurphy:

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/flor...eaving-acc

Have to love it when McMurphy writes stuff like "the ACC’s supposedly ironclad Grant of Rights", when the ACC GoR is modeled after the Big XII GoR! If there's a way out of the ACC, it also works for the Big XII!

Personally, I don't think FSU has found an "escape hatch", as he put it. That would spell doom for the ACC - assuming the Big Ten actually wants enough teams. I just think FSU has reached the point where they're willing to take out a $400 million loan.

McMurphy also claims that all exit fees are negotiated down to 60% of face value. That's patently FALSE. Texas and OU certainly paid more than 60%, and WVU paid more than 100%, IIRC.

The OP also quotes Alford, when he told his board in February that “hypothetically” it was possible for Florida State to break even within four years of leaving the ACC. That appears to assume that FSU pays nothing to get out of the GoR (because $120M / $30M = 4). This is a very unlikely outcome.

The most likely outcome, IMO, is for FSU to pay about $30M/year over the lifetime of the GoR. If they (or, more likely, the ACC) want to pay in one lump sum, it's about $480M - not adjusted for the time value of money. The present worth value (assuming 6% interest) is only $251.5M for the GoR (the $120M is already present value), so an acceptable total up front payment would be $251.5M + $120M = $371.5M. That's not a settlement - that's just the present value of a series of future payments (if you invest that money now at 6% interest, it's worth the same as the series of payments would be).

But it's not patently false. Texas and Oklahoma were supposed to pay 2 years of conference distributions as an exit fee plus ? for a one-year break of the GOR. So, $80 million in exit fees plus ?. Probably should have been a minimum of $100 million there, which they got out for $50 million.

OUT was settled amicably. When speaking about their departures, OUT repeatedly confirmed that they would fully comply with their commitments…including the GORs. They announced their departures and let the B12 develop solutions. When ESPN couldn’t afford the B1G media contract and the 10-team PAC asked for $50M, the B12 jumped at the golden opportunity to partner with ESPN. ESPN then structured the B12 media deal extension in a manner that would encourage the B12 to allow OUT to leave early (because they could better monetize OUT in the SEC). OUT leaving was horrible for the B12, but ESPN gave the B12 the compensation that OUT saved.

Maybe ESPN or another media provider will give the ACC extra money. I’m not optimistic that FSU’s approach is comparable to OUT.

it is much different getting out a single year early and a conference getting money vs, dealing with the reality that Texas and OU were prepared to ride it out another year

in addition I think it was Fox that made it possible for that to happen more so than ESPN because it was Fox that demanded Texas and OU pay them for the lost inventory of games and it was Fox that was less interested (yet went along with) the pro rate for adding teams as long as they were "P5" and in the end Fox went along with more teams than they had originally agreed to for that pro rata

ESPN was not going to pay Fox and Texas and OU were fully prepared to wait another year and leave and probably go to court over the exit fees (with the GOR no longer applying to them) while they were comfortably in the SEC SEC SEC

the Big 12 worked with two media partners, collected some cash, watched the PAC 12 fall apart, added some of them, and got a VERY VERY VERY slight increase in their contract

with the ACC we are looking at 4 years to 2027 if reports are to be believed and if reports are to be believed an ESPN that has already told the ACC "take it or leave it and not just now but for the future" so there is a lot more at stake for the ACC

but the way this is shaping up it could be in court for several years it is looking ugly already on day #2

(12-22-2023 12:54 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:18 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 10:32 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is you not seeing how the ACC has screwed the big brands over for years. If you really listened to that, you have to be a real beta to take all that lying down and ask for more ...

Plus UNC will be next wave out the door. They are just too gutless to be the "bad guy'

It's called being smart. If FSU is able to negotiate a reasonable way out then UNC can explore it's options. Most people like you seem to forget that UNC would still need to appease the UNC System even if it were free to go. So no need to rock the boat until you at least know what it takes to leave. My guess is UNC abstains from any procedural votes involving this lawsuit

There are leaders and there are followers.

Florida State is comfortable with its role, spearheading change.

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:23 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN still hasn't exercised it after 2027?
Never saw that.
Could be a window to get out then?

Definitely a blunder by the acc. You can't enforce media rights that haven't even been extended ...

I bet FSU is out in 2025

That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

(12-22-2023 10:03 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  I suspect that the FSU board of governors is under pressure from the fan base and boosters to do something about increasing revenues. This lawsuit has a few benefits for FSU. They can show to their fan base and boosters that they are doing something by finding out whether the Grant of Rights can be broken and what the cost would be. I am guessing that the lawyers that FSU is picking to represent them are a firm that are friends of FSU so they will be making a lot of money from this lawsuit. This lawsuit is a way of giving their friends in the law firm millions of dollars.

My question in all of this is where are the Wall Street bankers? It seems to me that FSU merely needs to read some analysts reports on the future of cable companies such as ESPN and Fox Sports. If they did this, they would find out that the ACC TV contract will not be too bad as there is a lot of cord cutting going on so cable companies are hurting and it is only going to get worse so ESPN and Fox Sports will not be able to afford to pay higher and higher TV rights money. Again, I look at this more as a show for the fan base and also to give millions of $$$ to their buddies in the law firm.

Florida State is leaving the ACC.

The rest is finding out the price tag, finding out the destination, and finding out what other ACC schools choose to do once that information is known.

Price tag will be determined by legal settlement.

Destination will be determined by the university, the P2 conferences, and P2 media partners.

Precedent established, other schools will make their own decisions.

(12-23-2023 02:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:23 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN still hasn't exercised it after 2027?
Never saw that.
Could be a window to get out then?

Definitely a blunder by the acc. You can't enforce media rights that haven't even been extended ...

I bet FSU is out in 2025

That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

So Dolphins players can't have player options?
For that matter, can Floridians exercise stock options?

(12-23-2023 02:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:23 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN still hasn't exercised it after 2027?
Never saw that.
Could be a window to get out then?

Definitely a blunder by the acc. You can't enforce media rights that haven't even been extended ...

I bet FSU is out in 2025

That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

Will that hurt USF’s chances of joining the ACC?

(12-23-2023 06:01 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 02:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Definitely a blunder by the acc. You can't enforce media rights that haven't even been extended ...

I bet FSU is out in 2025

That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

Will that hurt USF’s chances of joining the ACC?

I don't see why it should. If the state of Florida wins on this point, Florida State and Miami can both slip out in 2027 if they choose, simply by not agreeing to an extension. In the future, the extension of any grant of rights agreement can simply be made a mutual agreement by design (rather than unilateral). This brings it into accord with the state's definition of fair business practice.

According to Florida State, this is already how other conferences do it. (That's going by what we heard in the video, which of course presents just one party's side.)

I can't imagine why the ACC would stick to their guns over a unilateral setup that shuts them out of Florida and other states. More likely they'd just patch that problem so life can go on.

You'd expect them to be eager to add the Bulls in that situation, wouldn't you? Perhaps UCF as well if the opportunity arrived.

(12-23-2023 06:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 02:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:27 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Definitely a blunder by the acc. You can't enforce media rights that haven't even been extended ...

I bet FSU is out in 2025

That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

So Dolphins players can't have player options?
For that matter, can Floridians exercise stock options?

Say what? These examples don't look analogous.

Florida law apparently has it that extensions of exclusive contracts have to be mutual. It's a feature of fair business practice. This is going by what I heard in the video.

If you're a singer and you have an exclusive contractual arrangement with a label to make 5 albums for X fees and royalties, and the fine print says that after album 4 is released the label has the option to keep you under exclusive contract for 5 more albums at the same rates whether you like it or not, that could be challenged as an unfair business practice. If your label gets a choice about the length of your contract, you do.

(12-23-2023 06:34 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 06:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 02:52 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:34 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  That would be 4yrs rights + exit fee?

I guarantee you FSU's lawyers will try to make that case. If the GoR is only worth 3 more years of T1 payments, plus 12 years worth of ACCN payments, tha's a LOT less money.
(3 X $26M) + (12 X $10M) = $78M + $120M = $198M
adding that to the exit fee, which is now est. = $130M
gives us a new, lower estimate of the exit cost: $328M
Still a lot, but every couple hundred million dollars makes a difference!

Unilateral alteration of a contract by one party is unlawful in Florida.

If one party has the right to extend or not extend the grant of rights, but the other has no choice but to live with what the other party decides, the contract is invalid in the state of Florida.

That's the argument, according to the video meeting. That law is why the state, not the university, is the plaintiff.

So Dolphins players can't have player options?
For that matter, can Floridians exercise stock options?

Say what? These examples don't look analogous.

Florida law apparently has it that extensions of exclusive contracts have to be mutual. It's a feature of fair business practice. This is going by what I heard in the video.

If you're a singer and you have an exclusive contractual arrangement with a label to make 5 albums for X fees and royalties, and the fine print says that after album 4 is released the label has the option to keep you under exclusive contract for 5 more albums at the same rates whether you like it or not, that could be challenged as an unfair business practice. If your label gets a choice about the length of your contract, you do.

The NFL player contract is absolutely analogous (it's an exclusive contract), but maybe Florida really is different, based on your singer example.

(12-23-2023 02:43 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:54 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:18 PM)Ragu Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 10:32 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is you not seeing how the ACC has screwed the big brands over for years. If you really listened to that, you have to be a real beta to take all that lying down and ask for more ...

Plus UNC will be next wave out the door. They are just too gutless to be the "bad guy'

It's called being smart. If FSU is able to negotiate a reasonable way out then UNC can explore it's options. Most people like you seem to forget that UNC would still need to appease the UNC System even if it were free to go. So no need to rock the boat until you at least know what it takes to leave. My guess is UNC abstains from any procedural votes involving this lawsuit

There are leaders and there are followers.

Florida State is comfortable with its role, spearheading change.

Don't get it twisted, we would never follow you period. Now I respect that FSU is looking after it's best interest but it's not clear that UNC is looking to leave at this point if that were on the table.

(12-23-2023 08:20 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 02:43 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:54 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:18 PM)Ragu Wrote:  What's embarrassing is you not seeing how the ACC has screwed the big brands over for years. If you really listened to that, you have to be a real beta to take all that lying down and ask for more ...

Plus UNC will be next wave out the door. They are just too gutless to be the "bad guy'

It's called being smart. If FSU is able to negotiate a reasonable way out then UNC can explore it's options. Most people like you seem to forget that UNC would still need to appease the UNC System even if it were free to go. So no need to rock the boat until you at least know what it takes to leave. My guess is UNC abstains from any procedural votes involving this lawsuit

There are leaders and there are followers.

Florida State is comfortable with its role, spearheading change.

Don't get it twisted, we would never follow you period. Now I respect that FSU is looking after it's best interest but it's not clear that UNC is looking to leave at this point if that were on the table.

So Florida State leads the way out, UNC decides if it wants to follow.

That's the action you just described. OK. We'll see what happens.

Welp....we'll be quiet lively in here for awhile.....woah!

The big highlight for me yesterday was Nicole Auerbach reporting that ESPN has no obligation to pay the ACC past 2027, yet the GOR is out thru 2036..... WOWZERS!

That may be where the FSU lawyers first, then rest of our lawyers eat this thing up....Will that hand us a key to a better home, maybe for some but not most....

"Per FSU, ESPN is not guaranteed to pay ACC members revenue past 2027, but the ACC schools are locked into a grant of rights that runs through 2036."

https://x.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1738...82608?s=20

(12-23-2023 09:54 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Welp....we'll be quiet lively in here for awhile.....woah!

The big highlight for me yesterday was Nicole Auerbach reporting that ESPN has no obligation to pay the ACC past 2027, yet the GOR is out thru 2036..... WOWZERS!

That may be where the FSU lawyers first, then rest of our lawyers eat this thing up....Will that hand us a key to a better home, maybe for some but not most....

"Per FSU, ESPN is not guaranteed to pay ACC members revenue past 2027, but the ACC schools are locked into a grant of rights that runs through 2036."

https://x.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1738...82608?s=20

The GOR extension was about the ACCN.

If ESPN had unilateral rights to extend the contract, that means if they didn't, the ACC rights would go to the open market. Sounds like FSU is complaining out of both sides of their mouth.

This is the first time a conference network will have lost a property. This will be interesting from that perspective. That's going to pile on the damages. I could see ESPN or even individual schools forming a collective suit against FSU too.

(12-23-2023 10:03 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 09:54 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  Welp....we'll be quiet lively in here for awhile.....woah!

The big highlight for me yesterday was Nicole Auerbach reporting that ESPN has no obligation to pay the ACC past 2027, yet the GOR is out thru 2036..... WOWZERS!

That may be where the FSU lawyers first, then rest of our lawyers eat this thing up....Will that hand us a key to a better home, maybe for some but not most....

"Per FSU, ESPN is not guaranteed to pay ACC members revenue past 2027, but the ACC schools are locked into a grant of rights that runs through 2036."

https://x.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1738...82608?s=20

The GOR extension was about the ACCN.

If ESPN had unilateral rights to extend the contract, that means if they didn't, the ACC rights would go to the open market. Sounds like FSU is complaining out of both sides of their mouth.

This is the first time a conference network will have lost a property. This will be interesting from that perspective. That's going to pile on the damages. I could see ESPN or even individual schools forming a collective suit against FSU too.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't read deep enough into/realize this was directly related to the ACCN

(12-23-2023 08:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 08:20 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-23-2023 02:43 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:54 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:18 PM)Ragu Wrote:  What's embarrassing is you not seeing how the ACC has screwed the big brands over for years. If you really listened to that, you have to be a real beta to take all that lying down and ask for more ...

Plus UNC will be next wave out the door. They are just too gutless to be the "bad guy'

It's called being smart. If FSU is able to negotiate a reasonable way out then UNC can explore it's options. Most people like you seem to forget that UNC would still need to appease the UNC System even if it were free to go. So no need to rock the boat until you at least know what it takes to leave. My guess is UNC abstains from any procedural votes involving this lawsuit

There are leaders and there are followers.

Florida State is comfortable with its role, spearheading change.

Don't get it twisted, we would never follow you period. Now I respect that FSU is looking after it's best interest but it's not clear that UNC is looking to leave at this point if that were on the table.

So Florida State leads the way out, UNC decides if it wants to follow.

That's the action you just described. OK. We'll see what happens.

No, UNC IMO has no issue waiting until the early part of the next decade to allow all factors to settle NIL/pay to play/new CFP/future NCAA restructuring etc before it decides whether or not the ACC is still a viable home for it's athletic teams.

I'm hearing that it's just a fomality -- ESPN will definitely excercise their option to extend the ACC to 2036, and will likely do so BEFORE the FSU lawsuit is decided.