(12-22-2023 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm figuring 280 with the exit fee.

What was it Captain Quint sang in Jaws, "Avast and farewell to yee fair Spanish ladies!" It applies here. Why?

F.S.U. wants out by June 30, 2025. They want a ruling by this next Summer. Not Likely.

The ACC cannot afford to have this matter drag out because the longer it does the more their image is tarnished, and the more likely additional schools will line up to leave. Will they leave FSU to run its course? Not Likely.

Standing by ESPN does not want the GOR voided, or its consequences nullified. Why? It won't be able to exercise some measure of control over what it thought was its rights to product. And mishandling this matter could land them some hostile feelings from their other rights partner, the SEC.

This has settlement written all over it and FSU will not be the only one. Depending upon how the ACC can be reshaped and what kind of effort ESPN is willing to put into that endeavor, this could be just FSU, or FSU and Clemson, or FSU, Clemson, Miami, or more. If UNC, UVa, Duke, and Wake Forest get a rebuild in the direction that they would find to their liking it may just end there. But at least the conference would know how to backfill.

Let this run its course and you either wind up with a captive hostile product, or it's a jailbreak.

Nobody wants it dragged out, rattled sabres notwithstanding.

Each side is considering priorities. Florida State is thinking about Florida State. The ACC has to think about that already-gone school plus Miami, North Carolina, Stanford, Notre Dame... and then there's ESPN, which has all that to think about plus all the schools in its beloved SEC.

Each side is defining priorities for itself: the necessities it absolutely must preserve, and the demands it can afford to let go as long as the result preserves the necessities.

(12-22-2023 05:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm figuring 280 with the exit fee.

What was it Captain Quint sang in Jaws, "Avast and farewell to yee fair Spanish ladies!" It applies here. Why?

F.S.U. wants out by June 30, 2025. They want a ruling by this next Summer. Not Likely.

The ACC cannot afford to have this matter drag out because the longer it does the more their image is tarnished, and the more likely additional schools will line up to leave. Will they leave FSU to run its course? Not Likely.

Standing by ESPN does not want the GOR voided, or its consequences nullified. Why? It won't be able to exercise some measure of control over what it thought was its rights to product. And mishandling this matter could land them some hostile feelings from their other rights partner, the SEC.

This has settlement written all over it and FSU will not be the only one. Depending upon how the ACC can be reshaped and what kind of effort ESPN is willing to put into that endeavor, this could be just FSU, or FSU and Clemson, or FSU, Clemson, Miami, or more. If UNC, UVa, Duke, and Wake Forest get a rebuild in the direction that they would find to their liking it may just end there. But at least the conference would know how to backfill.

Let this run its course and you either wind up with a captive hostile product, or it's a jailbreak.

Nobody wants it dragged out, rattled sabres notwithstanding.

Each side is considering priorities. Florida State is thinking about Florida State. The ACC has to think about that already-gone school plus Miami, North Carolina, Stanford, Notre Dame... and then there's ESPN, which has all that to think about plus all the schools in its beloved SEC.

Each side is defining priorities for itself: the necessities it absolutely must preserve, and the demands it can afford to let go as long as the result preserves the necessities.

But I still come back to the pack of elephants in the room: FSU *itself* said that getting out of the GOR, if enforced, would cost $572 million. The ACC didn’t make that number. FSU did!

I don’t think that we (collectively as a forum) can sit here and obsess over schools switching conferences for an extra $10-20 million or watch the Big 12 take over 2 years to negotiate a settlement to allow for Texas and Oklahoma to get out of their GOR for one year early and think that there is going to be a quick resolution when the party that is trying to get out of the contract has effectively admitted that it has to pay $572 million if it loses.

Will there *eventually* be a settlement (as in 2-3 years from now)? Maybe. However, is the ACC just going to roll over because of the FSU complaint? Of course not. That makes no sense. No one is settling until they get some direction from the courts - which venue is being used, does the judge seem sympathetic or not, what does the discovery say, etc. That’s going to take quite a bit of time. Cases with a LOT less money at stake will take a long time.

Just remove all of the names and history and it’s crazy to think this gets settled in any expeditious manner:

Party A and Party B enter into a contract 10 years ago. Party B had collected revenue on other agreements that relied on such contract during that whole 10 year period. The law up to this point has fully supported the validity of such contract. Party B now claims that the contract is unenforceable, largely that it’s unconscionable because it would owe $572 million in damages if the contract is actually enforced.

There is no rational reason why Party A is budging unless there are a ton of unfavorable rulings that indicate that the case is going sideways for them. It ain’t happening at this initial complaint stage, though.

People act like any business is waiving off a half billion dollar liability that the law so far supports is valid because the other party is complaining too much. My retort is that most businesses would put up with a LOT of crap if they legitimately think that they’re entitled to a half billion dollars. I don’t understand why it would be any different here other than our collective feelings, opinions and emotions get wrapped in what we believe is best for our favorite sports teams (myself included).

And I say this as someone that manages legal expenses as opposed to billing for them, so I’m someone that advises on whether it’s actually worth the cost to go to litigation compared to what stake. In any scenario where you have over half billion dollars at stake and you actually believe your contract is enforceable, there is no issue with spending legal fees there. If you’re not going to fight from a legal perspective on that situation, then I don’t even know when you would even bother fighting at all. Like I’ve said, there are plenty of nastier and longer fights with a LOT less money at stake and where the contract terms are way more ambiguous.

(That’s another point about the FSU complaint as they’re arguing Florida-based antitrust law and public policy concerns make it unenforceable. They’re not actually challenging the language of the GOR itself or the damages that would arise if it were found to be enforceable. Now, could FSU convince a court to apply Florida law in a way that it really hasn’t ever been applied before? Possibly. However, FSU really is effectively conceding that they owe $572 million if they don’t win. They are saying that the GOR terms do actually do what they’re supposed to do and the damages would be calculated accordingly, but they’re hoping Florida law somehow invalidates it all somehow. I think a lot of fans are underrating the magnitude of thar concession here. That simply isn’t a fact and argument pattern that the party on the other side of this - the ACC - would give up at all.)

(12-22-2023 05:21 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 04:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Oh - I agree that the ACC has some factors that may prevent it from totally collapsing like the Pac-12.

However, even with that being the case, I’m not seeing at all how this will resolve quickly. There’s going to be a fight over the venue. There’s going to be a fight over whether certain Florida laws apply. There’s going to be a fight over whether the damages amount is actually unconscionable.

Here’s a major difference between, say, Texas and Florida State. Texas is actually and truly RICH as an INSTITUTION. Not just football value rich, but mega billion dollar endowment rich.

In contrast, the only school in the entire ACC with a lower endowment than FSU is Louisville. Now, an endowment isn’t cash in the bank, but it’s a reflection of the net worth of a university.

The point is that the rest of the ACC can well afford to wait this out. If you divide up the $572 million figure that FSU provided among the 16 other schools, that’s $35.75 million per school. After witnessing what the Pac-12 went through, I think every ACC school would rationally risk that amount if it means holding the ACC to its full value for the next 13 years. That money per school isn’t nearly the risk that FSU is facing if it loses, particularly when a school like Stanford legitimately makes that $35.75 million amount in a few weeks of interest in a money market account. Getting a settlement of half that amount per school doesn’t actually move the needle for all of the other ACC schools that are *institutionally* rich. (Heck - SMU’s boosters are effectively subsidizing that amount to the school annually simply to be in the ACC.)

I think you’re vastly underestimating the wherewithal for the ACC to fight this for as long as possible. Now, once we start getting some court rulings on venue or other items, then we may see the incentives for a settlement shift, but certainly nothing is happening simply based on these complaints (and I can’t emphasize enough that FSU already calculating the GOR damages as being so high actually provides more incentive for the ACC to fight to the end).

We've reached a situation where the interests of the ACC and the interests of its media partner may start to diverge even more than they have.

And what is the ACC? It's a conference with at least seven—with two more on the way—members who hold realistic hopes themselves of leaving.

Factors like these go into the mix. Conference officials in the Charlotte office may feel amped for a long Vietnam-style conflict, but it's not a given that they will get the kind of support for this that they usually take for granted.

We'll see.

This is a key point, I think. In situations where the membership isn't united, then who exactly is "the conference"?

Like others I suspect about seven other schools would like to see the GOR dissolved. That is very significant portion of the membership.

I think we’ll be welcoming FSU to the SEC before too long.

They have our vote! Clemson too if they want off the sinking ship!

I don't understand why some people believe the ACC would settle quickly. Any evidence?

I know some (most?) cases are settled quickly. But there are also some cases that last forever. To me this is one issue the ACC will not easily concede. Money is one thing. But why would the ACC open the floodgate by letting FSU go easily?

(12-22-2023 06:45 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don't understand why some people believe the ACC would settle quickly. Any evidence?

I know some (most?) cases are settled quickly. But there are also some cases that last forever. To me this is one issue the ACC will not easily concede. Money is one thing. But why would the ACC open the floodgate by letting FSU go easily?

I agree. As long as a majority of schools want to enforce the GOR, the ACC will as others have said fight to the death, because a settlement will likely mean a PAC style collapse of the conference.

(12-22-2023 06:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think we’ll be welcoming FSU to the SEC before too long.

They have our vote! Clemson too if they want off the sinking ship!

Look - I have every incentive as a Big Ten fan to say that FSU will prevail and/or the ACC will cave. The Big Ten would likely get some valuable pieces, whether it’s FSU, UNC, Miami, Duke, etc. My Twitter account and blog visitors get goosed every time that a day like today happens.

However, I’m truly looking at this as, “Who would I want to defend here as a lawyer?” To me, the ACC has a better case and, at a minimum, it’s unquestionably worth it to fight it for quite some time. The main risk to the ACC is that a Florida judge will apply Florida law in a way that’s unprecedented (and it’s legitimate risk), but for $527 million, any rational party is taking that risk.

(12-22-2023 06:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 05:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm figuring 280 with the exit fee.

What was it Captain Quint sang in Jaws, "Avast and farewell to yee fair Spanish ladies!" It applies here. Why?

F.S.U. wants out by June 30, 2025. They want a ruling by this next Summer. Not Likely.

The ACC cannot afford to have this matter drag out because the longer it does the more their image is tarnished, and the more likely additional schools will line up to leave. Will they leave FSU to run its course? Not Likely.

Standing by ESPN does not want the GOR voided, or its consequences nullified. Why? It won't be able to exercise some measure of control over what it thought was its rights to product. And mishandling this matter could land them some hostile feelings from their other rights partner, the SEC.

This has settlement written all over it and FSU will not be the only one. Depending upon how the ACC can be reshaped and what kind of effort ESPN is willing to put into that endeavor, this could be just FSU, or FSU and Clemson, or FSU, Clemson, Miami, or more. If UNC, UVa, Duke, and Wake Forest get a rebuild in the direction that they would find to their liking it may just end there. But at least the conference would know how to backfill.

Let this run its course and you either wind up with a captive hostile product, or it's a jailbreak.

Nobody wants it dragged out, rattled sabres notwithstanding.

Each side is considering priorities. Florida State is thinking about Florida State. The ACC has to think about that already-gone school plus Miami, North Carolina, Stanford, Notre Dame... and then there's ESPN, which has all that to think about plus all the schools in its beloved SEC.

Each side is defining priorities for itself: the necessities it absolutely must preserve, and the demands it can afford to let go as long as the result preserves the necessities.

But I still come back to the pack of elephants in the room: FSU *itself* said that getting out of the GOR, if enforced, would cost $572 million. The ACC didn’t make that number. FSU did!

I don’t think that we (collectively as a forum) can sit here and obsess over schools switching conferences for an extra $10-20 million or watch the Big 12 take over 2 years to negotiate a settlement to allow for Texas and Oklahoma to get out of their GOR for one year early and think that there is going to be a quick resolution when the party that is trying to get out of the contract has effectively admitted that it has to pay $572 million if it loses.

Will there *eventually* be a settlement (as in 2-3 years from now)? Maybe. However, is the ACC just going to roll over because of the FSU complaint? Of course not. That makes no sense. No one is settling until they get some direction from the courts - which venue is being used, does the judge seem sympathetic or not, what does the discovery say, etc. That’s going to take quite a bit of time. Cases with a LOT less money at stake will take a long time.

Just remove all of the names and history and it’s crazy to think this gets settled in any expeditious manner:

Party A and Party B enter into a contract 10 years ago. Party B had collected revenue on other agreements that relied on such contract during that whole 10 year period. The law up to this point has fully supported the validity of such contract. Party B now claims that the contract is unenforceable, largely that it’s unconscionable because it would owe $572 million in damages if the contract is actually enforced.

There is no rational reason why Party A is budging unless there are a ton of unfavorable rulings that indicate that the case is going sideways for them. It ain’t happening at this initial complaint stage, though.

People act like any business is waiving off a half billion dollar liability that the law so far supports is valid because the other party is complaining too much. My retort is that most businesses would put up with a LOT of crap if they legitimately think that they’re entitled to a half billion dollars. I don’t understand why it would be any different here other than our collective feelings, opinions and emotions get wrapped in what we believe is best for our favorite sports teams (myself included).

But if FSU doesn't leave until 2036, the ACC doesn't get anything but whatever they can squeeze on the 3 year exit fee, which will be less than 3 years. The ACC doesn't have $572 million out there. They have FSU for 12 years they are fighting for.

(12-22-2023 06:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  But I still come back to the pack of elephants in the room: FSU *itself* said that getting out of the GOR, if enforced, would cost $572 million. The ACC didn’t make that number. FSU did!

I don’t think that we (collectively as a forum) can sit here and obsess over schools switching conferences for an extra $10-20 million or watch the Big 12 take over 2 years to negotiate a settlement to allow for Texas and Oklahoma to get out of their GOR for one year early and think that there is going to be a quick resolution when the party that is trying to get out of the contract has effectively admitted that it has to pay $572 million if it loses.

Will there *eventually* be a settlement (as in 2-3 years from now)? Maybe. However, is the ACC just going to roll over because of the FSU complaint? Of course not. That makes no sense. No one is settling until they get some direction from the courts - which venue is being used, does the judge seem sympathetic or not, what does the discovery say, etc. That’s going to take quite a bit of time. Cases with a LOT less money at stake will take a long time.

Just remove all of the names and history and it’s crazy to think this gets settled in any expeditious manner:

Party A and Party B enter into a contract 10 years ago. Party B has collected revenue on other contracts that relied on such contract during that whole 10 year period. The law up to this point has fully supported the validity of such contract. Party B now claims that the contract is unenforceable, largely that it’s unconscionable because it would owe $572 million in damages if the contract is actually enforced.

There is no rational reason why Party A is budging unless there are a ton of unfavorable rulings that indicate that the case is going sideways for them. It ain’t happening at this initial complaint stage, though.

People act like any business is waiving off a half billion dollar liability that the law so far supports is valid because the other party is complaining too much. My retort is that most businesses would put up with a LOT of crap if they legitimately think that they’re entitled to a half billion dollars. I don’t understand why it would be any different here other than our collective feelings, opinions and emotions get wrapped in what we believe is best for our favorite sports teams (myself included).

Oh, the 'manner' is already 'expeditious.' The ACC is losing a member. This wasn't supposed to happen before 2036.

Check the calendar. We're early. Way early.

Manners have indeed been 'expedited.' Of course, no one is saying any of the straw man stuff—that 'the ACC will simply roll over,' 'waive off a half billion-dollar liability', yada yada.

I am pointing out, though, that however great the temptation for ACC officials to drag out the process, the environmental pressures that brought us here continue to operate. The same tectonic forces that brought the ACC to the point of mutiny so many years before 2036 are still at work and pushing events forward.

If the going estimate is three years, I'd expect one or two. Precedent exists. People once told ominous stories about the Dante-esque inferno Maryland was about to enter, too.

We'll see.

(12-22-2023 07:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 06:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  But I still come back to the pack of elephants in the room: FSU *itself* said that getting out of the GOR, if enforced, would cost $572 million. The ACC didn’t make that number. FSU did!

I don’t think that we (collectively as a forum) can sit here and obsess over schools switching conferences for an extra $10-20 million or watch the Big 12 take over 2 years to negotiate a settlement to allow for Texas and Oklahoma to get out of their GOR for one year early and think that there is going to be a quick resolution when the party that is trying to get out of the contract has effectively admitted that it has to pay $572 million if it loses.

Will there *eventually* be a settlement (as in 2-3 years from now)? Maybe. However, is the ACC just going to roll over because of the FSU complaint? Of course not. That makes no sense. No one is settling until they get some direction from the courts - which venue is being used, does the judge seem sympathetic or not, what does the discovery say, etc. That’s going to take quite a bit of time. Cases with a LOT less money at stake will take a long time.

Just remove all of the names and history and it’s crazy to think this gets settled in any expeditious manner:

Party A and Party B enter into a contract 10 years ago. Party B has collected revenue on other contracts that relied on such contract during that whole 10 year period. The law up to this point has fully supported the validity of such contract. Party B now claims that the contract is unenforceable, largely that it’s unconscionable because it would owe $572 million in damages if the contract is actually enforced.

There is no rational reason why Party A is budging unless there are a ton of unfavorable rulings that indicate that the case is going sideways for them. It ain’t happening at this initial complaint stage, though.

People act like any business is waiving off a half billion dollar liability that the law so far supports is valid because the other party is complaining too much. My retort is that most businesses would put up with a LOT of crap if they legitimately think that they’re entitled to a half billion dollars. I don’t understand why it would be any different here other than our collective feelings, opinions and emotions get wrapped in what we believe is best for our favorite sports teams (myself included).

Oh, the 'manner' is already 'expeditious.' The ACC is losing a member. This wasn't supposed to happen before 2036.

Check the calendar. We're early. Way early.

Manners have indeed been 'expedited.' Of course, no one is saying any of the straw man stuff—that 'the ACC will simply roll over,' 'waive off a half billion-dollar liability', yada yada.

I am pointing out, though, that however great the temptation for ACC officials to drag out the process, the environmental pressures that brought us here continue to operate. The same tectonic forces that brought the ACC to the point of mutiny so many years before 2036 are still at work and pushing events forward.

If the going estimate is three years, I'd expect one or two. Precedent exists. People once told ominous stories about the Dante-esque inferno Maryland was about to enter, too.

We'll see.

Well, Hell is just a town in Norway. The rest is just business.

(12-22-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 06:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 05:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm figuring 280 with the exit fee.

What was it Captain Quint sang in Jaws, "Avast and farewell to yee fair Spanish ladies!" It applies here. Why?

F.S.U. wants out by June 30, 2025. They want a ruling by this next Summer. Not Likely.

The ACC cannot afford to have this matter drag out because the longer it does the more their image is tarnished, and the more likely additional schools will line up to leave. Will they leave FSU to run its course? Not Likely.

Standing by ESPN does not want the GOR voided, or its consequences nullified. Why? It won't be able to exercise some measure of control over what it thought was its rights to product. And mishandling this matter could land them some hostile feelings from their other rights partner, the SEC.

This has settlement written all over it and FSU will not be the only one. Depending upon how the ACC can be reshaped and what kind of effort ESPN is willing to put into that endeavor, this could be just FSU, or FSU and Clemson, or FSU, Clemson, Miami, or more. If UNC, UVa, Duke, and Wake Forest get a rebuild in the direction that they would find to their liking it may just end there. But at least the conference would know how to backfill.

Let this run its course and you either wind up with a captive hostile product, or it's a jailbreak.

Nobody wants it dragged out, rattled sabres notwithstanding.

Each side is considering priorities. Florida State is thinking about Florida State. The ACC has to think about that already-gone school plus Miami, North Carolina, Stanford, Notre Dame... and then there's ESPN, which has all that to think about plus all the schools in its beloved SEC.

Each side is defining priorities for itself: the necessities it absolutely must preserve, and the demands it can afford to let go as long as the result preserves the necessities.

But I still come back to the pack of elephants in the room: FSU *itself* said that getting out of the GOR, if enforced, would cost $572 million. The ACC didn’t make that number. FSU did!

I don’t think that we (collectively as a forum) can sit here and obsess over schools switching conferences for an extra $10-20 million or watch the Big 12 take over 2 years to negotiate a settlement to allow for Texas and Oklahoma to get out of their GOR for one year early and think that there is going to be a quick resolution when the party that is trying to get out of the contract has effectively admitted that it has to pay $572 million if it loses.

Will there *eventually* be a settlement (as in 2-3 years from now)? Maybe. However, is the ACC just going to roll over because of the FSU complaint? Of course not. That makes no sense. No one is settling until they get some direction from the courts - which venue is being used, does the judge seem sympathetic or not, what does the discovery say, etc. That’s going to take quite a bit of time. Cases with a LOT less money at stake will take a long time.

Just remove all of the names and history and it’s crazy to think this gets settled in any expeditious manner:

Party A and Party B enter into a contract 10 years ago. Party B had collected revenue on other agreements that relied on such contract during that whole 10 year period. The law up to this point has fully supported the validity of such contract. Party B now claims that the contract is unenforceable, largely that it’s unconscionable because it would owe $572 million in damages if the contract is actually enforced.

There is no rational reason why Party A is budging unless there are a ton of unfavorable rulings that indicate that the case is going sideways for them. It ain’t happening at this initial complaint stage, though.

People act like any business is waiving off a half billion dollar liability that the law so far supports is valid because the other party is complaining too much. My retort is that most businesses would put up with a LOT of crap if they legitimately think that they’re entitled to a half billion dollars. I don’t understand why it would be any different here other than our collective feelings, opinions and emotions get wrapped in what we believe is best for our favorite sports teams (myself included).

But if FSU doesn't leave until 2036, the ACC doesn't get anything but whatever they can squeeze on the 3 year exit fee, which will be less than 3 years. The ACC doesn't have $572 million out there. They have FSU for 12 years they are fighting for.

No doubt - the value of the GOR goes down over time. So, the ACC does bear some of the risk of time. However, when there are 13 years to go, that risk of time is still in the ACC’s favor as we sit here at the end of 2023.

It was the opposite for the Big 12 and UT/OU. If the Big 12 had waited just a few more months for a settlement, their claim for a GOR buyout would have effectively gone down to $0, so that propelled the parties to get to a settlement quicker.

Simply because Florida state is saying that the penalties would be 572 million does not mean they are conceding the value. Am not sure they conceded that.

They are simply basing the 572 million on the terms of the GOR, that any one can calculate.

Their complaint, as I understand it, is the GOR is unenforceable, meaning the 572 million or whatever formulation that figure comes out to be , is unenforceable

(12-22-2023 02:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:46 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:39 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:07 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  Venue - The ACC could attempt to move the case to federal court to attempt to get a friendlier venue. I think that is doubtful for several reasons. 1) The Pac 12 teams were unsuccessful in their attempt to do the same; 2) At the federal level, antitrust issues are magnified; 3) Clemson stands ready to join the lawsuit if it becomes more than a state issue -- UNC is waiting and watching, but would ultimately join to protect their prospects -- at that point ESPN would decline to extend media rights beyond 2027 and the entire house of cards comes crumbling down as the ACC is then in the position the Pac 12 was in and everyone heads for the exits and looks for a landing spot.

Destination - SEC more likely than not. FSU wants the Big Ten, but, although the Big Ten doesn't want to cede Florida to the SEC (like they did with Texas), the academics at FSU are enough of a sticking point for the Big Ten to pass. Remember, Texas approached the Big Ten before the SEC, but insisted on Oklahoma tagging along. The Big Ten wanted Texas, but Oklahoma was the deal breaker.

In the end, there will likely be a reasonable settlement and FSU, likely with Clemson, will head to the SEC. The Big Ten will pick up their top two targets in UNC and UVA. If the SEC wants to counter that move, they would add NCSU and VPI. The Big 12 would be interested in many of the leftovers, especially the stronger basketball programs.

What's the basis for this prediction? I haven't seen any evidence that the ACC is willing to settle at this point.

1. ACC's statement today:

“We are confident that the Grant of Rights, which has been honored by all other universities who signed similar agreements, will be affirmed by the courts and the Conference’s legal counsel will vigorously enforce the agreement in the best interests of the ACC’s current and incoming members.”

2. FSU wanted to negotiate prior to filing a suit but the ACC rejected.

3. In 2022, one ACC athletic director told ESPN: "There would be a hell of a court fight, I will tell you that."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ain-future

4. Today's ESPN article:

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.

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

There will be a settlement because that's how these things end. Florida State is leaving.

All of this amounts to a haggle over price.

ESPN has interests in this fight. Keep that in mind when quoting ESPN personnel exclusively. They're going to bring the thunder about that grant of rights, because that's what the interested party does at this stage.

What's the alternative to a settlement? Is a judge going to tell FSU they MUST continue to play in the ACC? I seriously doubt that! So the endgame will be money, it's just a question of how much...

FSU can leave the ACC at any time, nobody is telling them they can’t. They just have to negotiate or sue (hopefully both) to attempt to get their media rights back. I was unaware of the GoR language prohibiting a suit by FSU or by another party on their behalf, that will be difficulty to skirt. So will the “all disputes must be resolved in North Carolina”. As I’ve said and I keep saying, FSU is going to need allies to make this work.

(12-22-2023 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:55 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Florida State is gone. It's just a matter of how.

I don’t disagree. FSU is likely gone. The ACC wants an buy-out instead of settlement.

The fact that the T1 media contract expires in 2027 - and ESPN has not yet excercised their option to extend it - will almost certainly be brought up by FSU lawyers when computing a fair buyout amount. I'm thinking more like $328 million - still a lot, but a couple hundred million less that originally thought.

IMO your number is high Hokie. If FSU takes the stance you are alluding to, I believe that the buyout would be for less than 200million

Here’s the thing - FSU *themselves* said that the damages are $570 million-plus. They’re not disputing the calculation of damages, but rather if the contract is enforceable at all. In fact, their calculation is the crux of the argument that the damages are unconscionable and shouldn’t be enforced.

So, it’s a big-time gamble. (Hence why I called challenging the GOR the legal version of Russian Roulette a decade ago.) The FSU outside counsel even said it himself - the damages are zero if they win. The flip side, of course, is that they owe that full amount if they lose as they made that calculation themselves in trying to claim it as being unconscionable. When there’s THAT much money involved and it’s a binary all or nothing situation, saying that this will simply meet in the middle may not be realistic.

If the ACC were inclined to settle, but didn't want to "open the flood gates", couldn't they simply file a motion that disputes FSU's calculated amount? Couldn't they say "No, the GoR is only worth $300 million" (or whatever)? If they already knew FSU was willing to pay the lesser amount, it seems like that could be a way to save face... and the GoR!

(12-22-2023 09:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 02:17 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don’t disagree. FSU is likely gone. The ACC wants an buy-out instead of settlement.

The fact that the T1 media contract expires in 2027 - and ESPN has not yet excercised their option to extend it - will almost certainly be brought up by FSU lawyers when computing a fair buyout amount. I'm thinking more like $328 million - still a lot, but a couple hundred million less that originally thought.

IMO your number is high Hokie. If FSU takes the stance you are alluding to, I believe that the buyout would be for less than 200million

Here’s the thing - FSU *themselves* said that the damages are $570 million-plus. They’re not disputing the calculation of damages, but rather if the contract is enforceable at all. In fact, their calculation is the crux of the argument that the damages are unconscionable and shouldn’t be enforced.

So, it’s a big-time gamble. (Hence why I called challenging the GOR the legal version of Russian Roulette a decade ago.) The FSU outside counsel even said it himself - the damages are zero if they win. The flip side, of course, is that they owe that full amount if they lose as they made that calculation themselves in trying to claim it as being unconscionable. When there’s THAT much money involved and it’s a binary all or nothing situation, saying that this will simply meet in the middle may not be realistic.

If the ACC were inclined to settle, but didn't want to "open the flood gates", couldn't they simply file a motion that disputes FSU's calculated amount? Couldn't they say "No, the GoR is only worth $300 million" (or whatever)? If they already knew FSU was willing to pay the lesser amount, it seems like that could be a way to save face... and the GoR!

Wasn't FSU's figure calculated from a set calculation for the ACC? If so no. If not maybe.

Once this starts. The end is near. ACC will have hardly anyone left in the near future. Contracts are made to be broken.

(12-22-2023 05:31 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 03:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FSU moving to the SEC in a quick settlement would be the worst solution for ESPN. First, a settlement involving ESPN sets the precedent for other institutions to challenge GORs. Clemson and UNC will seek immediate relief. After the next B1G media contract in about five years, Alabama and Georgia may be seeking equal considerations. More importantly, ESPN would also be on the hook for guaranteeing payments to the remaining ACC members through 2036…at the same time that the contractual value is being eroded. For the time being, getting involved in the ACC-FSU dispute is a lose-lose situation for ESPN.

Now that litigation has started on such a big issue, ESPN’s best option is to let events play out in the courts.

Oh, it could work out well for ESPN. Instead of getting beaten up in public reports for onerous treatment of a conference partner for months on end, it gets to play problem solver. 'You know, Jim, that grant of rights is something we asked for on our end and, you know, it really isn't all that. We can accept a 2027 expiration date on it and negotiate any early exits from there.'

If that keeps four or more flight risks in the ESPN fold the gesture might very well be worth making. ACC plays it priggish, ESPN plays it magnanimous, and everyone starts reworking the landscape to make it CFP-ready.

Who are the people in the above pretend conversation? If "Jim" is Jim Phillips, why would he like the idea - if he represents all conference members - of an end of the GOR in 2027 and negotiate any exits?

I'd say "ESPN, if you will up our annual payouts now or beginning 2027, great! Otherwise, why do we want and end of the GOR in 2027 except that we know the payments go up... Up enough for the core of the conference to stay together voluntarily?"

Otherwise, negotiated exits should be $500 million and the fewer the better, for the ACC.

(12-22-2023 01:51 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:46 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 01:39 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 12:07 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  Venue - The ACC could attempt to move the case to federal court to attempt to get a friendlier venue. I think that is doubtful for several reasons. 1) The Pac 12 teams were unsuccessful in their attempt to do the same; 2) At the federal level, antitrust issues are magnified; 3) Clemson stands ready to join the lawsuit if it becomes more than a state issue -- UNC is waiting and watching, but would ultimately join to protect their prospects -- at that point ESPN would decline to extend media rights beyond 2027 and the entire house of cards comes crumbling down as the ACC is then in the position the Pac 12 was in and everyone heads for the exits and looks for a landing spot.

Destination - SEC more likely than not. FSU wants the Big Ten, but, although the Big Ten doesn't want to cede Florida to the SEC (like they did with Texas), the academics at FSU are enough of a sticking point for the Big Ten to pass. Remember, Texas approached the Big Ten before the SEC, but insisted on Oklahoma tagging along. The Big Ten wanted Texas, but Oklahoma was the deal breaker.

In the end, there will likely be a reasonable settlement and FSU, likely with Clemson, will head to the SEC. The Big Ten will pick up their top two targets in UNC and UVA. If the SEC wants to counter that move, they would add NCSU and VPI. The Big 12 would be interested in many of the leftovers, especially the stronger basketball programs.

What's the basis for this prediction? I haven't seen any evidence that the ACC is willing to settle at this point.

1. ACC's statement today:

“We are confident that the Grant of Rights, which has been honored by all other universities who signed similar agreements, will be affirmed by the courts and the Conference’s legal counsel will vigorously enforce the agreement in the best interests of the ACC’s current and incoming members.”

2. FSU wanted to negotiate prior to filing a suit but the ACC rejected.

3. In 2022, one ACC athletic director told ESPN: "There would be a hell of a court fight, I will tell you that."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ain-future

4. Today's ESPN article:

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.

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

There will be a settlement because that's how these things end. Florida State is leaving.

All of this amounts to a haggle over price.

ESPN has interests in this fight. Keep that in mind when quoting ESPN personnel exclusively. They're going to bring the thunder about that grant of rights, because that's what the interested party does at this stage.

But the ACC's price is way too high for FSU to accept. You know some cases never result in settlements.

I am not sure. Was it not proposed to bring in financial institutions to help FSU to buy out the ACC GOR. There are a few ACC teams that would follow working with the SEC - BIG conferences. The media networks would fall in line to bring these teams in to make a two conference tier. It could be to their advantage.

(12-22-2023 05:31 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-22-2023 03:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FSU moving to the SEC in a quick settlement would be the worst solution for ESPN. First, a settlement involving ESPN sets the precedent for other institutions to challenge GORs. Clemson and UNC will seek immediate relief. After the next B1G media contract in about five years, Alabama and Georgia may be seeking equal considerations. More importantly, ESPN would also be on the hook for guaranteeing payments to the remaining ACC members through 2036…at the same time that the contractual value is being eroded. For the time being, getting involved in the ACC-FSU dispute is a lose-lose situation for ESPN.

Now that litigation has started on such a big issue, ESPN’s best option is to let events play out in the courts.

Oh, it could work out well for ESPN. Instead of getting beaten up in public reports for onerous treatment of a conference partner for months on end, it gets to play problem solver. 'You know, Jim, that grant of rights is something we asked for on our end and, you know, it really isn't all that. We can accept a 2027 expiration date on it and negotiate any early exits from there.'

If that keeps four or more flight risks in the ESPN fold the gesture might very well be worth making. ACC plays it priggish, ESPN plays it magnanimous, and everyone starts reworking the landscape to make it CFP-ready.

No. The lawsuits are opening new windows of opportunity and fears of all ACC members. At this point, ESPN would lose too much money and/or risk losing brands by accommodating FSU and all the ACC members. IMO - ESPN believes that they have viable contracts with the ACC and its members. Until litigation moves forward and ESPN gains/loses confidence in their current stance, a quick resolution is unlikely.