I don’t think it ever sees the inside of a courtroom even if FSU moves forward with papers. Best thing the ACC can do is sit back and wait to see what happens next because it can go a lot of different ways.
It looks like FSU is voting to challenge the GOR tomorrow
- Thread starter cashisking884
- Start date
It may see the court because that is all that FSU can hope for. But even a jury decision will be challenged by the ACC and on and on.
I don’t think FSU really wants this to go to court. There are fewer upsides for them.
The more I read into this, I think FSU's end game is the 2027 date and associated ESPN contract. I'm guessing they think they can get the last 9 years of GOR thrown out of their exit fee.
That's 4 years plus the exit fee, so somewhere in the $250m range.
That's 4 years plus the exit fee, so somewhere in the $250m range.
Frankly that seems so obvious that there must be a reason why they didn’t do it before. Like this is the best of multiple bad options.
I didn’t say that they would Sean, I just said that on top of all their other expenses they would have to add more sports. Scholarship, travel, coaching, sports facilities all add up. Created financing aside the money is really adding up fast for them losers. And I want them gone.
I said it would end up in a settlement yesterday. But was told any settlement would end the conference. Yeah it’s likely 4 teams leave, plus ND but the ACC would continue on. This isn’t a PAC type collapse
Here you go @Manster! We talked about this last summer! Last I checked, $33M in 2024 is more than $31.6 in 2025.
It has always been public knowledge that the ESPN contract has “look-in” periods with the ACC once every 5 years or so. Both parties have come to the table repeatedly in the past - most recently in 2021, with no real meaningful changes considering that the ACC Network was still in progress of getting rolled out.
My guess is that the date FSU is referring to is related to the regularly scheduled look-in period, but depicted in the way that’s most favorable to their underlying argument, and can be depicted in a way that’s most inflammatory. I don’t believe it’s a massive impediment.
Queue the “third tier rights” nonsense from the Hoopies in 3….2….1….
What FSU said was that ESPN has the right to decide in or before 2025 whether or not they want to extend the ACC TV deal from 2027-2036. So using sports player contract terms, ESPN can exercise an option on those last 9 years. We all thought it was a guaranteed contract until 2036 but ESPN can get out if it wants.
I'm not saying this information isn't any good but I'm going to raise an eyebrow and anyone who writes "bar graf".
I just post what I thought about it but you could be right here. They may have fooled me too with this being the regular look-in period. Or were we fooled in what a look-in period is? Maybe its always been an out clause.
I hear you. I’m citing it largely because it aligns very closely to my own back of the envelope numbers (based on my review of the ACC tax documents and historic distributions, along with the publicly-available tidbits related to the ESPN deal) that I debated endlessly with this particular user last summer.
Again, no lawyer, but isn’t what fsu is claiming as breach of contract regular business for the other conferences. Signing gor and othe penalties so they can make long term investments in their members, bringing in new members at lower payout, etc.
This will probably be nothing for other conferences in the long run, but fsu is throwing a lot of business practices conducted by everyone, including conferences they may want to join under the bus.
This will probably be nothing for other conferences in the long run, but fsu is throwing a lot of business practices conducted by everyone, including conferences they may want to join under the bus.
Looks like they are not only standing their ground, but counter suing.
Penalties are not allowed in contracts.
You can have a liquidated damages clause, but you have to show it wasn’t intended to penalize or deter a breach of contract.
So the issue with the GOR will be:
Were the damages to the ACC so difficult to calculate that it not only required a LD clause, but that it required specific performance, and that specific performance is a reasonable reflection of the probable harm to the ACC?
The issue the ACC has is we all know what the GOR was for. Look at every discussion on this board over the last year. Look at the very discussion in this thread. “Don’t settle, if you do, it will allow others to negotiate their exit.”
There isn’t a single person on this board that doesn’t think the GOR wasnt intended as a death penalty if teams wanted to leave, and therefore deterred them from staying. But that’s what makes it a violation of contract law and unenforceable. So that’s what the ACC has to get around.
Last edited:
Turns out they actually sued first... they filed in North Carolina yesterday.
I hope the ACC scheduled them in Dallas vs SMU in Week 1 after their Week 0 game in Dublin. That would be awesome. A good SMU team. Their ACC opener. ACC refs. Big-time hornets nest.
The case will be judged in North Carolina. Not Florida. Which means FSU has NO SHOT
That’s not necessarily true.
But even if it’s in NC, it will be a federal court. Which has a much different flavor.
There’s no way a federal court in North Carolina is going to allow a spoiled little girl like Florida st to hurt its STATES schools which would happen if they leave the ACC. Florida st has about a 2 percent chance of getting out of the GOR without paying 572 million dollars lol
The acc and every other conference now. Even the big and sec have gor agreements to start their networks. And it appears all schools got up front money for signing them.
Because the president of the United States is going to impeach the judge otherwise?
I would have put them in too.
Once Exit Fees proved to do nothing to stop teams leaving, conferences had to think of something.
The GOR was not created as penalty but a reward. The GOR was created to negotiate a contract as a collective group for a better financial outcome for not only the collective group but also each individual entity within the group.
Florida state has no standing that they are harmed as they knew when signing the contract twice in 2013 and 2016 that it would be a financial windfall or they would not have signed it.
Just like NFL players have a right to sit out and not play and not get paid, Florida State has every right to leave. They just won't get paid like NFL players when they sit out. The NFL player agreed to the contract as did Florida State. Both the Player and Florida State have a choice, player better and when your contract is up, renegotiate a better contract based on market conditions and your value in 2036.
You can go ahead and lower that to 0% as long as they remain a member of the conference.
They're challenging the GOR while simultaneously remaining a member of the conference they claim they are being damaged by.
Total Florida logic.
Anyone remember back in June when San Diego State let the Mountain West know they intended to leave and eventually had to crawl back with their tail between their legs? Yeah. Me, too.
The issue the ACC has is we all know what the GOR was for.
It was to prove stability to get the network.
No to be a death knell for any one program.
That's FSU anti ACC agenda.
It was to prove stability to get the network.
No to be a death knell for any one program.
That's FSU anti ACC agenda.
Yes. By basically giving any team that wanted to leave a death penalty.
You guys continue to prove FSU’s point.
The legal argument you have to make isn’t the justification for the GOR.
It’s that it was a reasonable calculation of damages.
Going before the Court and saying, “this is the only way we could get a conference network” is irrelevant. The law doesn’t care.
And actually the law will care. Because you are conceding FSU’s legal argument.
Last edited:
Similar threads
