forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

There is that beautiful, horrible word again, AND I LOVE IT!

1706631632125.png
 
Advertisement
Cane44 said:
sooooo, I gotta ask... where were all the ACC school legal teams, Admin, and Athletic Directors during all this happening??? Did no one know the family ties involved?

I would dig deeper into the Swofford financial records. How much was the son being paid by raycom, special bonus's, etc.... Same with the daughter at the bank. Every school should sue Swofford personally, Raycom, and the ACC, pitch for criminal charges to be brought up on Swofford and son. I gotta think if he's found guilt of criminal activity as the head of the conference, making decisions that cost the schools $100's of millions, we could get the ACC dissolved. That's just my common opinion..
Click to expand...


Just asking, do YOU know what the children of all of your co-workers do for a living?

It should never be up to a bunch of universities to do a US-presidential-candidate-level vetting job on our conference Commissioner and his family members.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You're god**** right...

Where are all those porsters who keep telling us that the universities are sooooo sophisticated, and that all of this bargaining was freely-done and with no pressure or coercion or trickeration...

And, goodness, I wish I could remember the name of that brilliant poster who kept telling everyone that there was NO NEW CONSIDERATION for the extension of the GOR...


View attachment 281195
View attachment 281196
View attachment 281198
Click to expand...

Appreciate you posting all the screenshots from the complaint. There's lots of discussion about how this was fundamentally a bad deal, that the ACC wasn't exactly forthright in its negotiations, etc. But is the crux of the argument that the GOR is invalid because it lacked new consideration? Or are they advancing other claims about its invalidity? (Looking for the brief bullet point summary)
 
mcnaire2004 said:
These are some of the best academic institutions in America. I'm sure one of them remembered to get a lawyer.
Click to expand...


Why is this the "answer" to everything?

"Good golly, I hope that poverty-stricken teenager and his not-highly-educated parents GOT A LAWYER before they signed that NIL deal that purported to pay them millions".

It's one thing to "get a lawyer". It's quite another thing to be LIED TO regarding ESPN's future plans and intentions.
 
Last edited:
CaneintheWilderness said:
Appreciate you posting all the screenshots from the complaint. There's lots of discussion about how this was fundamentally a bad deal, that the ACC wasn't exactly forthright in its negotiations, etc. But is the crux of the argument that the GOR is invalid because it lacked new consideration? Or are they advancing other claims about its invalidity? (Looking for the brief bullet point summary)
Click to expand...


There's a few things here.

First, the EXTENSION to the GOR (the one that took it from 2027 to 2036) is, at its core, unenforceable. For multiple reasons.
---No new consideration
---Not even matched up, in term, to the TV agreement (2027 vs. 2036)
---Unconscionable
---Does not even really apply to school that exits the conference (Holy Grail argument)
---Constitutes an additional "exit penalty" beyond the one ALREADY AGREED TO in the ACC Constitution

Second, there are plenty of other claims designed to either "make this a Florida contractual case" or to address issues raised in the ACC's separate filing.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Why is this the "answer" to everything?

"Good golly, I hope that poverty-stricken teenager and his not-highly-educated parents GOT A LAWYER before they signed that NIL deal that purported to pay them millions".

It's one thing to "get a lawyer". It's quite another thing to be LIED TO regarding ESPN's future plans and intentions.
Click to expand...
Honestly I just missed you.

Lied to. So ESPN broke the deal and you can prove it? We're free!!!!
 
JD08 said:
But you billed 3 and a 1/2, right?
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the old joke...

Lawyer dies, gets to the pearly gates, and sees St. Peter. Lawyer tells St. Peter "But I'm much too young to have died, I'm only 37..." St. Peter looks at his notes and says "Yes, but according to your billing records, you're 76..."
 
TheOriginalCane said:
There's a few things here.

First, the EXTENSION to the GOR (the one that took it from 2027 to 2036) is, at its core, unenforceable. For multiple reasons.
---No new consideration
---Not even matched up, in term, to the TV agreement (2027 vs. 2036)
---Unconscionable
---Does not even really apply to school that exits the conference (Holy Grail argument)
---Constitutes an additional "exit penalty" beyond the one ALREADY AGREED TO in the ACC Constitution

Second, there are plenty of other claims designed to either "make this a Florida contractual case" or to address issues raised in the ACC's separate filing.
Click to expand...

They ****** or nah?
 
Advertisement
Antcane said:
You pay me for what I know not how fast I get it done.
Click to expand...


That reminds me of another joke.

Client 1 goes to an attorney for a will, the attorney researches and drafts the will and charges Client 1 for 6 hours of time.

Client 2 goes to the same attorney for a will, identical facts, the attorney updates the first will and spends 1 hour.

How much should the attorney bill Client 2?

Six hours of time.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
That reminds me of another joke.

Client 1 goes to an attorney for a will, the attorney researches and drafts the will and charges Client 1 for 6 hours of time.

Client 2 goes to the same attorney for a will, identical facts, the attorney updates the first will and spends 1 hour.

How much should the attorney bill Client 2?

Six hours of time.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much how software development and implementation works.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
That reminds me of another joke.

Client 1 goes to an attorney for a will, the attorney researches and drafts the will and charges Client 1 for 6 hours of time.

Client 2 goes to the same attorney for a will, identical facts, the attorney updates the first will and spends 1 hour.

How much should the attorney bill Client 2?

Six hours of time.
Click to expand...
It's this way with my business, too. People want free/cheap creative work and say because I've already done it or because I work quickly, they shouldn't have to pay as much. Why do I get punished for being efficient and delivering things to you quicker? Hence why I don't charge hourly, but value-based pricing.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
There's a few things here.

First, the EXTENSION to the GOR (the one that took it from 2027 to 2036) is, at its core, unenforceable. For multiple reasons.
---No new consideration
---Not even matched up, in term, to the TV agreement (2027 vs. 2036)
---Unconscionable
---Does not even really apply to school that exits the conference (Holy Grail argument)
---Constitutes an additional "exit penalty" beyond the one ALREADY AGREED TO in the ACC Constitution

Second, there are plenty of other claims designed to either "make this a Florida contractual case" or to address issues raised in the ACC's separate filing.
Click to expand...

Super helpful, much appreciated!
 
The money NOT RECEIVED by ACC members due to the Raycom "deal" ... that $82 million dollars per year ... if that has been the case since the new Raycom deal was signed in 2010 ... that is 14 years * $82 million = $1.15 billion dollars NOT received by ACC conference members due to Sowfford's "nepotism" deal with junior. Grand larceny? Time to dissolve the ACC due to negligence? Just give everybody up to 2 years to find a new home.
 
Rickd said:
The money NOT RECEIVED by ACC members due to the Raycom "deal" ... that $82 million dollars per year ... if that has been the case since the new Raycom deal was signed in 2010 ... that is 14 years * $82 million = $1.15 billion dollars NOT received by ACC conference members due to Sowfford's "nepotism" deal with junior. Grand larceny? Time to dissolve the ACC due to negligence? Just give everybody up to 2 years to find a new home.
Click to expand...
Sue the ACC to recover.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top