forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
Some actual lawyer is going to have to weigh in on whether this latest from fsu matters but here’s my legal adjacent pov and question:

- fsu has been paid and cashed checks from the acc deal with ESPN- could be an implied contract but..
- fsu actually has deal on GOR with ACC, not ESPN directly (don’t think an implied contract through an intermediary is a thing but maybe I’m wrong
- so if the ACC deal with FSU is not valid because it wasn’t signed by FSU board of trustees, do they have a stronger case today OR
- does FSU have an implied contract with ACC on GOR, because of the actions fsu has done since regardless, including benefitting from the deal the acc then struck?

It’s either a huge addition to their case or a self own

 
Ispyin said:
Some actual lawyer is going to have to weigh in on whether this latest from fsu matters but here’s my legal adjacent pov and question:

- fsu has been paid and cashed checks from the acc deal with ESPN- could be an implied contract but..
- fsu actually has deal on GOR with ACC, not ESPN directly (don’t think an implied contract through an intermediary is a thing but maybe I’m wrong
- so if the ACC deal with FSU is not valid because it wasn’t signed by FSU board of trustees, do they have a stronger case today OR
- does FSU have an implied contract with ACC on GOR, because of the actions fsu has done since regardless, including benefitting from the deal the acc then struck?

It’s either a huge addition to their case or a self own

Click to expand...


1. I’m not an attorney, but have worked in the finance and legal space for 16 years. With lots of real life examples of contract law and contract law related suits.

The ACC GOR extension that was signed going from 2026 to 2033 has major, and I mean major, holes in its validity on multiple levels

With the two most major components being authority to execute, which fsu is bringing up, as well as very basic contract law components being consideration, which there was virtually zero given what each ACC school received (nothing) in exchange for the one way (espn) option to extend for 7 years

Anyone that says espn doesn’t have exposure and risk with the ACC tv deal and GOR is either an idiot or under the espn/disney thumb
 
Advertisement
Tony4Canes said:
Click to expand...

disney money GIF
 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
Some actual lawyer is going to have to weigh in on whether this latest from fsu matters but here’s my legal adjacent pov and question:

- fsu has been paid and cashed checks from the acc deal with ESPN- could be an implied contract but..
- fsu actually has deal on GOR with ACC, not ESPN directly (don’t think an implied contract through an intermediary is a thing but maybe I’m wrong
- so if the ACC deal with FSU is not valid because it wasn’t signed by FSU board of trustees, do they have a stronger case today OR
- does FSU have an implied contract with ACC on GOR, because of the actions fsu has done since regardless, including benefitting from the deal the acc then struck?

It’s either a huge addition to their case or a self own

Click to expand...

One of the more interesting fundamental issues stated regarding the ACC's suit against FSU, which was primarily an attempt by the ACC conference to establish North Carolina as venue, is that the ACC Conference acted without member 2/3 approval, therefore the suit is illegal and should be thrown out. At the very least that puts venue for the FSU action clearly in the State of Florida. Another issue for which the ground work is being laid is "a vote of no confidence in Jim Phillips" and possibly having him removed.
 
Advertisement
cocanes said:
**** does that mean for us laymen?!
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing. It means there is a hearing on March 22 for:

A case management conference (usually set deadlines for discovery, trial, experts etc.)
A motion to seal (ACC wants something confidential, I assume as it relates to finances); and
FSU's motion to dismiss whatever Complaint the ACC filed against them or if there is no dismissal to stay the action for some reason.

But a motion to dismiss is typically a high burden. For the purpose of the motion, the court is required to ONLY look at the complaint (no evidence or testimony) assume everything in it is true, then decide if a cause of action has been pled. Even if the motion to dismiss is granted it is usually without prejudice meaning the plaintiff just amends the complaint and re-files. Sometimes a motion to dismiss can knock a case out all together but that is rare.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
Absolutely nothing. It means there is a hearing on March 22 for:

A case management conference (usually set deadlines for discovery, trial, experts etc.)
A motion to seal (ACC wants something confidential, I assume as it relates to finances); and
FSU's motion to dismiss whatever Complaint the ACC filed against them or if there is no dismissal to stay the action for some reason.

But a motion to dismiss is typically a high burden. For the purpose of the motion, the court is required to ONLY look at the complaint (no evidence or testimony) assume everything in it is true, then decide if a cause of action has been pled. Even if the motion to dismiss is granted it is usually without prejudice meaning the plaintiff just amends the complaint and re-files. Sometimes a motion to dismiss can knock a case out all together but that is rare.
Click to expand...
The ACC wants the media agreement with ESPN sealed. Now why would the conference, which was constituted to SERVE the conference members, want to hide an agreement FROM the conference members and the public?
 
John Swofford ran the ACC like his own fiefdom for 24 years.

Seems very possible there were side deals orchestrated to benefit Raycom, where his son has been a VP for well over a decade.

From a Sports Business Journal article way back in 2010 in which the very first sentence read: The survival of Raycom Sports hinged on its 31-year relationship with the ACC:

ESPN’s John Skipper recognized the power of those (ACC-Raycom) ties early in his talks with Commissioner John Swofford last spring.

Skipper, ESPN’s executive vice president for content and a North Carolina graduate, recalled sitting with Swofford on the brick patio outside the stately Washington Duke Inn, just hours before tip-off of the Duke-North Carolina basketball game.

“It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”

“So we did,” Skipper said

LINK: History with ACC secures future for Raycom
 
Hold My Beer said:
John Swofford ran the ACC like his own fiefdom for 24 years.

Seems very possible there were side deals orchestrated to benefit Raycom, where his son has been a VP for well over a decade.

From a Sports Business Journal article way back in 2010 in which the very first sentence read: The survival of Raycom Sports hinged on its 31-year relationship with the ACC:

ESPN’s John Skipper recognized the power of those (ACC-Raycom) ties early in his talks with Commissioner John Swofford last spring.

Skipper, ESPN’s executive vice president for content and a North Carolina graduate, recalled sitting with Swofford on the brick patio outside the stately Washington Duke Inn, just hours before tip-off of the Duke-North Carolina basketball game.

“It would be our preference,” Swofford told Skipper, “if ESPN could construct something that would keep us in business with Raycom.”

“So we did,” Skipper said

LINK: History with ACC secures future for Raycom
Click to expand...
In the FSU filing against the ACC the Swofford issues are mentioned. Raycom was out of the ACC media deal from 2008-2010. When ESPN was preparing their bid for 2010 they were basically instructed to "include" Raycom ... and the COST to the conference for artificially propping up Raycom was stated as $82 million per year in reduced revenue to the ACC Conference ... from 2010 through 2024 that amounts to $1.15 Billion dollars. The conference has operated as a private entity for the betterment of Swofford, his son, and ACC Conference employees rather that serving the financial interests of the conference.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top