forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

JayCane20 said:
FSU drawing that number is attributed solely to being the only game on TV on opening weekend on a Sunday night against LSU.

Everything else was very close across the top 5 programs in that list.
Click to expand...
Also them and UL had the only ACC game on TV that week of the conf championship.
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
Really don't see dissolution happening. Not enough votes and not enough landing spots. Expect FSU to bail first and land in the B10. THEN? Hope Miami has people willing to pay the $100M exit fee and joins FSU in the B10.
Click to expand...


We "proactively" took 3 western teams to backfill and stave off dissolution. If it's gonna happen, it needs to happen in the next 6 months or so.
 
Rickd said:
Really don't see dissolution happening. Not enough votes and not enough landing spots. Expect FSU to bail first and land in the B10. THEN? Hope Miami has people willing to pay the $100M exit fee and joins FSU in the B10.
Click to expand...
Does the Big10 want Miami after FSU?
 
Advertisement
TheEye said:
Does the Big10 want Miami after FSU?
Click to expand...
From all "reports" from the B10 guru .... the pecking order CURRENTLY is FSU / UNC / Miami. A main reason is that FSU and UNC have both indicated they want out while UM has been more low key about it. Supposedly. Big ?? is the SEC who ... according to some ... would like to grab UNC / UVA (geographic reasons). If THAT were to happen then it COULD BE FSU / Miami to the B10. Paying $100M exit fee and having FOX negotiate the GOR with ESPN. Quien sabe?
 
Genetics made another long post tonight about the ACC and at the bottom says that Duke is likely the Big Ten's #3 target after FSU and UNC but says he doesn't know who FOX has at #3

 
canes518 said:
Genetics made another long post tonight about the ACC and at the bottom says that Duke is likely the Big Ten's #3 target after FSU and UNC but says he doesn't know who FOX has at #3

Click to expand...

This clown reversed position on everything other than FSU leaving .... and FSU isn't paying $100M+ exit fee plus total unknown for GOR ($0-$450M range).
 
Advertisement
Genetics has been wrong more then right in alot of this. Went all in on Washington/Oregon NOT gonna be in B1G then less then 24hrs later it’s done. He might know someone but they feed him inaccurate info regularly based on the outcomes that transpired
 
canes518 said:
Genetics made another long post tonight about the ACC and at the bottom says that Duke is likely the Big Ten's #3 target after FSU and UNC but says he doesn't know who FOX has at #3

Click to expand...



Sadly, Genetics is now losing his ****. He is now getting into a fight with random OTHER tweeters:

"It is assumed by message board posters idiots with YouTube Channels chasing clout, that is how it would work, but legally, there is no evidence of that being the case"

WTF, Genetics? And don't come back at me with "bless your heart".

It was all fun and games when Genetics was focused on the Big 10 and TV networks and TV ratings. But now he is opining on LEGAL MATTERS about which he knows nothing.

But at this point (since I don't have Twitter and I'm not going on Genetics' twitter account before bedtime), I'm going to call him out for either being (a) an intentional or unintentional liar, or (b) a useful tool that other liars are using to spread their lies.

Let's break this down.

1. Genetics asserts that the ACC Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote for a dissolution, and that this will equate to 12 votes. No sir, that is a lie. First, there are NOT 18 members of the ACC quite YET (not until August 1, 2024), so if "dissolution" WAS an "absolute two-thirds matter" as defined by the ACC Constitution, then only TEN votes would be required. HOWEVER, since I have a copy of the ACC Constitution in front of me, I can tell you that "dissolution" is NOT one of the votes that constitute either an "absolute two-thirds matter" or an "absolute three-fourths matter". Meaning, "dissolution" would be a simple majority vote, requiring EIGHT out of fifteen members to vote in favor.

Here are the "absolute two-thirds matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances),
(ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office,
(iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)),
(iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and
(v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote).

Here are the "absolute three-fourths matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3,
(ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4,
(iii) any amendment of this Constitution,
(iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and
(v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2.

Now, in case Genetics knows of any "little-known codicil in the Faber College Constitution" (otherwise known as "double-secret probation"), then he can feel free to cite the specific reference in the ACC Constitution that makes "dissolution" an "absolute two-thirds matter". If not, then "dissolution" is a simple majority issue under North Carolina law.

Which means, of course, that Genetics is either an intentional or unintentional liar, or a repeater of the lies of others, not to mention inaccurate on the current voting membership of the ACC (15 schools, not 18).

2. Later, Genetics makes a whole host of false assertions about "dissolution", including that the ACC can simply "DEEM" member institutions "withdrawn", and that there is an actual CLAUSE allowing for such a "deemed withdrawal". He goes on to talk about how any discussion of dissolution must, by fiat I guess, be some sort of an action "against the bylaws". Finally, he concludes with some nonsense that, after the fact, a vote for dissolution would somehow be deemed "invalid" because...members wanted to vote for dissolution...this is the ULTIMATE BOOTSTRAP argument. This is where the lack of legal education on Genetics' part makes him a useful fool for people who want to fill his head with absolute BULL****.

First, consider the ridiculous logical (and legal) construct that absolutely REMOVES the right to vote on dissolution...because because because, any discussion of dissolution is "against the bylaws", and any action taken to vote on a dissolution would eventually just be declared invalid. THIS ISN'T FIGHT CLUB, and the first rule of ACC Fight Club is NOT that you can't talk about dissolution. In the Genetics Magical Mystery World, there IS NO RIGHT to dissolution, because you could just undo it later with the wave of a magic wand that says that even THINKING about dissolution means you have violated the By-Laws and are deemed to be "withdrawn" from the ACC Fight Club.

Second, and far more importantly, THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE OR CLAUSES THAT GENETICS IS CLAIMING. He didn't cite a clause, he just said it existed (it does not). ****, even look at the list of "absolute three-fourths matters" that I posted above, and you will see that EXPULSION of a member institution requires a THREE-FOURTHS vote. It's not just "deemed". It's not "deemed" based on "talkin' 'bout dissolution". It's not automatic. The only time a member insitution is "deemed to be withdrawn" is when that member institution has actually given notice of withdrawal. But not, you know, for talking about the problems of the ACC and considering its dissolution.

Again, Genetics is either an intentional or unintentional liar, or is repeating the lies of others.

3. This one cracks me up. Without any support or citations, Genetics tells THIS whopper of a lie: "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." HOW IN THE **** DOES HE KNOW THAT? Because one of his ACC and/or Big 10 sources TOLD HIM THAT? Again, this is where Genetics REALLY exposes his lack of legal education. Even if this was HIS LEGAL OPINION, he would never express it in such extreme and absolute terms. He has NO IDEA whether that statement is true. As we have seen (earlier in this thread), there is an article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review about the unenforceability of GOR agreements. Now, if Genetics had any legal training whatsoever, he might be entitled to challenge some of the assertions in that academic peer-reviewed article. However, he does no such thing, he merely leaps to the ultimate conclusion of "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." Now, unlike Genetics, I have legal training and I am an honest person. Therefore I will say that I DO NOT KNOW if the ACC (or, more accurately, ESPN) will win or lose a legal fight over the GOR. What I WILL SAY is that any school(s) that choose to challenge the GOR have multiple valid legal arguments that can be made, and that I feel ACC members SHOULD challenge the GOR in court. And that ESPN, not the ACC, would be the defendant.

Again, Genetics is either an intentional or unintentional liar, or a repeater of the lies of others.

4. I have to be honest, I don't even know what in the actual **** Genetics is talking about with his "the exit cost will continue to rise" nonsense. As has been pointed out before, the "exit fee" and the "GOR penalties" should be TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. The ACC exit fee is prescribed in the ACC Constitution. That is not going up based on any factor such as rights fees. It's just, you know, a SET FEE. Furthermore, as has been made clear previously, US contractual principles say that you cannot use OTHER agreements to double or triple or otherwise increase the exit fee already called for under a constitution or other governing document. So, first Genetics says that with "more revenue" it will cost more to break the GOR. Of course, he IGNORES the fact that the additions of Cal and Stanford and SMU were at LOWER pro-rata amounts, so IF ANYTHING, it should actually cost LESS to break the GOR. Not to mention the fact that every single year that goes by is the expiration of another year of the GOR. So, contrary to what Genetics claims, the cost of breaking the GOR should DECLINE over time, and should NOT be conflated with any conference "exit fee", since those are two separate issues entirely. LEGALLY.

Again, Genetics is either intentionally or unintentionally lying, or repeating the lies of people who are trying to manipulate him and his bully pulpit.

I will refrain from making any further commentary to the rest of Genetics' meanderings after those four massive lies. I will just point out that, again, he is confused about who actually owns the rights under the GOR (the ACC flipped those rights to ESPN) and who would be paid under such a breach (hint, I'm not sure why Genetics thinks that the ACC would be paid for rights it no longer owns, but which ESPN now owns).

What I will say is this. I'm not sure why there couldn't be a "self-funding" on GOR for any ACC school going to the SEC. Bear with me for a moment, and I'll explain. Let's say that, I don't know, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY chooses to exit the ACC for the SEC. In theory, assuming that the GOR is even enforceable, F$U would "pay" ESPN for the "loss" of F$U content over the remainder of the ACC-ESPN and ACC Network deal. OK, fair enough. BUT THEN, ESPN would need to PAY F$U for the F$U content now being provided under the SEPARATE SEC agreement. And, in theory, if the SEC rights agreement ACTUALLY PAYS MORE than the ACC rights agreement (am I crazy to think that?), then F$U can effectively "self-finance" the breaking of the ACC GOR by using the SEC revenue to repay ESPN for the damages it owes to ESPN.

In short, F$U could agree to take "less money" for the next decade in order to get the **** out of the ACC and into the SEC. Now, will they? How should I know, Connie? But it could happen. VERY easily. Assuming that the GOR is, in fact, enforceable. I love the way that Genetics just presumes that the ACC would be the party defending the GOR. WHY? The ACC sold the rights to ESPN, and ESPN would be the injured party if F$U pulled out of the ACC, both the organization AND the TV agreement (which, as stated above, are TWO SEPARATE THINGS).

Finally, you have the interesting impact of what you normally see in "real estate" situations. You know, when someone is trying to acquire lots of different real estate parcels, and they start out buying low, but as fewer and fewer parcels are available and the remaining owners realize what is going on, it becomes MORE EXPENSIVE to acquire the remaining parcels.

Except this would work in reverse. If F$U leaves the ACC, and then gets replaced by, say, USF, I guaran-*******-tee you that any FUTURE school that tries to leave the ACC will simply argue "hey, NOW the TV contract with ESPN is worth LESS than it was before, therefore OUR exit from the GOR should cost us LESS than whatever F$U paid". And you can replicate this process over and over again, until the ACC is left with UConn and Charlotte and FIU and FGCU as its most attractive members.

So, yeah, anyone who wants to cut-and-paste any or all of this post in order to throw it in Genetics' face...is free to do so.

And if Genetics wants to come on this board and debate, he is free to do so.

I realize that nobody is going to challenge him ON HIS OWN TWITTER FEED. Genetics will win that battle every time.

But if Genetics wants to come over here and cite all of these non-existent clauses of the ACC Constitution, I'm ready for him to do so. I will have a civil discourse with him, even if he objects to being called an intentional or unintentional liar OR a repeater of the lies of others. But, hey, that's the truth. He can't get mad at me for being truthful and honest.

And I'd looooooove to hear him tell me about how the ACC will "not" lose a legal battle over the GOR, particularly when ESPN is the party who would be asserting damages against any school that exits the TV deal before its expiration.

So...you know...bring it on, Genetics. I'm ready to debate you any time.
 
Last edited:


Definitive proof that this guy is a certified clown. AG office is getting “involved” to score some political brownie points. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Sadly, Genetics is now losing his ****. He is now getting into a fight with random OTHER tweeters:

"It is assumed by message board posters idiots with YouTube Channels chasing clout, that is how it would work, but legally, there is no evidence of that being the case"

WTF, Genetics? And don't come back at me with "bless your heart".

It was all fun and games when Genetics was focused on the Big 10 and TV networks and TV ratings. But now he is opining on LEGAL MATTERS about which he knows nothing.

But at this point (since I don't have Twitter and I'm not going on Genetics' twitter account before bedtime), I'm going to call him out for either being (a) a liar, or (b) a useful tool that other liars are using to spread their lies.

Let's break this down.

1. Genetics asserts that the ACC Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote for a dissolution, and that this will equate to 12 votes. No sir, that is a lie. First, there are NOT 18 members of the ACC quite YET (not until August 1, 2024), so if "dissolution" WAS an "absolute two-thirds matter" as defined by the ACC Constitution, then only TEN votes would be required. HOWEVER, since I have a copy of the ACC Constitution in front of me, I can tell you that "dissolution" is NOT one of the votes that constitute either an "absolute two-thirds matter" or an "absolute three-fourths matter". Meaning, "dissolution" would be a simple majority vote, requiring EIGHT out of fifteen members to vote in favor.

Here are the "absolute two-thirds matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances),
(ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office,
(iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)),
(iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and
(v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote).

Here are the "absolute three-fourths matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3,
(ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4,
(iii) any amendment of this Constitution,
(iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and
(v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2.

Now, in case Genetics knows of any "little-known codicil in the Faber College Constitution" (otherwise known as "double-secret probation"), then he can feel free to cite the specific reference in the ACC Constitution that makes "dissolution" an "absolute two-thirds matter". If not, then "dissolution" is a simple majority issue under North Carolina law.

Which means, of course, that Genetics is either a liar or a repeater of the lies of others, not to mention inaccurate on the current voting membership of the ACC (15 schools, not 18).

2. Later, Genetics makes a whole host of false assertions about "dissolution", including that the ACC can simply "DEEM" member institutions "withdrawn", and that there is an actual CLAUSE allowing for such a "deemed withdrawal". He goes on to talk about how any discussion of dissolution must, by fiat I guess, be some sort of an action "against the bylaws". Finally, he concludes with some nonsense that, after the fact, a vote for dissolution would somehow be deemed "invalid" because...members wanted to vote for dissolution...this is the ULTIMATE BOOTSTRAP argument. This is where the lack of legal education on Genetics' part makes him a useful fool for people who want to fill his head with absolute BULL****.

First, consider the ridiculous logical (and legal) construct that absolutely REMOVES the right to vote on dissolution...because because because, any discussion of dissolution is "against the bylaws", and any action taken to vote on a dissolution would eventually just be declared invalid. THIS ISN'T FIGHT CLUB, and the first rule of ACC Fight Club is NOT that you can't talk about dissolution. In the Genetics Magical Mystery World, there IS NO RIGHT to dissolution, because you could just undo it later with the wave of a magic wand that says that even THINKING about dissolution means you have violated the By-Laws and are deemed to be "withdrawn" from the ACC Fight Club.

Second, and far more importantly, THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE OR CLAUSES THAT GENETICS IS CLAIMING. He didn't cite a clause, he just said it existed (it does not). ****, even look at the list of "absolute three-fourths matters" that I posted above, and you will see that EXPULSION of a member institution requires a THREE-FOURTHS vote. It's not just "deemed". It's not "deemed" based on "talkin' 'bout dissolution". It's not automatic. The only time a member insitution is "deemed to be withdrawn" is when that member institution has actually given notice of withdrawal. But not, you know, for talking about the problems of the ACC and considering its dissolution.

Again, Genetics is either a liar or is repeating the lies of others.

3. This one cracks me up. Without any support or citations, Genetics tells THIS whopper of a lie: "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." HOW IN THE **** DOES HE KNOW THAT? Because one of his ACC and/or Big 10 sources TOLD HIM THAT? Again, this is where Genetics REALLY exposes his lack of legal education. Even if this was HIS LEGAL OPINION, he would never express it in such extreme and absolute terms. He has NO IDEA whether that statement is true. As we have seen (earlier in this thread), there is an article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review about the unenforceability of GOR agreements. Now, if Genetics had any legal training whatsoever, he might be entitled to challenge some of the assertions in that academic peer-reviewed article. However, he does no such thing, he merely leaps to the ultimate conclusion of "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." Now, unlike Genetics, I have legal training and I am an honest person. Therefore I will say that I DO NOT KNOW if the ACC (or, more accurately, ESPN) will win or lose a legal fight over the GOR. What I WILL SAY is that any school(s) that choose to challenge the GOR have multiple valid legal arguments that can be made, and that I feel ACC members SHOULD challenge the GOR in court. And that ESPN, not the ACC, would be the defendant.

Again, Genetics is either a liar or a repeater of the lies of others.

4. I have to be honest, I don't even know what in the actual **** Genetics is talking about with his "the exit cost will continue to rise" nonsense. As has been pointed out before, the "exit fee" and the "GOR penalties" should be TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. The ACC exit fee is prescribed in the ACC Constitution. That is not going up based on any factor such as rights fees. It's just, you know, a SET FEE. Furthermore, as has been made clear previously, US contractual principles say that you cannot use OTHER agreements to double or triple or otherwise increase the exit fee already called for under a constitution or other governing document. So, first Genetics says that with "more revenue" it will cost more to break the GOR. Of course, he IGNORES the fact that the additions of Cal and Stanford and SMU were at LOWER pro-rata amounts, so IF ANYTHING, it should actually cost LESS to break the GOR. Not to mention the fact that every single year that goes by is the expiration of another year of the GOR. So, contrary to what Genetics claims, the cost of breaking the GOR should DECLINE over time, and should NOT be conflated with any conference "exit fee", since those are two separate issues entirely. LEGALLY.

Again, Genetics is either lying or repeating the lies of people who are trying to manipulate him and his bully pulpit.

I will refrain from making any further commentary to the rest of Genetics' meanderings after those four massive lies. I will just point out that, again, he is confused about who actually owns the rights under the GOR (the ACC flipped those rights to ESPN) and who would be paid under such a breach (hint, I'm not sure why Genetics thinks that the ACC would be paid for rights it no longer owns, but which ESPN now owns).

What I will say is this. I'm not sure why there couldn't be a "self-funding" on GOR for any ACC school going to the SEC. Bear with me for a moment, and I'll explain. Let's say that, I don't know, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY chooses to exit the ACC for the SEC. In theory, assuming that the GOR is even enforceable, F$U would "pay" ESPN for the "loss" of F$U content over the remainder of the ACC-ESPN and ACC Network deal. OK, fair enough. BUT THEN, ESPN would need to PAY F$U for the F$U content now being provided under the SEPARATE SEC agreement. And, in theory, if the SEC rights agreement ACTUALLY PAYS MORE than the ACC rights agreement (am I crazy to think that?), then F$U can effectively "self-finance" the breaking of the ACC GOR by using the SEC revenue to repay ESPN for the damages it owes to ESPN.

In short, F$U could agree to take "less money" for the next decade in order to get the **** out of the ACC and into the SEC. Now, will they? How should I know, Connie? But it could happen. VERY easily. Assuming that the GOR is, in fact, enforceable. I love the way that Genetics just presumes that the ACC would be the party defending the GOR. WHY? The ACC sold the rights to ESPN, and ESPN would be the injured party if F$U pulled out of the ACC, both the organization AND the TV agreement (which, as stated above, are TWO SEPARATE THINGS).

Finally, you have the interesting impact of what you normally see in "real estate" situations. You know, when someone is trying to acquire lots of different real estate parcels, and they start out buying low, but as fewer and fewer parcels are available and the remaining owners realize what is going on, it becomes MORE EXPENSIVE to acquire the remaining parcels.

Except this would work in reverse. If F$U leaves the ACC, and then gets replaced by, say, USF, I guaran-*******-tee you that any FUTURE school that tries to leave the ACC will simply argue "hey, NOW the TV contract with ESPN is worth LESS than it was before, therefore OUR exit from the GOR should cost us LESS than whatever F$U paid". And you can replicate this process over and over again, until the ACC is left with UConn and Charlotte and FIU and FGCU as its most attractive members.

So, yeah, anyone who wants to cut-and-paste any or all of this post in order to throw it in Genetics' face...is free to do so.

And if Genetics wants to come on this board and debate, he is free to do so.

I realize that nobody is going to challenge him ON HIS OWN TWITTER FEED. Genetics will win that battle every time.

But if Genetics wants to come over here and cite all of these non-existent clauses of the ACC Constitution, I'm ready for him to do so. I will have a civil discourse with him, even if he objects to being called a liar OR a repeater of the lies of others. But, hey, that's the truth. He can't get mad at me for being truthful and honest.

And I'd looooooove to hear him tell me about how the ACC will "not" lose a legal battle over the GOR, particularly when ESPN is the party who would be asserting damages against any school that exits the TV deal before its expiration.

So...you know...bring it on, Genetics. I'm ready to debate you any time.
Click to expand...

I love u K, buuuuuuuuuuut…..

 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
@Andrew, I think you better budget for greater bandwidth for FY24-25
Click to expand...


1702441186792.png
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Sadly, Genetics is now losing his ****. He is now getting into a fight with random OTHER tweeters:

"It is assumed by message board posters idiots with YouTube Channels chasing clout, that is how it would work, but legally, there is no evidence of that being the case"

WTF, Genetics? And don't come back at me with "bless your heart".

It was all fun and games when Genetics was focused on the Big 10 and TV networks and TV ratings. But now he is opining on LEGAL MATTERS about which he knows nothing.

But at this point (since I don't have Twitter and I'm not going on Genetics' twitter account before bedtime), I'm going to call him out for either being (a) a liar, or (b) a useful tool that other liars are using to spread their lies.

Let's break this down.

1. Genetics asserts that the ACC Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote for a dissolution, and that this will equate to 12 votes. No sir, that is a lie. First, there are NOT 18 members of the ACC quite YET (not until August 1, 2024), so if "dissolution" WAS an "absolute two-thirds matter" as defined by the ACC Constitution, then only TEN votes would be required. HOWEVER, since I have a copy of the ACC Constitution in front of me, I can tell you that "dissolution" is NOT one of the votes that constitute either an "absolute two-thirds matter" or an "absolute three-fourths matter". Meaning, "dissolution" would be a simple majority vote, requiring EIGHT out of fifteen members to vote in favor.

Here are the "absolute two-thirds matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances),
(ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office,
(iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)),
(iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and
(v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote).

Here are the "absolute three-fourths matters" (as listed in the ACC Constitution):

(i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3,
(ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4,
(iii) any amendment of this Constitution,
(iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and
(v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2.

Now, in case Genetics knows of any "little-known codicil in the Faber College Constitution" (otherwise known as "double-secret probation"), then he can feel free to cite the specific reference in the ACC Constitution that makes "dissolution" an "absolute two-thirds matter". If not, then "dissolution" is a simple majority issue under North Carolina law.

Which means, of course, that Genetics is either a liar or a repeater of the lies of others, not to mention inaccurate on the current voting membership of the ACC (15 schools, not 18).

2. Later, Genetics makes a whole host of false assertions about "dissolution", including that the ACC can simply "DEEM" member institutions "withdrawn", and that there is an actual CLAUSE allowing for such a "deemed withdrawal". He goes on to talk about how any discussion of dissolution must, by fiat I guess, be some sort of an action "against the bylaws". Finally, he concludes with some nonsense that, after the fact, a vote for dissolution would somehow be deemed "invalid" because...members wanted to vote for dissolution...this is the ULTIMATE BOOTSTRAP argument. This is where the lack of legal education on Genetics' part makes him a useful fool for people who want to fill his head with absolute BULL****.

First, consider the ridiculous logical (and legal) construct that absolutely REMOVES the right to vote on dissolution...because because because, any discussion of dissolution is "against the bylaws", and any action taken to vote on a dissolution would eventually just be declared invalid. THIS ISN'T FIGHT CLUB, and the first rule of ACC Fight Club is NOT that you can't talk about dissolution. In the Genetics Magical Mystery World, there IS NO RIGHT to dissolution, because you could just undo it later with the wave of a magic wand that says that even THINKING about dissolution means you have violated the By-Laws and are deemed to be "withdrawn" from the ACC Fight Club.

Second, and far more importantly, THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE OR CLAUSES THAT GENETICS IS CLAIMING. He didn't cite a clause, he just said it existed (it does not). ****, even look at the list of "absolute three-fourths matters" that I posted above, and you will see that EXPULSION of a member institution requires a THREE-FOURTHS vote. It's not just "deemed". It's not "deemed" based on "talkin' 'bout dissolution". It's not automatic. The only time a member insitution is "deemed to be withdrawn" is when that member institution has actually given notice of withdrawal. But not, you know, for talking about the problems of the ACC and considering its dissolution.

Again, Genetics is either a liar or is repeating the lies of others.

3. This one cracks me up. Without any support or citations, Genetics tells THIS whopper of a lie: "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." HOW IN THE **** DOES HE KNOW THAT? Because one of his ACC and/or Big 10 sources TOLD HIM THAT? Again, this is where Genetics REALLY exposes his lack of legal education. Even if this was HIS LEGAL OPINION, he would never express it in such extreme and absolute terms. He has NO IDEA whether that statement is true. As we have seen (earlier in this thread), there is an article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review about the unenforceability of GOR agreements. Now, if Genetics had any legal training whatsoever, he might be entitled to challenge some of the assertions in that academic peer-reviewed article. However, he does no such thing, he merely leaps to the ultimate conclusion of "The ACC will not lose a legal fight regarding the GOR." Now, unlike Genetics, I have legal training and I am an honest person. Therefore I will say that I DO NOT KNOW if the ACC (or, more accurately, ESPN) will win or lose a legal fight over the GOR. What I WILL SAY is that any school(s) that choose to challenge the GOR have multiple valid legal arguments that can be made, and that I feel ACC members SHOULD challenge the GOR in court. And that ESPN, not the ACC, would be the defendant.

Again, Genetics is either a liar or a repeater of the lies of others.

4. I have to be honest, I don't even know what in the actual **** Genetics is talking about with his "the exit cost will continue to rise" nonsense. As has been pointed out before, the "exit fee" and the "GOR penalties" should be TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. The ACC exit fee is prescribed in the ACC Constitution. That is not going up based on any factor such as rights fees. It's just, you know, a SET FEE. Furthermore, as has been made clear previously, US contractual principles say that you cannot use OTHER agreements to double or triple or otherwise increase the exit fee already called for under a constitution or other governing document. So, first Genetics says that with "more revenue" it will cost more to break the GOR. Of course, he IGNORES the fact that the additions of Cal and Stanford and SMU were at LOWER pro-rata amounts, so IF ANYTHING, it should actually cost LESS to break the GOR. Not to mention the fact that every single year that goes by is the expiration of another year of the GOR. So, contrary to what Genetics claims, the cost of breaking the GOR should DECLINE over time, and should NOT be conflated with any conference "exit fee", since those are two separate issues entirely. LEGALLY.

Again, Genetics is either lying or repeating the lies of people who are trying to manipulate him and his bully pulpit.

I will refrain from making any further commentary to the rest of Genetics' meanderings after those four massive lies. I will just point out that, again, he is confused about who actually owns the rights under the GOR (the ACC flipped those rights to ESPN) and who would be paid under such a breach (hint, I'm not sure why Genetics thinks that the ACC would be paid for rights it no longer owns, but which ESPN now owns).

What I will say is this. I'm not sure why there couldn't be a "self-funding" on GOR for any ACC school going to the SEC. Bear with me for a moment, and I'll explain. Let's say that, I don't know, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY chooses to exit the ACC for the SEC. In theory, assuming that the GOR is even enforceable, F$U would "pay" ESPN for the "loss" of F$U content over the remainder of the ACC-ESPN and ACC Network deal. OK, fair enough. BUT THEN, ESPN would need to PAY F$U for the F$U content now being provided under the SEPARATE SEC agreement. And, in theory, if the SEC rights agreement ACTUALLY PAYS MORE than the ACC rights agreement (am I crazy to think that?), then F$U can effectively "self-finance" the breaking of the ACC GOR by using the SEC revenue to repay ESPN for the damages it owes to ESPN.

In short, F$U could agree to take "less money" for the next decade in order to get the **** out of the ACC and into the SEC. Now, will they? How should I know, Connie? But it could happen. VERY easily. Assuming that the GOR is, in fact, enforceable. I love the way that Genetics just presumes that the ACC would be the party defending the GOR. WHY? The ACC sold the rights to ESPN, and ESPN would be the injured party if F$U pulled out of the ACC, both the organization AND the TV agreement (which, as stated above, are TWO SEPARATE THINGS).

Finally, you have the interesting impact of what you normally see in "real estate" situations. You know, when someone is trying to acquire lots of different real estate parcels, and they start out buying low, but as fewer and fewer parcels are available and the remaining owners realize what is going on, it becomes MORE EXPENSIVE to acquire the remaining parcels.

Except this would work in reverse. If F$U leaves the ACC, and then gets replaced by, say, USF, I guaran-*******-tee you that any FUTURE school that tries to leave the ACC will simply argue "hey, NOW the TV contract with ESPN is worth LESS than it was before, therefore OUR exit from the GOR should cost us LESS than whatever F$U paid". And you can replicate this process over and over again, until the ACC is left with UConn and Charlotte and FIU and FGCU as its most attractive members.

So, yeah, anyone who wants to cut-and-paste any or all of this post in order to throw it in Genetics' face...is free to do so.

And if Genetics wants to come on this board and debate, he is free to do so.

I realize that nobody is going to challenge him ON HIS OWN TWITTER FEED. Genetics will win that battle every time.

But if Genetics wants to come over here and cite all of these non-existent clauses of the ACC Constitution, I'm ready for him to do so. I will have a civil discourse with him, even if he objects to being called a liar OR a repeater of the lies of others. But, hey, that's the truth. He can't get mad at me for being truthful and honest.

And I'd looooooove to hear him tell me about how the ACC will "not" lose a legal battle over the GOR, particularly when ESPN is the party who would be asserting damages against any school that exits the TV deal before its expiration.

So...you know...bring it on, Genetics. I'm ready to debate you any time.
Click to expand...
I don't believe he is "lying" he is just grossly misinformed and confused regarding key issues. Grossly. He was actually relatively stable in his prognostications before this past couple of weeks ... he seems to have come unhinged and is totally off the rails.
 
Rickd said:
I don't believe he is "lying" he is just grossly misinformed and confused regarding key issues. Grossly. He was actually relatively stable in his prognostications before this past couple of weeks ... he seems to have come unhinged and is totally off the rails.
Click to expand...


That's why I framed it as a choice. Clearly, some of the incorrect information is "lies he has been told, and now he is repeating them" (like the legal stuff), but other parts are within his wheelhouse and he SHOULD have the opportunity to be aware he is stating something that is untrue (like the nonsense about the GOR and breach costs).

And part of it is me being provocative. Over the past year, he has become accustomed to everyone kissing his ***. It's time for him to leave his comfort zone and debate his (intentional or unintentional) false statements.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top