Clemson has sued the Atlantic Coast Conference over its Grant of Rights.

PDF of the lawsuit

https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Pickens...1061204977

I’ll need to read the complaint more fully, but Clemson’s primary argument appears better than what FSU set forth (at least to me) because it’s actually bringing up a true contractual term dispute within the text of the contract itself - what does it mean to grant rights for the purposes of fulfilling the ESPN-ACC agreement - as opposed to relying on the significantly more difficult non-contract theories that FSU used.

I still think the ACC would prevail because the intent of the parties was for the rights to be granted for the GOR term and the ACC would argue that fulfilling the ESPN agreement was based on having Clemson and all of the other schools for the full GOR period. However, this is a much more logical line of attack from Clemson when it comes to contract law. I know laypeople love hearing the hot button arguments like “breach of fiduciary duty” and “fraud” and things of that nature that FSU threw out there, but I still don’t think people realize just how insanely hard it is to prove that with respect to a signed contract (and particularly one that had a lot of wealthy institutions with lots of high-priced lawyers reviewing it). What judges really want to see in a contract dispute is a bond fide dispute over the interpretation of the contract terms themselves and at least Clemson has attempted that here.

TLDR: FSU is trying to say that the GOR agreement is invalid because of a whole bunch of theories that are very difficult to prove and courts generally don’t like. Clemson is trying to say that the GOR agreement is enforceable, but they interpret what it means to fulfill the ESPN agreement differently than the ACC. The latter is likely going to get a better audience from the courts than the former.

(03-19-2024 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll need to read the complaint more fully, but Clemson’s primary argument appears better than what FSU set forth (at least to me) because it’s actually bringing up a true contractual term dispute within the text of the contract itself - what does it mean to grant rights for the purposes of fulfilling the ESPN-ACC agreement - as opposed to relying on the significantly more difficult non-contract theories that FSU used.

I still think the ACC would prevail because the intent of the parties was for the rights to be granted for the GOR term and the ACC would argue that fulfilling the ESPN agreement was based on having Clemson and all of the other schools for the full GOR period. However, this is a much more logical line of attack from Clemson when it comes to contract law. I know laypeople love hearing the hot button arguments like “breach of fiduciary duty” and “fraud” and things of that nature that FSU threw out there, but I still don’t think people realize just how insanely hard it is to prove that with respect to a signed contract (and particularly one that had a lot of wealthy institutions with lots of high-priced lawyers reviewing it). What judges really want to see in a contract dispute is a bond fide dispute over the interpretation of the contract terms themselves and at least Clemson has attempted that here.

TLDR: FSU is trying to say that the GOR agreement is invalid because of a whole bunch of theories that are very difficult to prove and courts generally don’t like. Clemson is trying to say that the GOR agreement is enforceable, but they interpret what it means to fulfill the ESPN agreement differently than the ACC. The latter is likely going to get a better audience from the courts than the former.

Do you think it's possible FSU and Clemson are working together to attack the GOR in different ways? Both want out, and if either theory works both can get out.

(03-19-2024 10:43 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Clemson has sued the Atlantic Coast Conference over its Grant of Rights.

PDF of the lawsuit

https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Pickens...1061204977

Very interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

(03-19-2024 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll need to read the complaint more fully, but Clemson’s primary argument appears better than what FSU set forth (at least to me) because it’s actually bringing up a true contractual term dispute within the text of the contract itself - what does it mean to grant rights for the purposes of fulfilling the ESPN-ACC agreement - as opposed to relying on the significantly more difficult non-contract theories that FSU used.

I still think the ACC would prevail because the intent of the parties was for the rights to be granted for the GOR term and the ACC would argue that fulfilling the ESPN agreement was based on having Clemson and all of the other schools for the full GOR period. However, this is a much more logical line of attack from Clemson when it comes to contract law. I know laypeople love hearing the hot button arguments like “breach of fiduciary duty” and “fraud” and things of that nature that FSU threw out there, but I still don’t think people realize just how insanely hard it is to prove that with respect to a signed contract (and particularly one that had a lot of wealthy institutions with lots of high-priced lawyers reviewing it). What judges really want to see in a contract dispute is a bond fide dispute over the interpretation of the contract terms themselves and at least Clemson has attempted that here.

TLDR: FSU is trying to say that the GOR agreement is invalid because of a whole bunch of theories that are very difficult to prove and courts generally don’t like. Clemson is trying to say that the GOR agreement is enforceable, but they interpret what it means to fulfill the ESPN agreement differently than the ACC. The latter is likely going to get a better audience from the courts than the former.

Do you think it's possible FSU and Clemson are working together to attack the GOR in different ways? Both want out, and if either theory works both can get out.

No doubt.

(03-19-2024 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ll need to read the complaint more fully, but Clemson’s primary argument appears better than what FSU set forth (at least to me) because it’s actually bringing up a true contractual term dispute within the text of the contract itself - what does it mean to grant rights for the purposes of fulfilling the ESPN-ACC agreement - as opposed to relying on the significantly more difficult non-contract theories that FSU used.

I still think the ACC would prevail because the intent of the parties was for the rights to be granted for the GOR term and the ACC would argue that fulfilling the ESPN agreement was based on having Clemson and all of the other schools for the full GOR period. However, this is a much more logical line of attack from Clemson when it comes to contract law. I know laypeople love hearing the hot button arguments like “breach of fiduciary duty” and “fraud” and things of that nature that FSU threw out there, but I still don’t think people realize just how insanely hard it is to prove that with respect to a signed contract (and particularly one that had a lot of wealthy institutions with lots of high-priced lawyers reviewing it). What judges really want to see in a contract dispute is a bond fide dispute over the interpretation of the contract terms themselves and at least Clemson has attempted that here.

TLDR: FSU is trying to say that the GOR agreement is invalid because of a whole bunch of theories that are very difficult to prove and courts generally don’t like. Clemson is trying to say that the GOR agreement is enforceable, but they interpret what it means to fulfill the ESPN agreement differently than the ACC. The latter is likely going to get a better audience from the courts than the former.

Do you think it's possible FSU and Clemson are working together to attack the GOR in different ways? Both want out, and if either theory works both can get out.

Certainly possible and even if they didn’t coordinate, it behooves Clemson to test a different legal theory and then amend it if it ends up FSU gets a favorable ruling.