Going to potentially see the actual ACC contract Aug 1.
- Thread starter ratking17
- Start date
The ACC really gonna fight to keep FSU at a discount instead of giving them their market value and taking money away from BC and Wake
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Will be fun to see some of the keyboard warriors cry "what are they hiding" when the blacked out document redactions blow out the ink cartridge in their desktop cannon printer.
It's going to be hilarious when they give them a document that you can read about eight words of, and then say the rest is trade secrets.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
You redact the hell out of it and make them argue with you over it. About the only think you can't redact with a state is the pricing but FSU already knows that.
Well it is here! LOL
What a win by the FL AG. Full document: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/acc-public-records.pdf
What a win by the FL AG. Full document: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/acc-public-records.pdf
So the contract with ESPN doesn’t actually run to 2036. ESPN has to affirmatively opt-in to keep the contract going. It’s not a “look in” as people have characterized it as.
I’m guessing ESPN already opted-in and we haven’t been made aware of that, and that’s why Phillips keeps going around telling people the deal is until 2036?
I’m guessing ESPN already opted-in and we haven’t been made aware of that, and that’s why Phillips keeps going around telling people the deal is until 2036?
I can’t copy and paste it.
But go to page 69(niceeeeee) of the release. That’s the extension option. It states ESPN has exclusive option, but not obligation, to extend the agreement until (redacted).
The most notable thing that came out of FSU’s petition that people didn’t seem to know before hand, was the allegation that the contract only went until 2027. And ESPN had the exclusive right to extend it to 2036, and had to do that by 2025.
Some people argued FSU was misinterpreting the contract, and that was just a look-in period. Which never made much sense to me, because you don’t need a contract to specify when you’re allowed to sit down with the other party and seek new terms.
It looks like that part of FSU’s petition is correct.
The interesting thing now is whether ESPN has already opted in? The way Phillips talks, you would think they have. But then why so secretive?
Ok. But it really depends on how you view the deal. FSU wasnt wrong in saying the contract goes to 2027 because ESPN has the option to extend. And the ACC wasnt wrong in saying it goes to 2036 with the "look-ins" because there's no way ESPN is canceling this deal unless teams leave because its great cheap programming
That’s true to the extent every opt-in or opt-out requires the party to “look” at the contract and make a decision. So every opt-in or out is also a look-in.
But *nobody* was claiming what FSU alleged in its petition, before FSU alleged it.
That 2025 date was always characterized by everybody as this designated period during the course of the 2036 contract where the two sides would come together and look-in on the contract to decide if the terms and payments still made sense for both parties. And then possibly negotiate terms to make them make sense. But the contract itself went to 2036 and this was just a check-in date.
You could probably do a search for “look in” on this board and that’s all you would ever get back. Even after FSU alleged it in the suit.
And that just simply isn’t true. Nothing about how it was characterized before the lawsuit and post-lawsuit was correct. FSU’s allegations were correct, right down to Phillips granting an extension to the opt-in decision date. As that 2021 amendment is in the released papers as well.
Whether it has any legal significance? I don’t know. But it’s just interesting that what most people thought was the most shocking part of FSU’s alleged facts (to the extent any were shocking) looks like it was correct.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
“Looks absolutely devastating for the ACC.” -Big12 Twitter account
Lol I'm sure. I went down a Big 12 propogandist rabbit hole last night and that Baylor student is claiming MHV3er says Wash St and Oregon St are going to the B12 and that WVU wants them in. Also, it absolutely seems, in the rabbit hole, that MH3ver is a WVU guy. There are reddit threads about him.
FSU wasnt wrong but I dont know what legal significance it would have. Not sure what benefit this would even have for FSU's case. Are they trying to say the GOR ends in 2026 or 2027 when ESPN opts to renew their media rights deal?
It’s probably a stronger argument for damages against Phillips and the ACC itself for breach of fiduciary duty. But I don’t know if it’s the strongest argument against the GOR.
It’s legally possible that Phillips and the ACC owe FSU damages, while at the same time the GOR is legally enforceable. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
What FSU is going to argue as it relates to the GOR is that the ACC never agreed to grant ESPN this unilateral extension. A deal was made with ESPN. That deal gave ESPN until 2021 to decide if it wanted to opt-in and carry on with the contract. The GOR was then signed, and then amended to allow for a 2036 extension of rights for ESPN. The GOR specifically says it was signed to enforce the ESPN deal that had already been made.
And then Phillips, on his own, signed an amendment to the deal. That amendment extended ESPN’s deadline from 2021 to 2025 to decide if it wanted to continue with the ACC. The ACC never approved this. And the ACC got nothing for it. Phillips claims he did it to basically kick the can down the road. The idea being he hoped the terms of the ESPN deal could get sweeter for the conference, but for ESPN deal to get sweeter, you have to still be in a deal with ESPN. So let’s not force them to make a decision so early, because they might decide to pull the plug. But Phillips needed 2/3 vote from the ACC to give ESPN exclusive decision making over the fate of FSU’s media rights for another 4 years. And therefore, that extension should be void. And the terms of the deal have never changed.
As I said, I think there’s some merit to that argument. But I think it’s more of a winner as it relates to a breach of contract/fiduciary duty between FSU and the ACC/Phillips, and not necessarily as a justification to burn the GOR.
Last edited:
Phillips made this extension without getting approval from the other 14 teams and he had no authorize to do so? That doesn't sound right. I doubt Phillips was secretly making extensions to TV deals without anyone knowing.
Again, this could all end tomorrow if BC, GT, Pitt, etc would agree to give FSU, Clem, and UNC close to P2 money.
Yes. Look in the documents. The 2021 extension is signed by Phillips only. The ACC members never voted on it, let alone passed it by a 2/3 majority. I have not seen in any official filings that the ACC is arguing a vote ever took place. And FSU in its petition is stating it never did.
Now what Phillips would probably argue, much like the lawsuit against FSU itself, is that the extension was not material. So didn’t need a 2/3 vote before he signed it.
I don’t think I buy that as much as the “still doesn’t invalidate the GOR” argument.
Does Jim Phillips require 2/3 vote to buy new carpeting or or to take a piss? We signed a long-term TV contract, in which ESPN had the right to opt-out, not the other way around so the fact that FSU voted for the contract in the first place doesn't mean they get to vote to disallow ESPN to not exercise their option.
1. It’s an opt-in, not opt-out.
2. The ACC bylaws require a 2/3 vote. No contract can change that. It would be like passing a law to ban speech in the US. You can’t. You have to amend the document that forms the bylaws of the US first.
This kind of goes to the original motion by FSU in NC. FSU argued that the ACC never voted to sue FSU. And the bylaws required that to happen. The ACC argued they didn’t need to because the lawsuit wasn’t “material.” And the ACC itself argued that material was something that impacted the commercial or contractual relationship. And because the lawsuit was just declaratory, it wasn’t “material,” so no vote was needed.
But thats not the case here. It’s impossible to argue that Phillips giving ESPN a 4 year extension, is not a commercial or contractual change between the parties.
I think you are missing the point. The member schools voted for a contract to 2036 with ESPN having the right to opt-out at certain intervals. ESPN decided not to opt-out. Why would the ACC need 2/3 vote to approve ESPN not opting out? It was ESPN's decision at that point.
If it was the other way around and the original contract stated that the ACC can opt out at certain intervals and Phillips secretly extended the deal, then they'd have something but that's not the case.
That’s not much of a point.
The ACC voted to give ESPN an opt-in window (not opt-out) window within 2 years of the launch of the ACC Network. That was the deal. They never voted for a 2025 window. Phillips is who granted that amendment.
Let’s say tomorrow Phillips unilaterally signed an amendment giving ESPN a yearly opt-in right, every year, until 2027. Which is the year the contract is set to expire (assuming ESPN has not yet opted-in).
Do you think Phillips has the right to do that simply because the ACC members originally agreed to a 2021 opt-in window.
It doesn’t follow that if they agreed to any kind of opt-in window, Phillips is empowered to allow every kind of opt-in window.
When the ACCN was announced, it was announced to be a deal to 2036 with several "look-in" periods. These look-in periods are really opt-outs for ESPN because if they do nothing, the contract continues. I dont see how you can call these "opt-ins" not that the terminology matters much.
Disney lawyers have had the state of FL under its thumb via contracts since the 1960s. So anybody thinking that Disney lawyers would a contract with sports league that can be destroyed and thus so much as harm Disney's name is silly.
The reality is that the ACC can do nothing about where basic libertarian notions have taken Big Business. And that place is extremely aggressive business practices fociused on maximizing profits and then keeping by eliminating competition. Disney, Fox, SEC, and BT all ahwere to this business values, which means they care nada about traditional intercollegiate athletic relationships and values. They have no batted an ey, and have done nothing more than show a couple of crocodile tears over murdering the Pac.
That is the reality, and yet we keep seeing idiots at places like Wake, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Dook that have basically 0 shot to ever be in a P2 refuse to think that they must focus on saving the ACC even if that means they agree to a somewhat different form of revenue sharing to make certain the most makable ACC schools do not entertain ideas to leave now or in 2030 or even 2036.
I think the league must take a portion of its TV revenue and distribute it based on the total TV viewers for football for that season. For example, let's say that special revenue distribution means that the team drawing the mist TV viewers gets 20 million and each schools beneath gets 1 million less, so that #3 gets 18 million and #7 gets 14 million, until we get down to #17 which gets 4 million. FSU and Clemson know that in most years they will be the top two and get the most money, and that will satisfy most of their grievances. It means they will mkiney much closer to what their in-state SEC rivals get and that they get more than ACC schools they see as parasites on their football earning ability.
Such a plan also would force ACC schools to beef up OOC schedules was way to maximize their TV numbers. For example, if UNC plays Northwestern, Western Kentucky, Charlotte and 1AA Western Carolina, UNC OOC is going to draw so few viewers it might as well not be on TV. But if UNC plays Purdue, Miss St, Baylor, and UCF, its OOC TV numbers will be more than sound. That proves across the ACC will make the league more makable as its TGV numbers go up and also result in higher Strength of Schedule which will mean the nights possible number of ACC teams in the Playoffs.
But what we have is schools that are determined to suck in as much as they can for as long as they can, hoping against all reality that they can see the ACC last and even get richer by doing nothing too keep its most valuable members from leaving for much more money. That is the very definition of short term greed making you stupid to the point of embracing long term suicide.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
So, the best way to save poor little Pitt is to allow FSU to do a Texas like agreement with the league that leaves Pitt in a similar position to being in the Big12? You obviously don't know that Pitt is still an academic school that happens to have sports teams. Allowing FSU to walk all over Pitt doesn't benefit Pitt. Pitt ends up on the short end of every stick so there's no reason to bend over and become a second citizen so that FSU can have a lot of money and not be that great.
Also, the paragraph where you claim the ACC needs to beef up its OOC schedule is pretty funny when you go look at some of the B1G schedules. Would the B1G make more money if Indiana played someone better than FIU, Western Illinois, or Charlotte? Not even going to mention what one particular blue blood puts together for its OOC schedule most years. I'm also not sure how UNC is going to play Baylor when they're so busy with meat grinders against Tarleton State and Air Force.
Agree. Pitt should be leading the charge to give FSU, Clem, and maybe UNC some of their money. I think the ACC distribution should be redrawn so that teams get their market value rate based on what some 3rd party consultant thinks they should be worth. Pay FSU what they are worth and shut them up. Something like
FSU 12%
Clem 10%
UNC 8%
Miami 7%
Cal 6%
Stan 6%
UVa 6%
VT 6%
NC State 6%
Pitt 5%
Lou 5%
GT 5%
Duke 5%
Syr 4%
BC 3%
Wake 3%
SMU 3%
It absolutely benefits Pitt if it means Pitt is in a Top 3 league until 2036. FSU will eventually join a P2 but if its not until 2036, it gives Pitt and others plenty of time to prepare and in that time, there may be another landscape shift. It allows Pitt to live to see tomorrow instead of being in the Truck Stop League playing Iowa State and Texas Tech.
Post less , stupid .
Ask yourself - why did Texas and Oklahoma leave despite having financial incentives you are suggesting in the B12 .
That was the best thing the B12 also-rans ever did. Had they not given Texas that deal, Texas, OU, OK St, and TT would have gone to the Pac 12. Kansas (and I think KSt and maybe Iowa State) were going to the Big East as we later learned. The Big 12 would have died right there. Gone forever. Instead, paying Texas bought them time. They added WVU and TCU. They added BYU + 3 AAC schools plus got extremely lucky that the B10 raided the P12 so 4 more teams had nowhere to go.
So, it was absolutely a great decision to give Texas that deal.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
How? What did they gain? They took less money to keep Texas happy and Texas left anyway. All they did was take less revenue while Texas hung around waiting for a better deal.
You’re wrong. If ESPN does *nothing*, the contract expires.
It’s an opt-in clause, not an opt-out clause.
Last edited:
