I literally lauged out that when I read that tweet. $572 million??? Someone needs to revoke Florida State University's charter. They need to go back to being a female teachers' school.
It looks like FSU is voting to challenge the GOR tomorrow
- Thread starter cashisking884
- Start date
I literally lauged out that when I read that tweet. $572 million??? Someone needs to revoke Florida State University's charter. They need to go back to being a female teachers' school.
That public acknowledgement sort of makes a "we're going to sue our way out" case a little tougher.
These wvcc trolls and their backwood degenerate fans are delusional. Smh
FSU’s general counsel just laid out a little of their legal argument:
I didn’t understand the breach of contract claim, I’d have to see that explained fully.
But their other arguments are:
- GOR is not a liquidated damage clause, but instead a punishment clause not reasonably related to any actual harm
- the punishment clause is specific performance, which is illegal restraint on free trade.
Not to toot my own horn, but in the summer when I laid out what would be my legal case against the GOR, those were my two primary arguments as well.
I didn’t understand the breach of contract claim, I’d have to see that explained fully.
But their other arguments are:
- GOR is not a liquidated damage clause, but instead a punishment clause not reasonably related to any actual harm
- the punishment clause is specific performance, which is illegal restraint on free trade.
Not to toot my own horn, but in the summer when I laid out what would be my legal case against the GOR, those were my two primary arguments as well.
Last edited:
It will surely come up again. Sets the bar and MD admitted to owing the amount the ACC said they owed when they left.
It's an interesting argument but I'm not certain you can make that on the back end when you've benefited from funds another school paid when they left. Like, you were okay with it then, why is it objectionable now?
Punishment clauses are against contract law in every state. And unreasonable clauses that require specific performance are as well to the point the attorney specifically cited FL statutory law which forbids restraint on free trade.
You can’t “adopt” clauses that are illegal. It’s against public policy to enforce them.
And FSU is a member of the ACC, but it’s a separate entity from the ACC. The ACC exists independently of FSU. It’s not true that, just because the ACC took a legal position, collateral estoppel now applies to Florida State. Maryland’s battle with against the ACC.
Yet power teams fled in droves
Nebraska , Missouri , Colorado , Oklahoma , Texas .
Then you added MAC and MWC teams to replace them
The acc In 2025 will be + $10mil per team compared to B12
I’m no lawyer but wasn’t the gor signed to establish the acc network, and if schools leave that hurts the investment and revenue into that network?
Just because arguments have merit, doesn’t mean the argument will win. That just typically legally means you don’t get thrown out of court on a MSJ and get hit with legal fees for wasting the other side’s time.
I think the most noteworthy and relevant news to come out of this is that ESPN has not yet triggered the nine-year extension clause. As of now, ACC schools have no guaranteed revenue past 2027. That’s actually very worrisome, especially if it wasn’t triggered even after the recent expansions.
That may be true but I think FSU's whole case is "what you made us sign is an illegal document."
Right.
One of the reasons specific performance is disfavored in every state is because of the country’s history to slavery.
FSU is on some level playing the slavery card. The response to that from the ACC and ESPN can’t be, “well, we agreed to build this network plantation based on the understanding there would be slavery available to us. So get back to work.” That’s a losing argument.
That's not true. The clause has to be associated with harm. I see them in contracts everyday. In this case, the GOR is saying a school owes the difference in what its media rights deal is devalued.
The fact the attorney set a value tells me that the argument is superficial. In other words, if you don't willingly negotiate, we're going to sue you under this notion that there isn't any related harm. That's an interesting way to go about it when you're publicly arguing that staying in the ACC is harming you and would probably try to expedite the case through the courts with essentially the same argument. The ACC knows it's superficial because they could easily string FSU along until close to when the ESPN deal is up for renewal in 2027. Of course there is also the danger to every other conference because if the GOR isn't enforceable, well, you can see where that could go.
End of the day, they're hoping for a deal similar to MD's. Would get them to a bit under $350 million. ACC might be willing to go there quickly if there's a meaningful exit strategy that doesn't rip the conference to shreds. In the mean time, FSU would need to tell the ACC they're leaving at some point. Not sure you can sue to void the GOR if you haven't told anyone you're leaving.
They would have to add 6 sports programs to meet the 24 teams requirement for the B1G. That’s not exactly a cheap deal. B12
Doesn’t have such a requirement so I don’t see the B1G as an option. ND,Carolina on the other hand are givens
It is true.
You can ratify clauses that aren’t part of the contract, and so had you initially opposed them, they would be unenforceable.
But that’s not the same thing as clauses that are illegal. You can’t ratify them.
There isn't anything illegal about performance guarantees and penalties for failing them. That's essentially what this is.
Nothing illegal. Shady yes. Get rid of both Disney and the villages special privileges, not just one.
Maybe.
But that’s not FSU’s argument.
I don’t think it matters anyway because estoppel doesn’t apply here.
But FSU is arguing that provisions of the GOR violate statutory law.
If that’s true, your ratification argument is irrelevant.
Of course what I'm saying is not their argument. Saying the GOR is penalizing without harm is the argument they have to make to void the GOR. It's nice to make the claim and give people something to hang on to but it's a bit more complicated than that. I think estoppel does matter. Did they initially object to the GOR? Why or why not? Why do they object now? What purpose did they think the GOR served if they didn't object? But that's why we have courts. And that's if it even makes it that far.
Because nobody is prohibiting FSU from going elsewhere. The GOR just says that if they do, the ACC still controls their media rights.
I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. They can leave and pay the exit fee, they just won't have media rights. I'm not sure it's a liquidated damage clause or a punishment clause.
The GOR is tied to the TV contract. They sold their rights for the guarantee of revenue over X years. You can't just walk away because you might be able to get a better deal.
It's not hard to figure out. Number of years left on the television contract multiplied by the number of dollars per year, plus the $120 million exit fee.
The number of dollars per year is variable, but it's easy to get a real close approximation for at least the next several years.
FSU arguing it's at a financial disadvantage, so it will spend upwards of $500m to get out of its current conference. Brilliant!
Are you kidding? You think FSU would turn down a B10 invite because they have to add men's soccer, lacrosse, and some other sports? They would accept in a heartbeat.
As far as I am concerned, they willing agreed to the current agreement when they signed their name to it, END OF STORY. They want to sue, let's go!! I have no idea how wealthy fsu is, BUT I can guarantee you that they are not as wealthy as the other ACC schools if they should choose to fight together in a court of law. The really dumb thing about all of this is that is all based upon GREED. These so called "educators" that in charge if there schools fail to realize that these types of moves are killing the very sport that they are all fighting over. College football is done unless all decide to work together for the good of the sport. I can just see the National Championship game next year with a 10-3 Georgia playing a 8-5 Texas. No one will watch or care.
Just got finished listening to it. I think FSU made good arguments but the expected arguments. Is it legal or not?
The weakest thing the attorney said was that the GOR (or maybe it was the exit fee) was installed to make the conference whole due to harm caused by a member leaving. He stated something like FSU leaving doesn't harm the conference because they would only lose their share of the TV revenue. That is true in the current contract but it hurts the league in the next contract and in the future.
That's how I feel but they are saying what you made us sign is illegal. I used this example before. If I pay you $1 million to build me a house. 500K to start and 500K when its done but we agree in the contract that if I find one mistake (from a list of hundreds of items), I dont owe the 500K balance. When I dont pay because the shower you installed is 36 inches instead of 48 inches and I dont pay the 500K balance, that isnt going to hold up in court because the contract we signed is unreasonable/illegal. That's kind of what FSU is saying.
No, the dumbest thing in there is that it was the ACC's fault they didn't make the playoff. When you're including stupid shit like that, you're main argument is weak.
First that I've heard of this? Would like to hear a source other than FSU confirm or rebuke this.
yeah, but you can't just wind back the clock either. Its not just FSU vs ACC it affected. The other schools, networks, nearly every decision since by every other entity was based on it being legal and having that safety net.
Similar threads
