forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Handsome Squidbum said:
I've had you on ignore for several years now because you are in insufferable blowhard, but I'll respond because it's hilarious that you googled "consideration" and now think you are a lawyer.

[BGCOLOR=initial]There were multiple things that a court would consider to be adequate consideration for purposes of establishing a valid co[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]ntract. Two are absolutely indisputable. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]1. Creation of Acc network[/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]2. Increased a[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]nnual revenue [/BGCOLOR]

The acc gave up the right to sign other tv deals after the original expiration in 2026/2027 in exchange for the above. The agreement extended it to 2035. Freely bargained. Both sides got something of value. There is not a court in the country that would say the contract is invalid due to a lack of consideration. It's simply a stupid argument.

As for caselaw showing that peace of mind can be acceptable cons[BGCOLOR=initial]ideration, go back to your Google search and look up the concept of insurance contracts. [/BGCOLOR]

I am sure you are salty since I was right about UM voting for expansion and you were wrong, but stick with being 0-1. It's not a good look to lose to me again.
Click to expand...


You dope, the "creation of ACC Network" was by a different entity. That's not consideration between the ACC and its member institutions. It's not consideration, and it never will be. Nor is "increased annual revenue". You are just making **** up.

The deal for the ACC Network was signed in 2016. We were ALREADY under a Grant of Rights contract for 11 years. In order to grant NINE MORE YEARS to the ACC (the party on the contract), the ACC had to provide consideration, and never did.

It has nothing to do with what ESPN may or may not do later.

I know you're not smart, but you're one of the typical "acts smarter than you are" blowhards (along with @NorthernVirginiaCane ) who are trying to conflate and commingle two or three separate agreements into one.

Unlike you, I've actually worked with and applied TV rights contracts. You can't just sit around doing consideration-free "extensions".

The ACC (not ESPN) got 15 schools to sign an extension IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING. Subsequent events do not change that.

As for the rest of your crap about "oh, it was freely bargained" and "oh, the parties are sophisticated" is just garbage. You can't just insert terms like "for valuable consideration" into a contract and expect them to be self-executing. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that the ACC schools were ALREADY under 11 more years of GOR obligation. You can't extend a DIFFERENT contract by extending a GOR and then act like THAT was the consideration. You can't boostrap.

Again, there was no consideration given for the extension. None. Zero. Stop using completely separate agreements to justify one for which no consideration was provided.

You are still the same fraud you have always been. "Insurance contracts". Hilarious. Insurance contracts that you actually pay money for. Directly. Not through some OTHER contract that OTHER parties will negotiate. What a moronic example.
 
Advertisement
I find it interesting that SMU offered 7 years free to Big12 & PAC10 and they passed. I know they bumped it up to 9, but am worried we just invited a fox into the henhouse.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You dope, the "creation of ACC Network" was by a different entity. That's not consideration between the ACC and its member institutions. It's not consideration, and it never will be. Nor is "increased annual revenue". You are just making **** up.

The deal for the ACC Network was signed in 2016. We were ALREADY under a Grant of Rights contract for 11 years. In order to grant NINE MORE YEARS to the ACC (the party on the contract), the ACC had to provide consideration, and never did.

It has nothing to do with what ESPN may or may not do later.

I know you're not smart, but you're one of the typical "acts smarter than you are" blowhards (along with @NorthernVirginiaCane ) who are trying to conflate and commingle two or three separate agreements into one.

Unlike you, I've actually worked with and applied TV rights contracts. You can't just sit around doing consideration-free "extensions".

The ACC (not ESPN) got 15 schools to sign an extension IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING. Subsequent events do not change that.

As for the rest of your crap about "oh, it was freely bargained" and "oh, the parties are sophisticated" is just garbage. You can't just insert terms like "for valuable consideration" into a contract and expect them to be self-executing. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that the ACC schools were ALREADY under 11 more years of GOR obligation. You can't extend a DIFFERENT contract by extending a GOR and then act like THAT was the consideration. You can't boostrap.

Again, there was no consideration given for the extension. None. Zero. Stop using completely separate agreements to justify one for which no consideration was provided.

You are still the same fraud you have always been. "Insurance contracts". Hilarious. Insurance contracts that you actually pay money for. Directly. Not through some OTHER contract that OTHER parties will negotiate. What a moronic example.
Click to expand...
First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.
 
MiamiCanesFan77 said:
Does Shalala still have any influence in Big 10 circles?
Click to expand...
easy gif1693156652810.gif
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I mean...if they pay us the full amount, I'm not sure we would win on "breach". There's an alternate argument to be made.

I'd also add that they are damaging the SEC and every other conference that they carry.

End the GOR in 2027. ESPN knew what they were getting. They can't "demand" that we add 9 years to our GOR, when the ACC gives us NOTHING in return for our exchange of 9 more years of servitude.
Click to expand...

You should, for once, sit this one out. Give yourself a breather, dude, and stop pretending you’re a real lawyer. You don’t have to feign knowledge of everything under the sun.
 
Advertisement
Handsome Squidbum said:
One of the publicly stated reasons that most of the ACC ADs wanted the GOR was to ensure the ACC would stay intact. Consideration doesn't have to mean monetary. Peace of mind can count as consideration, and given that multiple ADs and the ACC Commish said that the GOR would ensure that teams don't leave, I don't think "lack of consideration" would be a winning argument. Courts tend to avoid looking at "lack of consideration" in freely negotiated contracts, especially when you are dealing with "sophisticated parties" like a TV network and a P5 football conference. This isn't a case of some little old lady in a one stop-light town getting duped by a big city lawyer. Courts tend to allow sophisticated parties to agree to whatever terms they want as long as it's legal, even if the agreement is obviously dumb and short-sighted. And the fact that no ACC team ever said a word about lack of consideration from 2016-2021ish and tried to get out of the GOR until now (only after the SEC and B1G had big jumps in revenue) means the "lack of consideration" argument isn't going to fly. Everyone was happy until the other conferences signed massive new contracts.
Click to expand...

Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.
 
Advertisement
PhenomCane said:
Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.
Click to expand...
True ... but NONE of the media deals & GOR's have a term anywhere NEAR what the ACC agreed to what the ACC did IN 2016 .... how do you agree to a deal in 2016 that extends to 2036??? TWENTY YEARS? The NEW ACC media deal BEGINS IN 2024 and is for a TEN year term!!!!!!!! The ACC should have a media deal and GOR that ends in 2026 by customary media term practices. It isn't the GOR that is the objection .... it is the unnecessary extension from the original term end of 2026 to 2036. The ACC got totally screwed over by ESPN.
 
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.
Click to expand...


I've been right about everything for over 600 pages. Indisputable.

Compared to your "we won't go anywhere until the mid-2030s" nonsense.

Each contract is required to stand or fall on its own merits, including sufficiency of consideration. You cannot use a separate agreement between different parties as consideration for a completely different contract. And you cannot simply type the words "for good and valuable consideration" and assume them to be true and sufficient.

That's the real problem here, you keep making ignorant and baseless assumptions. Like when you crowed about the assignment being "IRREVOCABLE" (your emphasis, not mine). Nobody ever argued for the revocation of the assignment, but you strutted around like you had proven something.

The EXTENSION of the GOR was baseless, unnecessary, consideration-free, and constitutes a duplication of other contractual factors and clauses (such as a conference-exiting penalty fee) that are incorporated in separate documents (such as the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract).

There are already sufficient ALTERNATIVE methods that allow ESPN to recalculate its payout obligation if teams enter or exit the ACC (UNDER THE TV CONTRACT ISTELF, NOT THE GOR), and ESPN has adequate recourse (via the composition clause) to protect itself in the event that ANY (or several) ACC schools exit the conference. Therefore, there is no contractual reason or necessity for a 9-year extension on the original GOR, and to the extent that the ACC schools agreed to it, it is still an impermissible duplication of the exit fee.

You can sit here and argue that all of the schools are "sophisticated" and "bargained for this", but the reality is that contractual clauses and requirements are struck down as unenforceable all the time, no matter who negotiated them or why. You cannot possibly argue that EVERY PARTY that ever wins an "unenforceable contractual language" case is a raving moron who was not represented by legal counsel. Courts strike down contractual language every day, this is not some Bizarro World where every contract is viewed as perfection simply because the contracting parties were "sophisticated" and "negotiated" and were "represented by counsel".

No matter how you choose to view this - either the ACC wanting to "protect itself" against other schools leaving (which it had already done under its Constitution) or ESPN wanting to "protect itself" against losing the best ACC teams (which it had already done through multiple clauses in the TV contract), the GOR "penalty" is unnecessary and duplicative, and it expires in three years. The "extension" isn't worth the one piece of paper it's written on.
 
dycane said:
You should, for once, sit this one out. Give yourself a breather, dude, and stop pretending you’re a real lawyer. You don’t have to feign knowledge of everything under the sun.
Click to expand...


No thanks. I'm right on this one, and I know what I'm talking about, regardless of whether you and three other dopes want to admit it.
 
Advertisement
PhenomCane said:
Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.
Click to expand...


This is where you are out of your depth.

It is one thing to create a GOR for the purposes of granting the rights necessary to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of 15 different parties.

It is a completely separate issue to create a financial penalty in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars for exiting the conference, a penalty that DUPLICATES separate financial penalties that are covered elsewhere.

I don't care if you want to make the exit fee $1 BEEEEELION dollars. Do it. But you can't create a penalty in the governing document of the conference, and then create a DUPLICATE penalty in another document.

And you can't enforce DUPLICATE financial damages (ostensibly on the part of ESPN) when they are not even going to perform the services that they contracted for. ESPN has adequate remedies under the TV contract, and the ACC has adequate remedies under its Constitution, to be compensated for the loss of a withdrawing member. I don't give a **** how traumatic the loss of ****hole Maryland was, you cannot create duplicate contractual penalties out of fear and loathing.

That fact that most of the ACC presidents and ADs eight years ago were gaping pussies has nothing to do with contract law.

Simply stated...the "penalty"...of losing $35 million per year for 12 years simply for leaving the conference...is not enforceable. There ARE damages...in a far smaller amount...but you can't create a dozen different contracts with a dozen separate penalties that are all designed to do EXACTLY what the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract ALREADY DO.

No matter how much a guy who writes "enforceability opinions" for "contractual assignments" tries to tell you that the GOR is "IRREVOCABLE" and ironclad. It's not. Neither the original agreement (which only has 3 years remaining) nor the consideration-free extension of 9 years.

The original GOR always...ALWAYS...should have had a liquidated damages clause, for this very reason. I realize that by the time this is litigated, there will be even less time remaining on the original GOR term, which is why the strongest and quickest winning argument is simply to attack the extension, without having to address the complex (but still valid) arguments surrounding the entire GOR itself.

Nobody said that you should NEVER do a GOR. But relying on vague, duplicative, and nuclear damages in a GOR...yeah, that's the issue, and that's the problem.

Liquidated damages clauses. Almost unbeatable. Thank me later.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I've been right about everything for over 600 pages. Indisputable.

Compared to your "we won't go anywhere until the mid-2030s" nonsense.

Each contract is required to stand or fall on its own merits, including sufficiency of consideration. You cannot use a separate agreement between different parties as consideration for a completely different contract. And you cannot simply type the words "for good and valuable consideration" and assume them to be true and sufficient.

That's the real problem here, you keep making ignorant and baseless assumptions. Like when you crowed about the assignment being "IRREVOCABLE" (your emphasis, not mine). Nobody ever argued for the revocation of the assignment, but you strutted around like you had proven something.

The EXTENSION of the GOR was baseless, unnecessary, consideration-free, and constitutes a duplication of other contractual factors and clauses (such as a conference-exiting penalty fee) that are incorporated in separate documents (such as the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract).

There are already sufficient ALTERNATIVE methods that allow ESPN to recalculate its payout obligation if teams enter or exit the ACC (UNDER THE TV CONTRACT ISTELF, NOT THE GOR), and ESPN has adequate recourse (via the composition clause) to protect itself in the event that ANY (or several) ACC schools exit the conference. Therefore, there is no contractual reason or necessity for a 9-year extension on the original GOR, and to the extent that the ACC schools agreed to it, it is still an impermissible duplication of the exit fee.

You can sit here and argue that all of the schools are "sophisticated" and "bargained for this", but the reality is that contractual clauses and requirements are struck down as unenforceable all the time, no matter who negotiated them or why. You cannot possibly argue that EVERY PARTY that ever wins an "unenforceable contractual language" case is a raving moron who was not represented by legal counsel. Courts strike down contractual language every day, this is not some Bizarro World where every contract is viewed as perfection simply because the contracting parties were "sophisticated" and "negotiated" and were "represented by counsel".

No matter how you choose to view this - either the ACC wanting to "protect itself" against other schools leaving (which it had already done under its Constitution) or ESPN wanting to "protect itself" against losing the best ACC teams (which it had already done through multiple clauses in the TV contract), the GOR "penalty" is unnecessary and duplicative, and it expires in three years. The "extension" isn't worth the one piece of paper it's written on.
Click to expand...

This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.
 
dycane said:
This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.
Click to expand...


Sure. Because I'm right. Unlike you.

I'm just waiting for you to tell us about all the caselaw that UPHOLDS multiple different contractual penalties for the same action. Please, oh wise one, tell us about all the jurisdictions that have ALLOWED multiple punitive penalties for choosing to exit an association, when there are already adequate remedies under OTHER documents.

I'll hang up now and listen to your answer.
 
Advertisement
looks like there's a ****ing contest in here


/ don't care just wants us to join the BIG so I can go to all the away games up here
 
ACC still together. Would love for Clemson to fall off the map this year and Miami ascend. It would make all the conversation about conference realignment more interesting
 
Advertisement
Back
Top