David Hale: ACC exploring WVU, SMU, UO/UW for possible expansion

[pittdan77]

It’s even more frivolous, too, when you consider that the ACC’s revenue has actually *exceeded* the original projections almost every year since the contract was signed in 2016.

Florida State signed a contract in good faith, and they have now realized that they could very well be able to get a better deal elsewhere. There’s really only one solution for that problem, and it happens all the time in law: you pay to get out of it. Florida State potentially being able to get a better contract somewhere else ultimately is not the ACC’s problem. Getting out of contracts is not supposed to be easy or inexpensive, especially a contract that pays eight figures per year and climbing over a term of 20 years. That’s the point of having a contract in the first place.

Personally, I think a lot of what FSU is doing is trying to tip the scales the way Texas and OU did in the Big12. Was never close to equal and Texas did a lot of things that actually harmed the other schools in the conference, like negotiating their own, stand alone, TV deal. I don't think anyone else in the conference takes it seriously so most of it is just strutting around for their fan base.

 

[Dointhatrag]

Because of FSUs douchiness we are in a conundrum. Yes it helps the ACC to have another "blue blood" not named Clemson be a top team for the league to bolster its strength but it also increases their leverage as an individual team.

 

[pittchagg]

Personally, I think a lot of what FSU is doing is trying to tip the scales the way Texas and OU did in the Big12. Was never close to equal and Texas did a lot of things that actually harmed the other schools in the conference, like negotiating their own, stand alone, TV deal. I don't think anyone else in the conference takes it seriously so most of it is just strutting around for their fan base.

I think their legal strategy is basically to be annoying enough and be so difficult to deal with that the ACC is incentivized to name an exit price and accept the check.

 

[pittdan77]

I think their legal strategy is basically to be annoying enough and be so difficult to deal with that the ACC is incentivized to name an exit price and accept the check.

That's not really a legal strategy. I know some people have tried having public tantrums to sway opinions but that really doesn't work in court.

Because of FSUs douchiness we are in a conundrum.

I think it's important to remember that the only conundrum is the one the bloggers and twits like to imagine and spend a lot of time worrying over. There really isn't any serious reason for anyone moving into the new offices in Charlotte to lose sleep over FSU's nonsense.

 

[HOF Coach]

My favorite FSU moment and especially the look on Bobby Bowden's face afterwards: 👇 👇




😁😁😁😁😁

 

[cashisking884]

Couple of things...

FSU would have to prove that somewhere, somehow, the ACC knew that FSU would be worth more than they received and lied to get them to sign the deal.

Why is that?

 

[cashisking884]

It's pretty clear in the GOR that the LDs are the media rights. There's no limitation of liability or limit to the LDs in any of the clauses. The worst thing FSU could do is argue their value in the ESPN contract, because the yearly distribution per team would be the floor, and it would be easy to argue they are more valuable than the average.

I don't know what a consideration argument could possibly be here, and I don't know enough about specific performance to comment.

Right. The GOR is a liquidated damage.

But the ACC would have to prove the GOR meets the requirements for it to survive as a liquidated damages clause.

They could. But is also possible they couldn’t.

I’m not sure that the economic harm done to the ACC is so difficult to calculate that a specific performance clause that requires FSU to turn over everything and get nothing, is the best alternative.

And I’m not sure anybody on this board believes that either. Everybody gets exactly what the GOR was suppose to be: a penalty so large it would deter anybody from leaving. But that’s not enforceable in a contract.

 

[cashisking884]

If the argument doesn’t win, that sort of by definition means it was without merit.

That’s not true at all. At least as a legal matter.

You can lose a legal argument and not have to pay attorney fees.
.

 

[pittchagg]

That's not really a legal strategy. I know some people have tried having public tantrums to sway opinions but that really doesn't work in court.


I think it's important to remember that the only conundrum is the one the bloggers and twits like to imagine and spend a lot of time worrying over. There really isn't any serious reason for anyone moving into the new offices in Charlotte to lose sleep over FSU's nonsense.

I agree that it’s not a legal strategy. But when you don’t have any legal strategies that provide an avenue to resolve your problem, sometimes your best legal strategy is a non-legal one.

 

[topdecktiger]

That’s not true at all. At least as a legal matter.

You can lose a legal argument and not have to pay attorney fees.
.

The attorney fees are irrelevant.

 

[pittdan77]

Why is that?

You mentioned consideration. I'm not sure what else FSU would need to show that they weren't getting what they bargained for. Arguing that they could make more money elsewhere isn't an argument.

 

[pittdan77]

I agree that it’s not a legal strategy. But when you don’t have any legal strategies that provide an avenue to resolve your problem, sometimes your best legal strategy is a non-legal one.

For certain but there are always risks with that. People/organizations tend to do stupid things thinking they don't have remedy outside the courts. Usually ends up being counterproductive or even damaging to themselves.

 

[cashisking884]

The attorney fees are irrelevant.

Sure they are.

It’s simply not true that, if you lose an argument, your argument was without merit.

And that’s certainly not true legally, where an argument that has no merit means something, and carries with it legal ramifications.

 

[cashisking884]

You mentioned consideration. I'm not sure what else FSU would need to show that they weren't getting what they bargained for. Arguing that they could make more money elsewhere isn't an argument.

That’s not the argument.

It’s that FSU is getting nothing for the GOR, except that what it was already legally entitled to.

There’s an argument that that isn’t true of the network money.

But that also doesn’t completely do away with the issue of what is the ACC actually giving, since it’s the party getting the GOR.

 

[PittPharm2002]

ESPN pays the ACC for the television rights. The ACC pays the schools. The schools signed a GOR to the ACC in return for the big checks.

Holy crap
I can’t believe you had to explain this

 

[PittPharm2002]

Your contention is that Oregon and Washington were going to sign the laughable Pac 12 tv deal, which would include a GOR. I'm saying there was no way there were signing the deal.

Yes
Until usc and ucla left - so they instead looked for a bag from another conference since the tv deal evaporated for the PAC.
Common sense

 

[PittPharm2002]

That’s not the argument.

It’s that FSU is getting nothing for the GOR, except that what it was already legally entitled to.

There’s an argument that that isn’t true of the network money.

But that also doesn’t completely do away with the issue of what is the ACC actually giving, since it’s the party getting the GOR.

Stop making this insanely idiotic argument
It makes you look like a clown

 

[HOF Coach]

Holy crap
I can’t believe you had to explain this

What's a GOR?

 

[cashisking884]

Stop making this insanely idiotic argument
It makes you look like a clown

Okay

 

[cashisking884]

Googling to see if any non-clowns have laid out any legal issues as it relates to the GOR, there is an this thread from 247:

https://247sports.com/board/30/Contents/is-the-acc-grant-of-rights-unenforceable-205416978/

The link to the Harvard Sports and Entertainment Journal does not work for me. But somebody in the thread read it when it did work, and laid out the arguments in the journal.

They basically mirror mine, argument for argument. Except the author argues that it’s not a valid assignment either if one wanted to call it an assignment. So he/she has an additional one. And doesn’t really argue it’s not a proper liquidated damage expect that there is already a LD via the exit fee.


🤡

 

[pittdan77]

That’s not the argument.

It’s that FSU is getting nothing for the GOR, except that what it was already legally entitled to.

There’s an argument that that isn’t true of the network money.

But that also doesn’t completely do away with the issue of what is the ACC actually giving, since it’s the party getting the GOR.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. FSU is getting paid by the conference for their TV rights. FSU made that agreement because they can get more money being part of a conference than they can by not being part of the conference. Not really sure it's more complicated than that.

 

[PittPharm2002]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. FSU is getting paid by the conference for their TV rights. FSU made that agreement because they can get more money being part of a conference than they can by not being part of the conference. Not really sure it's more complicated than that.

Yep and they can leave -
The acc will just keep their tv revenue until the contact is over .
Which is why fsu is whining but won’t leave

 

[pittdan77]

Googling to see if any non-clowns have laid out any legal issues as it relates to the GOR, there is an this thread from 247:

https://247sports.com/board/30/Contents/is-the-acc-grant-of-rights-unenforceable-205416978/

The link to the Harvard Sports and Entertainment Journal does not work for me. But somebody in the thread read it when it did work, and laid out the arguments in the journal.

They basically mirror mine, argument for argument. Except the author argues that it’s not a valid assignment either if one wanted to call it an assignment. So he/she has an additional one. And doesn’t really argue it’s not a proper liquidated damage expect that there is already a LD via the exit fee.


🤡

I can't open it but I figured you were getting this somewhere. I'd love to read the journal article, though, because I don't think you've articulated it well. By bringing up assignment, my guess is that there is speculation that ESPN set terms in the TV deal that a school could object to as not within the bounds of the GOR? Not sure how that's plausible given the nature of the transaction but a school would be expected to make similar agreements in any conference.

Wonder why the link is broken? You'd think that article would still be somewhere or did it get yanked?

 

[Joe Magarac]

I agree the language in the GOR is airtight.

But it isn’t the language itself that will be challenged in the sense of some ambiguous wording or loophole. Or at least smarter attorneys than myself will have to see those things.

The 3 things that jump out right away though are:

1.’ Consideration

2. Specific performance

3. The whole thing is a Liquidated damage clause intended to prevent another MD from happening.

Pointing to the ironclad language of the GOR isn’t really an answer to those things.
Certainly not the last two.

Specific performance is disfavored in every single jurisdiction of the United States. If it’s possible for the breaching party to stroke a check, then unless it’s real property, they stroke a check. It’s extremely difficult to get a court to enforce anything else.

And while liquidated damages are enforceable, they better be reasonably calculated or you better show the calculation of damages was just too difficult. Does this really seem like that kind of situation? We know exactly what FSU is worth. ESPN is paying the ACC an amount that reflects that. What the ACC rights are worth minus FSU is probably a pretty easy to calculate number.

Lawyers argue for a living.
That’s what they do and they have been doing it since the world discovered fire.
Tell a lawyer you’re going to pay him and they will argue anything anytime anyway.
So those on this forum who contend this and that about the ACC GOR, don’t worry.
Those that want to sue will sue and there will be a phalanx of lawyers chomping at the bit to be paid to argue whatever those paying want them to argue.

 

[Joe Magarac]

The attorney fees are irrelevant.

Not to the attorneys.
NOT BY A LONGSHOT!!!!!!!!

 

[topdecktiger]

Sure they are.

It’s simply not true that, if you lose an argument, your argument was without merit.

And that’s certainly not true legally, where an argument that has no merit means something, and carries with it legal ramifications.

Yeah, it's kinda true. Otherwise you would have won.

 

[cashisking884]

Lawyers argue for a living.
That’s what they do and they have been doing it since the world discovered fire.
Tell a lawyer you’re going to pay him and they will argue anything anytime anyway.
So those on this forum who contend this and that about the ACC GOR, don’t worry.
Those that want to sue will sue and there will be a phalanx of lawyers chomping at the bit to be paid to argue whatever those paying want them to argue.

This isn’t true.

 

[cashisking884]

I can't open it but I figured you were getting this somewhere. I'd love to read the journal article, though, because I don't think you've articulated it well. By bringing up assignment, my guess is that there is speculation that ESPN set terms in the TV deal that a school could object to as not within the bounds of the GOR? Not sure how that's plausible given the nature of the transaction but a school would be expected to make similar agreements in any conference.

Wonder why the link is broken? You'd think that article would still be somewhere or did it get yanked?

If I had to guess, maybe Harvard only makes it available for little bit, then archives it. So it’s no longer available.

But I didn’t “get it” from there. You don’t literally have to be a Harvard professor to quickly grasp what the obvious issues are. A lot of this is like a contracts 101 prompt. But instead of “Black Acre” and “widgets” it’s the ACC and GOR.

I think people are confusing “not articulated well” with “haven’t convinced me.”

I’m not trying to convince anyone. I’m not convinced myself.

But it should be easy to grasp at least one of the legal argument, because it’s the same one the Big East schools used, and MD used, as it relates to the Conference Exit Fee. Which makes sense. The GOR is the Exit Fee on steroids, when the conferences realized the Exit Fee wasn’t scaring anyone enough.

 

[cashisking884]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. FSU is getting paid by the conference for their TV rights. FSU made that agreement because they can get more money being part of a conference than they can by not being part of the conference. Not really sure it's more complicated than that.

The GOR in 2013 happened *after* the tv deal.

So FSU was already entitled to the ESPN payout.

So tv money can’t be the consideration for the GOR.

So what was?

What some are pointing to is the network money.

You could also maybe argue conference stability. So money isn’t the consideration really at all.

 

[PittPharm2002]

The GOR in 2013 happened *after* the tv deal.

So FSU was already entitled to the ESPN payout.

So tv money can’t be the consideration for the GOR.

So what was?

What some are pointing to is the network money.

You could also maybe argue conference stability. So money isn’t the consideration really at all.

FSU isn’t entitled to dick if they leave the acc
The acc pays the schools , not espn .

You’ve entered smf alternative reality world with this stuff .

 

[cashisking884]

By bringing up assignment, my guess is that there is speculation that ESPN set terms in the TV deal that a school could object to as not within the bounds of the GOR? Not sure how that's plausible given the nature of the transaction but a school would be expected to make similar agreements in any conference.

That’s not it.

It’s saying it’s not an assignment at all, but instead a traditional bi-lateral agreement.

“You paint my house and I pay you for it.”

But because there isn’t proper consideration, it’s now just, “you paint my house.”

That’s the only think that makes sense within the 247 poster’s “and/or” context

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The GOR in 2013 happened *after* the tv deal.

So FSU was already entitled to the ESPN payout.

So tv money can’t be the consideration for the GOR.

So what was?

What some are pointing to is the network money.

You could also maybe argue conference stability. So money isn’t the consideration really at all.

No, the most recent and relevant TV deal was 2016. The same time the GOR was amended and resigned by FSU. Not only did they revamp the original deal, they added a second one for the ACCN.

I don't get this thought that the TV deal was before the GOR and there's some argument to be made. There's no argument here. They signed a GOR that is connected to the TV deal, not once but twice.

Maryland voted against raising the exit fee that they ended up fighting. It's a different argument when you vote against it rather than support it.

 

[cashisking884]

No, the most recent and relevant TV deal was 2016. The same time the GOR was amended and resigned by FSU. Not only did they revamp the original deal, they added a second one for the ACCN.

I don't get this thought that the TV deal was before the GOR and there's some argument to be made. There's no argument here. They signed a GOR that is connected to the TV deal, not once but twice.

Maryland voted against raising the exit fee that they ended up fighting. It's a different argument when you vote against it rather than support it.

The original tv deal was not connected to the GOR. The GOR did not exist at the time of the original tv deal.

And every contract that is later deemed “unenforceable” always has a party that agreed to it at some point. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a contract to try to enforce.

 

[PittPharm2002]

No, the most recent and relevant TV deal was 2016. The same time the GOR was amended and resigned by FSU. Not only did they revamp the original deal, they added a second one for the ACCN.

I don't get this thought that the TV deal was before the GOR and there's some argument to be made. There's no argument here. They signed a GOR that is connected to the TV deal, not once but twice.

Maryland voted against raising the exit fee that they ended up fighting. It's a different argument when you vote against it rather than support it.

And Maryland lost that argument too
They lost $31.6mil to the acc-
Which was 3x what Rutgers paid to leave the big east

 

[PittPharm2002]

The original tv deal was not connected to the GOR. The GOR did not exist at the time of the original tv deal.

And every contract that is later deemed “unenforceable” always has a party that agreed to it at some point. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a contract to try to enforce.

You’re factually wrong on the facts and timeline
The new tv deal is why a GOR was entered
Stop it

 

[cashisking884]

You’re factually wrong on the facts and timeline
The new tv deal is why a GOR was entered
Stop it

I’ve said over and over again that I get the 2016 argument, and think there’s merit to it.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The original tv deal was not connected to the GOR. The GOR did not exist at the time of the original tv deal.

And every contract that is later deemed “unenforceable” always has a party that agreed to it at some point. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a contract to try to enforce.

Yeah, but you're assuming there's something unenforceable about the GOR. Just because it came after doesn't mean it's unenforceable.

If your best argument is it came after the original TV deal (that was renegotiated and revamped), you've already lost. Add in that you agreed to it twice.

 

[cashisking884]

Yeah, but you're assuming there's something unenforceable about the GOR. Just because it came after doesn't mean it's unenforceable.

That is what it mean. It can’t be consideration for something already promised. As a legal matter that’s true.

I think there is an argument though that the network payout is consideration for the later GOR.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Your contention is that Oregon and Washington were going to sign the laughable Pac 12 tv deal, which would include a GOR. I'm saying there was no way there were signing the deal.

Right, because like I said before, some people prefer to believe random bloggers who post anything and everything to get as many clicks as they can even though what they post has no basis in fact, and other people choose to believe what multiple reporters with inside sources have written about what happened and when it happened.

The fact that you refuse to even consider what reputable reporters with inside sources have to say simply because it disagrees with the worldview you have constructed isn't really the point in your favor that you seem to think that it is.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Right, because like I said before, some people prefer to believe random bloggers who post anything and everything to get as many clicks as they can even though what they post has no basis in fact, and other people choose to believe what multiple reporters with inside sources have written about what happened and when it happened.

The fact that you refuse to even consider what reputable reporters with inside sources have to say simply because it disagrees with the worldview you have constructed isn't really the point in your favor that you seem to think that it is.

I don't care what they say. Oregon and Washington were not going to sign a crap deal.