(02-08-2024 05:39 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 01:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Legal analysis from WriteForCalifornia


https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...um=reader2

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...acc-part-1

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...vs-the-acc

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...cc-the-acc

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

This guy is going to LOVE the ACC. Sounds like a perfect replacement!

After reading all of that, I think he already does : )

(02-08-2024 05:41 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:39 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 01:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Legal analysis from WriteForCalifornia


https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...um=reader2

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...acc-part-1

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...vs-the-acc

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...cc-the-acc

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

This guy is going to LOVE the ACC. Sounds like a perfect replacement!

After reading all of that, I think he already does : )

This Cal guy won’t be presenting to a judge and jury. It is very one-sided longhand, and the legal perspectives are rather amateurish. Next……

(02-10-2024 08:53 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:41 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:39 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 01:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Legal analysis from WriteForCalifornia


https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...um=reader2

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...acc-part-1

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...vs-the-acc

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...cc-the-acc

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

This guy is going to LOVE the ACC. Sounds like a perfect replacement!

After reading all of that, I think he already does : )

This Cal guy won’t be presenting to a judge and jury. It is very one-sided longhand, and the legal perspectives are rather amateurish. Next……

Show me any other legal analysis (not youtube) less amateurish on this topic.

(02-10-2024 01:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-10-2024 08:53 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:41 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:39 PM)3BNole Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 01:25 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Legal analysis from WriteForCalifornia


https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...um=reader2

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...acc-part-1

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...vs-the-acc

https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-p...cc-the-acc

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

This guy is going to LOVE the ACC. Sounds like a perfect replacement!

After reading all of that, I think he already does : )

This Cal guy won’t be presenting to a judge and jury. It is very one-sided longhand, and the legal perspectives are rather amateurish. Next……

Show me any other legal analysis (not youtube) less amateurish on this topic.

I'll sidestep the "amateurish" comment, and just say that I think it's rather fairly obvious that the commenter has some severe bias.

That said, it was interesting to see how they laid out their opinions.

(02-10-2024 02:04 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-10-2024 01:57 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-10-2024 08:53 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:41 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2024 05:39 PM)3BNole Wrote:  This guy is going to LOVE the ACC. Sounds like a perfect replacement!

After reading all of that, I think he already does : )

This Cal guy won’t be presenting to a judge and jury. It is very one-sided longhand, and the legal perspectives are rather amateurish. Next……

Show me any other legal analysis (not youtube) less amateurish on this topic.

I'll sidestep the "amateurish" comment, and just say that I think it's rather fairly obvious that the commenter has some severe bias.

That said, it was interesting to see how they laid out their opinions.

He is probably very pro-ACC.

I just found it funny because I haven't seen anything less amateurish on this topic. I mean, who's going to post a real professional legal analysis for free?

EDIT: Thank you to the fine folks at 247 sports.

https://247sports.com/college/florida-st...227273418/

Has the Scribd document.

*
*
*



https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/02/...seminoles/

This is a placeholder post, I don't see that anyone has published that filing.

I'd like to see the exact language on that one. Tampabay.com gives the language as

“If Florida State wishes to regain control of the rights before the end of the term, it could attempt to repurchase them,” the filing said. “But having to buy back a right which was assigned is not a penalty; it is simply a commercial possibility.”

EDIT: Not a link to the whole thing, but a lot of quotes
https://floridastate.rivals.com/news/ana...-n-c-court

I can't get the court site to load, but Some Dude on Twitter supplies this link....

And as I expected, ESPN's legal case is that they don't want the SEC to know what's in the ACC contract, they don't what CBS to know what's in the ESPN-NBA contract, etc etc.

In court, anything relevant will get introduced and picked through that may help FSU’s case. The ACC will selectively do also for documents that may reinforce their stance. For sure, ESPN doesn’t want to see meddling, with subpoenas, into agreements and decisions they don’t want unwrapped.

This matter begs for a negotiated settlement, or even an arbitrator to guide in the quest to reach compromises if feasible.

(03-05-2024 03:37 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  In court, anything relevant will get introduced and picked through that may help FSU’s case. The ACC will selectively do also for documents that may reinforce their stance. For sure, ESPN doesn’t want to see meddling, with subpoenas, into agreements and decisions they don’t want unwrapped.

This matter begs for a negotiated settlement, or even an arbitrator to guide in the quest to reach compromises if feasible.

ESPN's interests can and (I think) will be protected by keeping some evidence out of the public record, but admissible in the trial. That's a thing that courts have the ability to do, I'm pretty sure. The judge and the FSU lawyers and the ACC lawyers can see the contract, the Clerk of the Court can see it, but the unredacted copy can't be published on the court website. I think. I kind of made that up.

FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

(03-05-2024 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

Then why did FSU give such high estimates for buying their way out? If they were tryiing to negotiate, wouldn't they start low? Instead, they were trying to convince a judge that they should owe nothing.

(03-06-2024 07:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

Then why did FSU give such high estimates for buying their way out? If they were tryiing to negotiate, wouldn't they start low? Instead, they were trying to convince a judge that they should owe nothing.

I can only guess.

My guess is that, if you're trying to convince a judge that the penalties are high, then it makes sense to do that.

Plus it sets a ceiling.

(03-06-2024 07:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

Then why did FSU give such high estimates for buying their way out? If they were tryiing to negotiate, wouldn't they start low? Instead, they were trying to convince a judge that they should owe nothing.

(03-06-2024 07:52 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 07:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

Then why did FSU give such high estimates for buying their way out? If they were tryiing to negotiate, wouldn't they start low? Instead, they were trying to convince a judge that they should owe nothing.

I can only guess.

My guess is that, if you're trying to convince a judge that the penalties are high, then it makes sense to do that.

Plus it sets a ceiling.

Right. The $500M number from Florida State isn't much of a starting point as to what a real number would look like. The FSU number was the list-price exit fee plus every penny that FSU is owed under the base ACC-ESPN contract through 2035 (not including ACC Network money). A real number would be "how big a check is Florida State inclined to cut the ACC?", less withheld conference revenues.

The Big 12-Texas-Oklahoma deal was actually the Big 12 letting UT and OU go for practically nothing--the "$50M each" was mostly the 2024-25 Big 12 distributions that UT and OU would have gotten if they played a Big 12 schedule this year.

I don't expect the ACC to sign a deal like that. (I wouldn't have advised the Big 12 to do so either.)

(02-08-2024 04:24 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-07-2024 10:36 PM)3BNole Wrote:  FSU Files Motion to Dismiss ACC Lawsuit in NC

Matt Baker, Tampa Bay Times

https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/02/...alignment/

Mr Baker elaborates on item 4 in the first link.

Florida State’s most interesting argument focuses on the ACC’s grant of rights—the document at the center of this potential half-a-billion-dollar dispute. The ACC contends that Florida State (and every other member) “knowingly and voluntarily” granted the “irrevocable” TV rights to their home games to the conference. The conference then sold them to ESPN and passed the funds back to FSU and its peers.

FSU’s latest filing argues that the school’s trustees never signed or approved the grant of rights; it was only signed by the university president. That’s important because, according to FSU, its board is the only entity with the legal authority to “contract and be contracted with.”

Good Luck with that arguement. Not an attorney, but someone needs to look up Apparent Authority. Also doubt the Board approves every contract that FSU enters into.

ACC TV contract 2012 per FSU filing page 12 in OP's link.

2012-13 $12,269,021 4.50%
2013-14 $12,821.127 4.50%
2014-15 $13,398,077 4.50%
2015-16 $14,008,991 4.50%
2016-17 $14,631,036 4.50%
2017-18 $15,289,432 4.50%
2018-19 $15,977,457 4.50%
2019-20 $16,696,443 4.50%
2020-21 $17,447,782 4.50%
2021-22 $18,232,933 4.50%
2022-23 $19,053,415 4.50%
2023-24 $19,910,818 4.50%
2024-25 $20,806,805 4.50%
2025-26 $21,743,111 4.50%
2026-27 $22,721,551 4.50%

(03-06-2024 07:52 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2024 07:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-05-2024 09:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FSU has tried very hard to make this an all-or-nothing trial. They don't seem to want to negotiate a REAL settlement.

I disagree.

I think this very much is about setting the table for negotiation.

And everyone wants to come to that table from a stronger position than the other guy.

Then why did FSU give such high estimates for buying their way out? If they were tryiing to negotiate, wouldn't they start low? Instead, they were trying to convince a judge that they should owe nothing.

I can only guess.

My guess is that, if you're trying to convince a judge that the penalties are high, then it makes sense to do that.

Plus it sets a ceiling.

Disagree. It sets a dollar amount that the FSU lawyers projected.

Primary documents only please. Court filings, official statements by parties.

https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sou...y-sources/

(03-13-2024 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  ACC TV contract 2012 per FSU filing page 12 in OP's link.

2012-13 $12,269,021 4.50%
2013-14 $12,821.127 4.50%
2014-15 $13,398,077 4.50%
2015-16 $14,008,991 4.50%
2016-17 $14,631,036 4.50%
2017-18 $15,289,432 4.50%
2018-19 $15,977,457 4.50%
2019-20 $16,696,443 4.50%
2020-21 $17,447,782 4.50%
2021-22 $18,232,933 4.50%
2022-23 $19,053,415 4.50%
2023-24 $19,910,818 4.50%
2024-25 $20,806,805 4.50%
2025-26 $21,743,111 4.50%
2026-27 $22,721,551 4.50%

IIRC - two adjustments were made after the original contract,

1) the additions of Syracuse & Pittsburgh (two new markets) resulted in increased payments to all members
2) the partial addition of Notre Dame (improved Tier 1 content) also resulted in increased payments to all members

(03-16-2024 01:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  ACC TV contract 2012 per FSU filing page 12 in OP's link.

2012-13 $12,269,021 4.50%
2013-14 $12,821.127 4.50%
2014-15 $13,398,077 4.50%
2015-16 $14,008,991 4.50%
2016-17 $14,631,036 4.50%
2017-18 $15,289,432 4.50%
2018-19 $15,977,457 4.50%
2019-20 $16,696,443 4.50%
2020-21 $17,447,782 4.50%
2021-22 $18,232,933 4.50%
2022-23 $19,053,415 4.50%
2023-24 $19,910,818 4.50%
2024-25 $20,806,805 4.50%
2025-26 $21,743,111 4.50%
2026-27 $22,721,551 4.50%

IIRC - two adjustments were made after the original contract,

1) the additions of Syracuse & Pittsburgh (two new markets) resulted in increased payments to all members
2) the partial addition of Notre Dame (improved Tier 1 content) also resulted in increased payments to all members

Pitt and Syracuse were admitted 9/17/2011. That is in the 2012 contract renegotiation included in the filing. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...eam-league https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...h-2026-27/