FSU exposes Swofford & Raycom deal

[pittdan77]

I guess they would have trusted the conference executive leader to make a decision that was in the best interest of the conference, and as many here and elsewhere said at the time, it was pure cronyism. I guess those in leadership are sometimes the last to notice. Pitt trusted Scott Barnes to make a basketball hire that was in the best interest of Pitt, but he did something else. Happens all the time and we all saw it right away. Pitt... twiddling their thumbs.

Of course, but that doesn't suddenly become an argument for why they were wronged. The "consented" to the actions when they occurred so they no longer have an argument that things weren't in good faith. Even if they objected to the deal, they would be bound by the rules of how the conference operates. Their only out would be if something illegal happened or if they filed a notice of dissent citing why the deal was wrong back when it happened. The difference between shady and illegal can be blurry but someone would have to actually prosecute for them to have actual grounds to do something. Organizations do stupid things all the time that cost them money. Just how it goes. This just feels like they're trying to bad mouth the conference and hurt its value even more in order to get their way.

 

[pittdan77]

How would that be a response to FSU’s argument?

If there is a third party that FSU had a fiduciary duty to, that party can sue FSU for breach.

But a lack of an objection from FSU isn’t really a defense to a breach of fiduciary duty. Your client/principal isn’t going to object much due to the nature of the service/relationship. That’s one reason why you have a fiduciary duty.

If someone is suing FSU for breach, they would have to show FSU was duped or at the very least, raised formal objections. More or less admit they blew it. Without something concrete that shows someone broke the law or acted in bad faith, you don't have an argument because you consented.

They're also trying to argue that the conference shouldn't have acted on the NC lawsuit without a meeting so they're simultaneously arguing the fiduciary can't act like a fiduciary without their consent. Probably should pick a lane and stay in it.

 

[cashisking884]

If someone is suing FSU for breach, they would have to show FSU was duped or at the very least, raised formal objections. More or less admit they blew it. Without something concrete that shows someone broke the law or acted in bad faith, you don't have an argument because you consented.

You wouldn’t have to show that for a breach of a fiduciary duty.

That’s one reason for there being a fiduciary duty. It’s because it’s a relationship where you wouldn’t expect the client/principal to be formally objecting.

There’s a special relationship/unequal balance that lends itself to deferment. “You’re the expert. I hired you to be the expert. So I’m going to with what you say is in my best interest.” That’s the foundation of most fiduciary relationships.

 

[cashisking884]

Of course, but that doesn't suddenly become an argument for why they were wronged. The "consented" to the actions when they occurred so they no longer have an argument that things weren't in good faith.

That’s not true.

Think of it like Elvis and the Colonel.

There’s no argument that Elvis consented to everything. That’s why the Colonel had so much control and power. Because Elvis didn’t object.

But when Elvis sold his pre-197something catalog, it didn’t matter that Elvis consented. His estate was still able to sue The Colonel. Because the argument was, “Of course Elvis consented. There was a fiduciary duty there precisely because he’s going to consent.”

Consent/lack of objection is not dispositive in a breach of fiduciary duty action.

 

[pittdan77]

That’s not true.

Think of it like Elvis and the Colonel.

There’s no argument that Elvis consented to everything. That’s why the Colonel had so much control and power. Because Elvis didn’t object.

But when Elvis sold his pre-197something catalog, it didn’t matter that Elvis consented. His estate was still able to sue The Colonel. Because the argument was, “Of course Elvis consented. There was a fiduciary duty there precisely because he’s going to consent.”

Consent/lack of objection is not dispositive in a breach of fiduciary duty action.

That's not close to being the same thing.

 

[cashisking884]

That's an individual action versus board governance.

I’m speaking in terms of fiduciary duty.

The principal, whether it be a board or individuals, is irrelevant as it relates to the fiduciary agent.

You have a fiduciary duty precisely because your client is going to consent. Whether that’s Elvis or FSU’s board.

 

[pittdan77]

I’m speaking in terms of fiduciary duty.

The principal, whether it be a board or individuals, is irrelevant as it relates to the fiduciary agent.

You have a fiduciary duty precisely because your client is going to consent. Whether that’s Elvis or FSU’s board.

It's not the same because the legal obligations of a board, or further up, the head of the ACC and the schools they represent that form the body of the ACC, are bound by statute (in the state of NC BTW) and the organization's governance documents. Not the whims of a single person or even a single member. That's why fiduciary duty is usually pretty obvious in governance and dissent plays a critical roll in the process. That duty ultimately falls back on directors, or in this case, the schools, because the appointed representative answers to them. Not the other way around.

The commissioner of the ACC has some "emergency" type powers but generally, nothing is formally approved without the "committee of the whole" approving it. Even after the fact, there has to be formal consent on something the commissioner does. "We don't like it, now," isn't a breach of fiduciary duty on the behalf of the conference or the commissioner and that is especially true if there isn't some sort of formal dissent. If there is something illegal, fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case or that would be the tree to bark up. "Not a great deal," really doesn't mean anything.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

I’m speaking in terms of fiduciary duty.

The principal, whether it be a board or individuals, is irrelevant as it relates to the fiduciary agent.

You have a fiduciary duty precisely because your client is going to consent. Whether that’s Elvis or FSU’s board.

Let's be real... the latest FSU amendment is a joke. It's nothing more than throw a bunch of sh!t against the wall and see if something sticks.

I'm not sure if you're arguing just to argue a specific legal point, or if you really think there's some credence to the amendment. I'm guessing it's the former and not the latter.

 

[cashisking884]

Let's be real... the latest FSU amendment is a joke. It's nothing more than throw a bunch of sh!t against the wall and see if something sticks.

I'm not sure if you're arguing just to argue a specific legal point, or if you really think there's some credence to the amendment. I'm guessing it's the former and not the latter.

I haven’t read their latest amendment. But their fiduciary argument is from their original complaint.

And I’m arguing what I argued above.

 

[cashisking884]

It's not the same because the legal obligations of a board, or further up, the head of the ACC and the schools they represent that form the body of the ACC, are bound by statute (in the state of NC BTW) and the organization's governance documents. Not the whims of a single person or even a single member. That's why fiduciary duty is usually pretty obvious in governance and dissent plays a critical roll in the process. That duty ultimately falls back on directors, or in this case, the schools, because the appointed representative answers to them. Not the other way around.

The commissioner of the ACC has some "emergency" type powers but generally, nothing is formally approved without the "committee of the whole" approving it. Even after the fact, there has to be formal consent on something the commissioner does. "We don't like it, now," isn't a breach of fiduciary duty on the behalf of the conference or the commissioner and that is especially true if there isn't some sort of formal dissent. If there is something illegal, fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case or that would be the tree to bark up. "Not a great deal," really doesn't mean anything.

This is just wrong. But we don’t have to keep going back and forth.

 

[pittdan77]

This is just wrong. But we don’t have to keep going back and forth.

I disagree but only on the basis of some similar past experience.

 

[cease10]

Nope. I'll continue to reply when I feel the urge.

Don't post made-up accusations if you don't want me to reply.

You're lucky that I don't want to say what I really want to say about you because the mods will probably delete.

I didn't make up damn thing. Below is directly from the article.

As a result, Florida State chose to file its own amended complaint with a more aggressive tone -- specifically naming Swofford and his son, Chad, and going into much greater detail into how specific media rights deals with Raycom Sports have hurt all member schools.

Florida State alleges in the lawsuit Swofford engineered this partnership "for the benefit of Raycom Sports," noting, "The Raycom Sports Partnership has cost each ACC member several million dollars and continues to depress the value of their media rights, and the cost and success of their prestige network through today."

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Thanks for explaining the legal stuff. Wouldn't be surprised at the raycom thing I guess, but FSU's been crying all things Swofford/Tobacco Road since they were invited. Also not surprised all signed on dotted line at the time. ACC was panicky and falling behind with the believed gold standard at the time of a GOR and tv network as the savior for stability. What gets me is being so short sighted with the binding length of the whole thing.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

That’s not true.

Think of it like Elvis and the Colonel.

There’s no argument that Elvis consented to everything. That’s why the Colonel had so much control and power. Because Elvis didn’t object.

But when Elvis sold his pre-197something catalog, it didn’t matter that Elvis consented. His estate was still able to sue The Colonel. Because the argument was, “Of course Elvis consented. There was a fiduciary duty there precisely because he’s going to consent.”

Consent/lack of objection is not dispositive in a breach of fiduciary duty action.

Did the Colonel settle?

 

[NCPitt]

You're lucky that I don't want to say what I really want to say about you because the mods will probably delete.

I didn't make up damn thing. Below is directly from the article.

As a result, Florida State chose to file its own amended complaint with a more aggressive tone -- specifically naming Swofford and his son, Chad, and going into much greater detail into how specific media rights deals with Raycom Sports have hurt all member schools.

Florida State alleges in the lawsuit Swofford engineered this partnership "for the benefit of Raycom Sports," noting, "The Raycom Sports Partnership has cost each ACC member several million dollars and continues to depress the value of their media rights, and the cost and success of their prestige network through today."

That doesn't state nor even imply your claim of something being underhanded. You made it up.

Somehow I don't feel lucky ... because I couldn't care less what you want to or would say about me. I have no clue what would give you any thought otherwise.

 

[NCPitt]

I didn't make up damn thing. Below is directly from the article.

Hmm. That sounds a little different than this:

🤔Did I say anything about the article claiming underhandedness??? The underhanded comment was my own claim and opinion. Get it right.

 

[cashisking884]

Did the Colonel settle?

Yeah. By that point he had no money. So the estate could sue him all it wanted. You can’t get blood from a stone.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Viewpoints: Courts Should Stake a Seminole Spear in FSU - Chapelboro.com

This article explores the intricate legal battles between Florida State University (FSU) and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), shedding light on FSU’s considerable challenges and the ACC’s robust legal standing in the lawsuits.

chapelboro.com

 

[pittdan77]

Viewpoints: Courts Should Stake a Seminole Spear in FSU - Chapelboro.com

This article explores the intricate legal battles between Florida State University (FSU) and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), shedding light on FSU’s considerable challenges and the ACC’s robust legal standing in the lawsuits.

chapelboro.com

I've been told that all of that is wrong.