MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

The Clemson suit is also on a calendar for ARBITRATION / MEDIATION in October
 
Advertisement
The Clemson suit is also on a calendar for ARBITRATION / MEDIATION in October


Arbitration/mediation is the WORST possible solution here.

This is NOT a "let's meet in the middle" issue. The GOR is bogus, and needs to be decided accordingly.

NOT "hey, I'll give you half of what you claimed the damages would be through 2036". **** that bull****.
 
Arbitration/mediation is the WORST possible solution here.

This is NOT a "let's meet in the middle" issue. The GOR is bogus, and needs to be decided accordingly.

NOT "hey, I'll give you half of what you claimed the damages would be through 2036". **** that bull****.
Seems like there are becoming some clear goal posts as the law suits progress:

-2027 is clearly the current expiration date of the ESPN media agreement.
-The GOR is clearly TIED TO the ESPN media agreement ... only. Not a "general GOR to the ACC to do whatever with".
-The ESPN media agreement states that the GOR is valid "as long as the school is MEMBER OF THE CONFERENCE".
So ... if they leave the ACC the GOR no longer applies.

Might be a bluff, but it APPEARS that FSU and Clemson are both announcing withdrawal prior to termination of the law suits.
They are taking the position that the GOR is in force only as long as they are members of the ACC and if they leave they leave with their future media rights in tact, and only have to pay the ACC exit fee. Next 4 months will be interesting.
 
Advertisement



This guy is ******* clueless.

EXACTLY what he has described...IS the law of the land.

Not sure what country he grew up in (it was the USA, I know it was the USA), but perhaps he has never heard of things like Eminent Domain.

He certainly hasn't heard of concepts like "consideration" and "unilaterally changing the terms of the contract without taking a vote of the parties bound by the contract".

Because if he knew all those terms, he'd be keeping his ignorant mouth shut.
 
Oh, how shocking.

This hot-air pussyboy can't handle legitimate criticism based on accurate legal principles...


1713888208984.png
 
This guy is ******* clueless.

EXACTLY what he has described...IS the law of the land.

Not sure what country he grew up in (it was the USA, I know it was the USA), but perhaps he has never heard of things like Eminent Domain.

He certainly hasn't heard of concepts like "consideration" and "unilaterally changing the terms of the contract without taking a vote of the parties bound by the contract".

Because if he knew all those terms, he'd be keeping his ignorant mouth shut.
Call it what it is. An attempt to politicize a disagreement.

What's his connection to the ACC, because I guarantee there is one given his "legal analyst" articles all in favor of the ACC.
 
Advertisement
TOC has little time for other people's arrogance and condescension


When they are wrong, no.

If my overpreparation on subject matters can come off as arrogant, so be it, I'm not apologizing.

But I don't condescend to people. I try to explain complex issues as simply as possible. It's great when Miami fans are well-versed on things. Although we do have a few posters for whom books are like kryptonite.
 
When they are wrong, no.

If my overpreparation on subject matters can come off as arrogant, so be it, I'm not apologizing.

But I don't condescend to people. I try to explain complex issues as simply as possible. It's great when Miami fans are well-versed on things. Although we do have a few posters for whom books are like kryptonite.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong.

For the record, that McKenzie jackass blocked me and all I did was ask if he was going to block everyone who questioned him.
 
Advertisement
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong.

For the record, that McKenzie jackass blocked me and all I did was ask if he was going to block everyone who questioned him.


Huh? I didn't direct the comment to you.

I'm saying that McKenzie was wrong, and he did it in the most condescending way possible. And then blocked anyone who disagreed.
 
Advertisement
Huh? I didn't direct the comment to you.

I'm saying that McKenzie was wrong, and he did it in the most condescending way possible. And then blocked anyone who disagreed.
That came across wrong. I was trying to get the post in before Tish started passing around the cake for Will's birthday. He's 72 and still sharp as a tack!

I meant to say that should be the response should someone say you're arrogant and/or condescending.
 
That came across wrong. I was trying to get the post in before Tish started passing around the cake for Will's birthday. He's 72 and still sharp as a tack!

I meant to say that should be the response should someone say you're arrogant and/or condescending.


Ah, that makes perfect sense! I'm dealing with a lot of "very literal" requests for information coming from KPMG today, sorry I missed the deeper meaning there.

I do find it amusing that this McKenzie fellow blocked so many people. It helps us all to realize that HE is the problem, not us.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top