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

[Joe the Panther Fan]

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

Right. Better to believe the bloggers who just make stuff up, because at least that stuff plays right into your preconceived notions.

Like I said, refusing to believe people who know more about something than you do is not really a point in your favor.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Right. Better to believe the bloggers who just make stuff up, because at least that stuff plays right into your preconceived notions.

Like I said, refusing to believe people who know more about something than you do is not really a point in your favor.

Are you saying it was a great deal?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Are you saying it was a great deal?

When did I ever say anything of the sort?

That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the schools were going to sign it. People sign on to bad deals literally every day, literally all around the world.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Read Me!

Some direct quotes, for those who are not subscribers:

“We were all expecting, Friday morning, we were showing up together to sign in blood our grant of rights over to the Pac-12 Conference,” Arizona president Robert Robbins said.

“Listen, all along we’ve done everything we could to find an opportunity forward with the Pac-12. Over the last few days, obviously, the opportunity presented itself with the Big Ten,” Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens said on Friday. “I’d say in the last 24 hours is when it really intensified, and wasn’t done until the early, early hours of the morning.”



But come on, what would those guys know, right?

 

[HailtoPitt]

When did I ever say anything of the sort?

That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the schools were going to sign it. People sign on to bad deals literally every day, literally all around the world.

The deal was for about $20 million per year, right? If so, then there was no way in hell Oregon and Washington were signing it. I don't care what the 'experts' say.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Read Me!

Some direct quotes, for those who are not subscribers:

“We were all expecting, Friday morning, we were showing up together to sign in blood our grant of rights over to the Pac-12 Conference,” Arizona president Robert Robbins said.

“Listen, all along we’ve done everything we could to find an opportunity forward with the Pac-12. Over the last few days, obviously, the opportunity presented itself with the Big Ten,” Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens said on Friday. “I’d say in the last 24 hours is when it really intensified, and wasn’t done until the early, early hours of the morning.”



But come on, what would those guys know, right?

So this tells me Oregon wasn't sitting by waiting to sign the deal. They were going through the motions and talking to the Big 10.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

So this tells me Oregon wasn't sitting by waiting to sign the deal. They were going through the motions and talking to the Big 10.

It tells you that the Presidents of both Arizona and Oregon think you are wrong.

Not that either one of them would know, right?

 

[topdecktiger]

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.

You are leaving out a big issue in your argument. The GOR issue has more to do with it than just the payout to the school. The GOR also restricts the departing school from selling its rights as part of another conference's TV deal. That part alone kills this notion, because neither the Big Ten or SEC are taking Florida St. and Clemson if the don't get the TV rights for another 13 years.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The deal was for about $20 million per year, right?

It would have been a $25 million base rate, with the potential for it to be greater depending on how many people subscribed.

Interestingly (or maybe not), Oregon's President was one of the ones who liked the idea of getting more money for selling more subscriptions, while Arizona's President didn't like it at all.

 

[cashisking884]

You are leaving out a big issue in your argument. The GOR issue has more to do with it than just the payout to the school. The GOR also restricts the departing school from selling its rights as part of another conference's TV deal. That part alone kills this notion, because neither the Big Ten or SEC are taking Florida St. and Clemson if the don't get the TV rights for another 13 years.

I haven’t left that out. I’ve brought up specific performance.

 

[HailtoPitt]

It would have been a $25 million base rate, with the potential for it to be greater depending on how many people subscribed.

Interestingly (or maybe not), Oregon's President was one of the ones who liked the idea of getting more money for selling more subscriptions, while Arizona's President didn't like it at all.

I simply don't beleive they were ever going to sign that deal. It was all posturing.

 

[Burgh15]

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.

You described an example of a player who signed a deal a year too early, exploded and is probably worth a lot more, but is locked into a long-term contract. The player is going to hold out or demand a trade. FSU seems to be doing its best to take a school version of a comparable option.

 

[HailtoPitt]

You described an example of a player who signed a deal a year too early, exploded and is probably worth a lot more, but is locked into a long-term contract. The player is going to hold out or demand a trade. FSU seems to be doing its best to take a school version of a comparable option.

Lol. Let's see them hold out.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Lol. Let's see them hold out.

Maybe in their blind rage, FSU will forfeit our game. Give us a nice win.

 

[DORT]

I simply don't beleive they were ever going to sign that deal. It was all posturing.

I totally agree. Oregon and Washington were playing poker while the rest of the Pac12 were playing go fish.

 

[Joe Magarac]

This isn’t true.

OK

 

[PittPharm2002]

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

Then stop tripling down on stupid

 

[PittPharm2002]

Are you saying it was a great deal?

What deal ?
It evaporated when usc and ucla bolted .
And of course if the money was good enough they would sign the deal .
It wasn’t - so they left for the BiG
Holy shit

 

[cashisking884]

Then stop tripling down on stupid

I’m not. I’ve stopped putting forth any of my own arguments. Now I’m just repeating what Harvard Law Journals are saying. I can’t help it if smart people are saying it. Take it up with them.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

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

SMU wants to join without TV revenue. Cal/Stanford taking a haircut. I dont know why FSU just doesnt effing leave already and test the GOR in court. If they go 12 years without rights to their home games, so what. The B10 or SEC CFP/NCAAT money will be enough for them to beat Rutgers, Indiana, or Illinois

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I simply don't beleive they were ever going to sign that deal. It was all posturing.

And you have every right to believe that. After all, there is no law against being wrong.

 

[HailtoPitt]

And you have every right to believe that. After all, there is no law against being wrong.

That's why you aren't in jail.

 

[PittPharm2002]

I’m not. I’ve stopped putting forth any of my own arguments. Now I’m just repeating what Harvard Law Journals are saying. I can’t help it if smart people are saying it. Take it up with them.

Lulz

 

[PittPharm2002]

SMU wants to join without TV revenue. Cal/Stanford taking a haircut. I dont know why FSU just doesnt effing leave already and test the GOR in court. If they go 12 years without rights to their home games, so what. The B10 or SEC CFP/NCAAT money will be enough for them to beat Rutgers, Indiana, or Illinois

Because they know they’ll lose and they can’t go without tv revenue

Remember - prior to GOR and AFTER Maryland announced it was leaving the ACC raised their exit fee to $51+ mil. Maryland countersued since it was punitive .
Ultimately it was settled for the $36mil the ACC withheld from Maryland in tv revenue over a couple years .

So- let’s pretend cash and you take this precedent -
FSU leaves and filed suit against the ACC
Ya know what the ACC does ? Keeps theirs tv revenue because they breached . They also own their TV rights via agreement with the acc and espn .
So- what’s the best case scenerio for FSU?

They go less than 13 years without TV revenue . But they will certainly go multiple years without .
Also- they don’t have a conference invite in hand .
It’s just a clown college making noise because they think they are relevant

 

[pittdan77]

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.

It was after the fact but the GOR mentions that it is a condition of the TV agreement. You should read it before you say it's not about tv money because it's very much about TV money.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Because they know they’ll lose and they can’t go without tv revenue

Remember - prior to GOR and AFTER Maryland announced it was leaving the ACC raised their exit fee to $51+ mil. Maryland countersued since it was punitive .
Ultimately it was settled for the $36mil the ACC withheld from Maryland in tv revenue over a couple years .

So- let’s pretend cash and you take this precedent -
FSU leaves and filed suit against the ACC
Ya know what the ACC does ? Keeps theirs tv revenue because they breached . They also own their TV rights via agreement with the acc and espn .
So- what’s the best case scenerio for FSU?

They go less than 13 years without TV revenue . But they will certainly go multiple years without .
Also- they don’t have a conference invite in hand .
It’s just a clown college making noise because they think they are relevant

I dont believe that the B10 wouldn't invite them tomorrow if they left and agreed to a $0 B10 TV share if they couldn't get their rights back. I think you are right in that they dont want to risk going without TV revenue but why? Cut some sports, make some other cuts, and go join the B10 or SEC for free for 12 years. And they do get SOME revenue. They have their own sponsorships, ticket sales, radio deals, CFP revenue, NCAAT revenue. They can beat Indiana and Rutgers without TV revenue.

 

[pittdan77]

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.

I think you're arguing like the cart is in front of the horse when it really isn't. I'm not a lawyer but I spend my day dealing in contract language. It's easy to get lost in the weeds but there aren't too many ways you can walk away from a contract where the other side has met or exceeded its obligations without having to adhere to the punitive aspects of doing so.

 

[pittchagg]

It was after the fact but the GOR mentions that it is a condition of the TV agreement. You should read it before you say it's not about tv money because it's very much about TV money.

The consideration is that ESPN dramatically increased the amount of money that it gave to the ACC, and as a result every member, because each member signed the grant of rights. It’s the additional security that the GOR brings for the life of the contract term that delivers additional value to ESPN, and as a result more money. That’s the relationship.

Edit: and again, it’s difficult to argue that there wasn’t consideration for a contract - and basically arguing that you never had a contract in the first place - when you signed it and have been bound by it for seven years, and have been paid tens of millions of dollars per year as a result of that contract.

I think if it came down to it, a court would force the parties to put a dollar figure on the cost to get out of the contract, even if it isn’t specified in the contract. But that’s different than the consideration arguments.

 

[pittdan77]

The consideration is that ESPN dramatically increased the amount of money that it gave to the ACC, and as a result every member, because each member signed the grant of rights. It’s the additional security that the GOR brings for the life of the contract term that delivers additional value to ESPN, and as a result more money. That’s the relationship.

That seems obvious so I'm confused under what premise there wouldn't be consideration. It's literally right there in the fourth recital.

 

[cashisking884]

I think you're arguing like the cart is in front of the horse when it really isn't. I'm not a lawyer but I spend my day dealing in contract language. It's easy to get lost in the weeds but there aren't too many ways you can walk away from a contract where the other side has met or exceeded its obligations without having to adhere to the punitive aspects of doing so.

It can be true there aren’t many. But that’s not really answering the questions whether those ways are in play here?

“Punitive” I think is a good word in this situation. Because some of the issues, whether it’s my argument or the Harvard argument, is there is a “punitive” issue with the GOR. Which is not allowed.

 

[cashisking884]

It was after the fact but the GOR mentions that it is a condition of the TV agreement. You should read it before you say it's not about tv money because it's very much about TV money.

Great. It can say that.

But the 4 corners of the tv contract do not say that.

As a legal matter. It’s simply not true that the 2013 GOR can be consideration for the 2013 tv deal.

 

[revampedpanthers]

SMU wants to join without TV revenue. Cal/Stanford taking a haircut. I dont know why FSU just doesnt effing leave already and test the GOR in court. If they go 12 years without rights to their home games, so what. The B10 or SEC CFP/NCAAT money will be enough for them to beat Rutgers, Indiana, or Illinois

No one will take them without their tv rights. Especially 12 years a program like ND they might take for 5 or 6 years knowing they will get it back in the long run but fl st is not that level of program and 12 years is to long to wait

 

[cashisking884]

I think if it came down to it, a court would force the parties to put a dollar figure on the cost to get out of the contract, even if it isn’t specified in the contract. But that’s different than the consideration arguments.

And that goes to the other arguments.

There is a liquidated damages problem here.

The Harvard Journal apparently argued that you can’t have two LD clauses. And because the Exit Fee was already the LD clause, the GOR is just a punitive damage clause.

I would argue that even if the GOR is an LD clause, this is not a situation where what the breach of contract amount is too difficult to calculate. And that amount would be significantly less than the forfeiting of everything. And so even as a LD, it fails and is really only a punishment clause.

This was the legal argument the Big East got hit with as it relates to their Exit Fee. And they ended up setting out of court, because that weren’t so sure it wouldn’t win.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I think if it came down to it, a court would force the parties to put a dollar figure on the cost to get out of the contract, even if it isn’t specified in the contract. But that’s different than the consideration arguments.

This has been the method all along for FSU and there others to a bit lesser degree. Acting out petulantly to diminish and damage the conference to the extent that is worth less, and therefore the buyout to get out should be less.

This would correspond well with the refusal of these same schools to vote for measures that (at least it had been claimed) will help improve revenue for the conference. On the surface that seems insane, but not if the ultimate objective is to erode the conference.

The perception of the conference as dead man walking has certainly been achieved, so part one of the plan has been effective.

But now can they make it bad enough so that the rest of the conference (or more likely ESPN) grudgingly agrees they’ll accept such a acquiescence before any last shred of value disappears?

 

[pittdan77]

It can be true there aren’t many. But that’s not really answering the questions whether those ways are in play here?

“Punitive” I think is a good word in this situation. Because some of the issues, whether it’s my argument or the Harvard argument, is there is a “punitive” issue with the GOR. Which is not allowed.

Why not? Contracts have clauses in them all the time and it's not unusual for there to be financial obligations until the contract ends. Your bank isn't letting you out of your CD without the penalties you agreed to.

As a legal matter. It’s simply not true that the 2013 GOR can be consideration for the 2013 tv deal.

The GOR was a condition of the original TV deal and the term of the TV deal didn't start until after the GOR was signed. You can sign contracts with conditions that have to be met after the fact. They've also received benefit from this contract for a decade now and that contract has exceeded expectations so to try to argue that there can't be consideration, now, is kind of a hollow argument.

 

[pittdan77]

And that goes to the other arguments.

There is a liquidated damages problem here.

The Harvard Journal apparently argued that you can’t have two LD clauses. And because the Exit Fee was already the LD clause, the GOR is just a punitive damage clause.

I would argue that even if the GOR is an LD clause, this is not a situation where what the breach of contract amount is too difficult to calculate. And that amount would be significantly less than the forfeiting of everything. And so even as a LD, it fails and is really only a punishment clause.

This was the legal argument the Big East got hit with as it relates to their Exit Fee. And they ended up setting out of court, because that weren’t so sure it wouldn’t win.

I guess the easiest way to settle this is, if it's that easy, what the heck is FSU waiting on? Get it in front of a judge already.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And that goes to the other arguments.

There is a liquidated damages problem here.

The Harvard Journal apparently argued that you can’t have two LD clauses. And because the Exit Fee was already the LD clause, the GOR is just a punitive damage clause.

I would argue that even if the GOR is an LD clause, this is not a situation where what the breach of contract amount is too difficult to calculate. And that amount would be significantly less than the forfeiting of everything. And so even as a LD, it fails and is really only a punishment clause.

This was the legal argument the Big East got hit with as it relates to their Exit Fee. And they ended up setting out of court, because that weren’t so sure it wouldn’t win.

Not a lawyer so forgive me if this sounds simplistic. But there are 3 parties involved. FSU, ACC, ESPN. If the exit fee is the LD to the ACC and you say there cant be 2 LD clauses, why couldn't there be a LD protection for ESPN (the GOR). The GOR protects the ESPN investment. They are buying home games for 14 teams, more than they are buying ACC football.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I guess the easiest way to settle this is, if it's that easy, what the heck is FSU waiting on? Get it in front of a judge already.

If it actually comes down to the contract they would lose.

They want to make things so bad that the conference or ESPN agrees to let them out of the contract for much less than what it says (or nothing).

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

No one will take them without their tv rights. Especially 12 years a program like ND they might take for 5 or 6 years knowing they will get it back in the long run but fl st is not that level of program and 12 years is to long to wait

If the B10 or SEC pay them $0, why would they care if they bring their TV rights?

 

[pittdan77]

If it actual comes down to the contract they would lose.

They want to make things so bad that the conference or ESPN agrees to let them out of the contract

Probably not going to be that easy and it could do a lot of damage to themselves.