(01-29-2024 02:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Florida State University is not suing at all. The state of Florida is.

Don’t let facts get in the way of your story:

https://news.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/...aint-4.pdf

Florida State University Board of Trustees v. Atlantic Coast Conference

(01-31-2024 07:10 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-29-2024 02:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Florida State University is not suing at all. The state of Florida is.

....
https://news.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/...aint-4.pdf

Florida State University Board of Trustees v. Atlantic Coast Conference

I stand corrected. To clarify: The state of Florida is demanding relevant documents from the ACC, in support of a suit being brought against the league by the university.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...su-lawsuit

My original point stands. At issue is not a university request to exit the conference, but the ACC's compliance with laws governing fair trade.

As a practical matter, we know a conference departure is on the way. The suit itself, however, raises issues of contract law.

Legal compliance as a dispute is precisely why the state attorney general is involved. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (per ESPN):

"They are unlawfully keeping these documents locked away in North Carolina. However, North Carolina and Florida state laws are clear that these agreements are public records and must be handed over immediately. Today, I am taking action to ensure FSU and the public are able to review these agreements."

NC laws, too? How about that.

We'll see what happens.

(01-31-2024 07:10 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-29-2024 02:42 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Florida State University is not suing at all. The state of Florida is.

Don’t let facts get in the way of your story:

https://news.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/...aint-4.pdf

Florida State University Board of Trustees v. Atlantic Coast Conference

WTF, we were told it was the State of Florida.

As a government contractor who recently went through training regarding the handling of proprietary/trade secret documents. The GOR document may fall under regulations that specifically describe how such documentation can be disseminated even by public entities.

Even though state universities are public entities does not entitle public access to protected data just because of the nature of public institutions. The ACC and some of its members are private nonprofit business entities. If schools can be forced to divulge trade secrets/proprietary information, then public schools could never be trusted by private parties to be reliable partners in any endeavor where proprietary information is involved.

Does FSU really want to advertise to research / business partners it cannot be a trusted to not disclose sensitive information?

(01-31-2024 04:13 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  As a government contractor who recently went through training regarding the handling of proprietary/trade secret documents. The GOR document may fall under regulations that specifically describe how such documentation can be disseminated even by public entities.

Even though state universities are public entities does not entitle public access to protected data just because of the nature of public institutions. The ACC and some of its members are private nonprofit business entities. If schools can be forced to divulge trade secrets/proprietary information, then public schools could never be trusted by private parties to be reliable partners in any endeavor where proprietary information is involved.

Does FSU really want to advertise to research / business partners it cannot be a trusted to not disclose sensitive information?

This is not real litigation it is political theater designed to cover up and obscure bad decisions made decades ago. In that part of the Deep South theatrics are a part of life. It's the private entities whose information might be disclosed that will have the sharpest ax to grind with FSU. That's WF, Duke, BC, and Syracuse most of all. They are also the ones with the greatest potential damage from FSU not fulfilling its contraction obligations to play league football games against them. The exit fee is supposed to cover some if not all of that, but P-4 football games against Florida schools is not an easy to replace thing.

Wake Forest in particular is who they need worry about ginning up damages.

(01-31-2024 04:13 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  As a government contractor who recently went through training regarding the handling of proprietary/trade secret documents. The GOR document may fall under regulations that specifically describe how such documentation can be disseminated even by public entities.

Even though state universities are public entities does not entitle public access to protected data just because of the nature of public institutions. The ACC and some of its members are private nonprofit business entities. If schools can be forced to divulge trade secrets/proprietary information, then public schools could never be trusted by private parties to be reliable partners in any endeavor where proprietary information is involved.
....

Florida's freedom-of-information laws are famously wide open in comparison to many other states.

Contract law as practiced everywhere requires that courts be able to examine contracts. It also makes provisions for protection of 'trade secrets'—confidential matters of business that, if disclosed, might forfeit a hard-won benefit to a commercial competitor. (A new technology being developed for patent, say.) As you know, collaborators on things like this typically sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In this particular case, relevant contract documents (grant of rights, media contract, etc) were requested of the ACC office. The league responded by claiming protection of the material under the category 'trade secrets.' So it's fair to say your suggestion here has already been taken.

The legal issue now is whether the ACC's use of the term 'trade secret' matches the definition used in the applicable statutes. Normally a signed contract is not in itself a 'trade secret,' but we'll see. Florida State adds that ACC schools were never asked to sign an NDA. That's relevant to the question, and an easy enough detail to verify.

Meanwhile, anyone thinking 'Let's invite USF after Florida State leaves' does well to read paragraph 1 again.

This issue isn't going to be decided on a message board.
We'll know in a couple of years when the court system sifts through all of the crap the lawyers for both sides throw at them.

(02-01-2024 08:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 04:13 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  As a government contractor who recently went through training regarding the handling of proprietary/trade secret documents. The GOR document may fall under regulations that specifically describe how such documentation can be disseminated even by public entities.

Even though state universities are public entities does not entitle public access to protected data just because of the nature of public institutions. The ACC and some of its members are private nonprofit business entities. If schools can be forced to divulge trade secrets/proprietary information, then public schools could never be trusted by private parties to be reliable partners in any endeavor where proprietary information is involved.
....

Florida's freedom-of-information laws are famously wide open in comparison to many other states.

Contract law as practiced everywhere requires that courts be able to examine contracts. It also makes provisions for protection of 'trade secrets'—confidential matters of business that, if disclosed, might forfeit a hard-won benefit to a commercial competitor. (A new technology being developed for patent, say.) As you know, collaborators on things like this typically sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In this particular case, relevant contract documents (grant of rights, media contract, etc) were requested of the ACC office. The league responded by claiming protection of the material under the category 'trade secrets.' So it's fair to say your suggestion here has already been taken.

The legal issue now is whether the ACC's use of the term 'trade secret' matches the definition used in the applicable statutes. Normally a signed contract is not in itself a 'trade secret,' but we'll see. Florida State adds that ACC schools were never asked to sign an NDA. That's relevant to the question, and an easy enough detail to verify.

Meanwhile, anyone thinking 'Let's invite USF after Florida State leaves' does well to read paragraph 1 again.

Evidence can be submitted under seal.

(02-01-2024 11:18 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 08:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 04:13 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  As a government contractor who recently went through training regarding the handling of proprietary/trade secret documents. The GOR document may fall under regulations that specifically describe how such documentation can be disseminated even by public entities.

Even though state universities are public entities does not entitle public access to protected data just because of the nature of public institutions. The ACC and some of its members are private nonprofit business entities. If schools can be forced to divulge trade secrets/proprietary information, then public schools could never be trusted by private parties to be reliable partners in any endeavor where proprietary information is involved.
....

Florida's freedom-of-information laws are famously wide open in comparison to many other states.

Contract law as practiced everywhere requires that courts be able to examine contracts. It also makes provisions for protection of 'trade secrets'—confidential matters of business that, if disclosed, might forfeit a hard-won benefit to a commercial competitor. (A new technology being developed for patent, say.) As you know, collaborators on things like this typically sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In this particular case, relevant contract documents (grant of rights, media contract, etc) were requested of the ACC office. The league responded by claiming protection of the material under the category 'trade secrets.' So it's fair to say your suggestion here has already been taken.

The legal issue now is whether the ACC's use of the term 'trade secret' matches the definition used in the applicable statutes. Normally a signed contract is not in itself a 'trade secret,' but we'll see. Florida State adds that ACC schools were never asked to sign an NDA. That's relevant to the question, and an easy enough detail to verify.

Meanwhile, anyone thinking 'Let's invite USF after Florida State leaves' does well to read paragraph 1 again.

Evidence can be submitted under seal.

You're not getting anything that's under this seal!

Having read their revised pleadings, I see FSU claiming that the only "contract" that seems to exist between ESPN and the ACC is the one from 2012 and pays out to 2027 with only a 4.5% annual ratchet. They even attach that scale to their pleadings. It's an amazing argument to try to pull off, essentially saying that the ACCN does not exist a contract between ESPN and the ACC.

Total TV Only Contract Revenue

Year FSU Claim ACC Actual

16 $236 M $236 M
17 $245M $277M
18 $257 M $288M
19 $269 M $332 M
20 $281M $397 M
21 $307M $443 M

These are some stupendous lies that FSU is telling. My experience is that when otherwise competent lawyers are telling huge whoppers that can be easily fact checked, they are just attempting to politic a certain audience - like the Realignment Board here, the National Media, and their uneducated fans.

(02-01-2024 03:18 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  Having read their revised pleadings, I see FSU claiming that the only "contract" that seems to exist between ESPN and the ACC is the one from 2012 and pays out to 2027 with only a 4.5% annual ratchet. They even attach that scale to their pleadings. It's an amazing argument to try to pull off, essentially saying that the ACCN does not exist a contract between ESPN and the ACC.

Total TV Only Contract Revenue

Year FSU Claim ACC Actual

16 $236 M $236 M
17 $245M $277M
18 $257 M $288M
19 $269 M $332 M
20 $281M $397 M
21 $307M $443 M

These are some stupendous lies that FSU is telling. My experience is that when otherwise competent lawyers are telling huge whoppers that can be easily fact checked, they are just attempting to politic a certain audience - like the Realignment Board here, the National Media, and their uneducated fans.

We have a few of those types around here, that get all of their "legal expertise" form the Warchant message board.

A career in NC or Virginia will insulate you from big lie telling squires. The state bars will discipline them but it's anything goes in Florida.

(02-01-2024 11:18 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 08:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Florida's freedom-of-information laws are famously wide open in comparison to many other states.

Contract law as practiced everywhere requires that courts be able to examine contracts. It also makes provisions for protection of 'trade secrets'—confidential matters of business that, if disclosed, might forfeit a hard-won benefit to a commercial competitor. (A new technology being developed for patent, say.) As you know, collaborators on things like this typically sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

In this particular case, relevant contract documents (grant of rights, media contract, etc) were requested of the ACC office. The league responded by claiming protection of the material under the category 'trade secrets.' So it's fair to say your suggestion here has already been taken.

The legal issue now is whether the ACC's use of the term 'trade secret' matches the definition used in the applicable statutes. Normally a signed contract is not in itself a 'trade secret,' but we'll see. Florida State adds that ACC schools were never asked to sign an NDA. That's relevant to the question, and an easy enough detail to verify.

Meanwhile, anyone thinking 'Let's invite USF after Florida State leaves' does well to read paragraph 1 again.

Evidence can be submitted under seal.

Sure, and both states allow redaction.

Guest Post: Florida State vs. the ACC - the ACC Strikes Back Part II

In conclusion, the ACC lawsuit seems much stronger to me than the FSU suit. It is a fairly basic lawsuit, i.e. they signed the contract, please force them to follow it. They spend a lot of time on pre-emptive venue issues, which may put them in a strong position for the anticipated motion to transfer venue.

Another thing to note is that FSU’s actions make little sense from one key angle. They want to get out of the ACC to the Big10, because they want more opportunities to make the playoff. However, the playoff is expanding from 4-12 teams next year. If FSU is as good as they say, FSU would dominate the ACC for years to come and get the auto-bid every year. They would make more money based on the success fees they get AND the playoff payoff! Going to the Big10 would be objectively worse given the level of teams they have to beat there to get the auto-bid.

Functionally, they could argue that they are getting millions of dollars less a year in contract payout, which is true. That is partially mitigated by the payoffs outlined in the prior paragraph. However, if they have to pay 300+ to get out of the ACC, how many years would it take to make that back. So, they are getting not much additional value, if any, by leaving. This does not make any sense from a rational perspective. Makes the FSU actions seem more foolish than ever.

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...he-acc-bb1

Could FSU test the GoRs without actually leaving? If it's ironclad and it would be too expensive or punitive to leave, then they stay for the duration, but if they get out of jail free, then they make their intention to go.

(02-04-2024 04:28 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Could FSU test the GoRs without actually leaving?
....

That's pretty much what this lawsuit does.

Couz's corner (WVU/Big12) interviews Doug Rohan.

One new, interesting observation that Doug makes is that he thinks FSU will not pay $500m+ to get out of the ACC GoRs, FSU would simply serve the rest of their time.

This is why FSU has nothing to lose in challenging the GoRs and everything to gain.

(02-12-2024 08:25 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  



Couz's corner (WVU/Big12) interviews Doug Rohan.

One new, interesting observation that Doug makes is that he thinks FSU will not pay $500m+ to get out of the ACC GoRs, FSU would simply serve the rest of their time.

This is why FSU has nothing to lose in challenging the GoRs and everything to gain.

FSU fans have such fantasies.

No, there's no reason to keep such a disgruntled members around. FSU's actions have caused the ACC irreparable injury. They're going to reap what they've sown. Good riddance. We own your media rights until 2036. Good luck in the Sun Belt. You tried to destroy us. We'll destroy you in return.

(02-12-2024 09:08 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-12-2024 08:25 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  



Couz's corner (WVU/Big12) interviews Doug Rohan.

One new, interesting observation that Doug makes is that he thinks FSU will not pay $500m+ to get out of the ACC GoRs, FSU would simply serve the rest of their time.

This is why FSU has nothing to lose in challenging the GoRs and everything to gain.

FSU fans have such fantasies.

No, there's no reason to keep such a disgruntled members around. FSU's actions have caused the ACC irreparable injury. They're going to reap what they've sown. Good riddance. We own your media rights until 2036. Good luck in the Sun Belt. You tried to destroy us. We'll destroy you in return.

That sounds more like a Duke fantasy. I don't see any way there are enough votes to expel Florida State. Yes, they have damaged the conference, and maybe there are some legal avenues to punish them for what they've done. That said, I suspect they'll be members as long as they want to stay (unless the ACC passes some rule where saying certain negative things are tantamount to notice of withdrawal...? Such a rule does not exist at this time, however.)

(02-12-2024 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-12-2024 09:08 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(02-12-2024 08:25 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  



Couz's corner (WVU/Big12) interviews Doug Rohan.

One new, interesting observation that Doug makes is that he thinks FSU will not pay $500m+ to get out of the ACC GoRs, FSU would simply serve the rest of their time.

This is why FSU has nothing to lose in challenging the GoRs and everything to gain.

FSU fans have such fantasies.

No, there's no reason to keep such a disgruntled members around. FSU's actions have caused the ACC irreparable injury. They're going to reap what they've sown. Good riddance. We own your media rights until 2036. Good luck in the Sun Belt. You tried to destroy us. We'll destroy you in return.

That sounds more like a Duke fantasy. I don't see any way there are enough votes to expel Florida State. Yes, they have damaged the conference, and maybe there are some legal avenues to punish them for what they've done. That said, I suspect they'll be members as long as they want to stay (unless the ACC passes some rule where saying certain negative things are tantamount to notice of withdrawal...? Such a rule does not exist at this time, however.)

It looks to me the relationwith FSU remains cordial though the legal fight gets intense.

Below is from David Teel after an interview with VT AD (Babcock) and president (Sands)

Sands and Babcock said interactions with their Florida State peers remain civil.

“I think it will be a long, drawn-out fight. I’ll just leave it at that,” Babcock said.

Can the relationship be mended?

“We have (FSU) President (Rick) McCullough in our board meetings, unless of course it has to do with the lawsuit,” Sands said. “He’s a great colleague. I really enjoy working with Rick. And the student-athletes and the program at Florida State are absolutely part of our fabric. I understand the frustration around the revenue gap. Everybody feels that, but we try to keep things as normal as possible. ...

Babcock also said this in case you wonder what VT thinks about its future.

What happens here, I have no idea. ... If I knew, that would be one less thing to worry about. ... We are happy in the ACC.”

https://richmond.com/sports/virginia-tec...3e060.html