(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

FSU is arguing that the ACC was operating without board permission, as required by the ACC bylaws. If the parties don't settle, I doubt a court will be in a position to make a ruling before ESPN's 2025 deadline.

The other huge piece of FSU's case is their position that the ACC is using the GOR as an additional and unreasonable penalty to prevent withdrawal from the ACC.

As part of the previous Maryland case, both the North Carolina trial court and appellate court declared that the ACC exit fees are a "penalty."

FSU is contending not only is the amount of the exit fee an excessive and unreasonable penalty (3 times the ACC operating budget) but also that the ACC is using the GOR itself as a penalty, which is extremely excessive and severely unreasonable.

If this case goes to discovery, it's going to get ugly.

(12-28-2023 02:12 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 01:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 01:22 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 10:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  I believe that's correct. Then, the only thing tying FSU (or any other Member) to the ACC after that date would be the exit fee, which I believe would likely be reduced by about a third in a negotiated settlement. Whether the three newbies would be deemed subject to that fee or not is an open question. My guess is they would not.

Interesting questions here for this case to resolve, eh? I'm beginning to appreciate why Peter Collins, chair of Florida State University trustees, said that of all his worries the text of the grant of rights document was the least.

IANAL.. Rightfully so. My understanding is, there is nothing in the espn agreements that references ACC GoR. The GoR requires him to grant rights necessary to satisfy obligations to espn, therefore, he simply needs to go after the process that extended espn’s unilateral option from 2021 to 2025.

The ACC wants the courts to rule the GoR is valid and FSU has no standing in challenging it. The court in NC can rule in ACC’s favor , but if the Florida court rules that espn’s agreements term expire in 2027, then FSU can still be tied to ACC’s GOR through 2036, but FSU would still hold on to its tier 1 rights, after 2027.

No, the ACC, not FSU, would still hold onto FSU's tier 1 rights.

Agree to disagree, read the text “ "Those rights necessary for the conference to perform ..... the ESPN Agreement." Language is not generic, it specifically narrows this down to espn agreement. No espn agreement , no rights granted.

The ESPN agreement exists, but if it expires in 2027, then the rights needed to satisfy the agreement are only the rights through to mid-2027. The rights needed to satisfy an option that is not exercised is a moot point.

Surely FSU's case is strongest if it is found that the ACC was not empowered to sign the amendment to the option exercise date, but IANDL, so I'll just be watching to see what the courts rule on that point.

(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

Thats not a remedy. Thats a one-sided equity jilt.

You can NOT offer one side a 3-4 year extension on a decision on equity without the other side getting the same.

This isnt just some "oopsie". One side, which is the ACC and ESPN, came to an agreement about equity without input from the other side (FSU). Thats an ENORMOUS issue.

(12-28-2023 03:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

FSU is arguing that the ACC was operating without board permission, as required by the ACC bylaws. If the parties don't settle, I doubt a court will be in a position to make a ruling before ESPN's 2025 deadline.

The other huge piece of FSU's case is their position that the ACC is using the GOR as an additional and unreasonable penalty to prevent withdrawal from the ACC.

As part of the previous Maryland case, both the North Carolina trial court and appellate court declared that the ACC exit fees are a "penalty."

FSU is contending not only is the amount of the exit fee an excessive and unreasonable penalty (3 times the ACC operating budget) but also that the ACC is using the GOR itself as a penalty, which is extremely excessive and severely unreasonable.

If this case goes to discovery, it's going to get ugly.

With these GOR generally, I can see the case where this is only a penalty if the ACC stops paying FSU for them. If FSU goes independent and the ACC continues to air their games and pay them for it, I see no penalty.

But, FSU probably cannot get into the SEC or Big Ten unless those conferences own their TV rights. Those conferences can buy the from the ACC, I suppose. FSU could buy those rights back too.

But only if the ACC threatens to stop payment could I see it being a penalty. And that threat could be very real or even documented. I just don't know.

(12-30-2023 10:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

Thats not a remedy. Thats a one-sided equity jilt.

You can NOT offer one side a 3-4 year extension on a decision on equity without the other side getting the same.

This isnt just some "oopsie". One side, which is the ACC and ESPN, came to an agreement about equity without input from the other side (FSU). Thats an ENORMOUS issue.

IANAL, but I do notice that Florida State's lawsuit doesn't ask for any remedy for the alleged improper extension of the window

I wonder if they're balancing damages vs a 2027 exit

Arguably, if Florida State causes the ESPN option to be voided against ESPN's wishes
Then FSU is on the hook for 10 years of reduced revenues for whoever is left in the ACC after the shuffling.

(12-30-2023 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 10:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

Thats not a remedy. Thats a one-sided equity jilt.

You can NOT offer one side a 3-4 year extension on a decision on equity without the other side getting the same.

This isnt just some "oopsie". One side, which is the ACC and ESPN, came to an agreement about equity without input from the other side (FSU). Thats an ENORMOUS issue.

IANAL, but I do notice that Florida State's lawsuit doesn't ask for any remedy for the alleged improper extension of the window

I wonder if they're balancing damages vs a 2027 exit

Arguably, if Florida State causes the ESPN option to be voided against ESPN's wishes
Then FSU is on the hook for 10 years of reduced revenues for whoever is left in the ACC after the shuffling.

The way I see it, either ESPN has the power to exercise the option, in which case it would be their choice to do so or not, or .... maybe through some legal proceeding FSU gets a judge to void that option, in which case I am not sure that other ACC members have any cause of action against FSU for exercising their legal rights, if a judge voids the option it would be because he saw something legally wrong with it. Maybe there is something else here?

But IANAL.

(12-30-2023 11:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-30-2023 10:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2023 12:29 PM)Crayton Wrote:  General thanks to everyone piecing this together. A summary of my reading:

FSU and all ACC schools gave ESPN unilateral authority to extend the agreement from 2027 to 2036. The date for exercising that option was originally 2021, but was later negotiated to 2025.

FSU is arguing that “they” did not agree to that push to 2025 and that, under the original terms, ESPN failed to exercise its option in ‘21 and therefore the GOR still expires in 2027.

If a court finds ACC/ESPN can remedy the situation by giving an “immediate” window to exercise the option, I can’t imagine FSU’s complaint will be satisfied.

If a court rules the delay to a 2025 decision violates the ACC’s contract with its schools, can ESPN then sue the ACC for signing a bad deal or is the Mouse in the wind and have to accept that the ACC is back on the market in 2027?

Or the court could rule the ACC represented well the interests of its schools and ESPN still has until 2025 to extend the media deal.

Thats not a remedy. Thats a one-sided equity jilt.

You can NOT offer one side a 3-4 year extension on a decision on equity without the other side getting the same.

This isnt just some "oopsie". One side, which is the ACC and ESPN, came to an agreement about equity without input from the other side (FSU). Thats an ENORMOUS issue.

IANAL, but I do notice that Florida State's lawsuit doesn't ask for any remedy for the alleged improper extension of the window

I wonder if they're balancing damages vs a 2027 exit

Arguably, if Florida State causes the ESPN option to be voided against ESPN's wishes
Then FSU is on the hook for 10 years of reduced revenues for whoever is left in the ACC after the shuffling.

They dont want a remedy, they are saying that the GOR extension is no longer valid because FSU only agreed to 2021 for the option. Thats basically the crux of everything, because if court agrees that the extension was only to 2021, then the gor is only valid to 2026.

So, in a nutshell, FSU is saying we already wanted to announce we are leaving, but cant because noone can tell us what we will owe due to the A) ESPN option being improperly extended without FSU's approval which would mean B) the GOR is really only valid thru 2026 and C) courts have ruled the prior exit fee as being punitive, which means the new exit fee thats triple the one that was punitive is also not valid.

So what I believe FSU wants to do is to simply have the exit fee set to the amount Maryland paid, get a ruling that the GOR is only thru 2026, then FSU will breach that contract and pay out the GOR amount for the years they will breach.

Also, based upon the fact FSU is trying to withdraw as of a few months ago, it likely means they have an SEC spot waiting on them once this is cleared up.