MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

[JamesQuall]

@PIPO @WaterburyCane @RVACane @ben @Felonious Monk @JD08 @*****-Wan Kanobi @Brains @ddann @JamesQuall @JHallCanes

Meees thinks these nexts fews months willz turns intos a meme golden era for CIS.

Thats whats meees thinks.

Game fuggalugga on.

 

[thesentinel]

I don't know how accurate that statement is. Not saying you are wrong -it's hard to figure who said what and when because the ACC his holding votes to have meetings to hold votes to have meetings.

Guest Post: The ACC's Sur-Reply

And this was written BEFORE Clemson filed a copycat suit of their own!

writeforcalifornia.com

I know a lot of people here don't like this guy because he doesn't think FSU has much of a legal case. According to him, all the ACC teams except FSU were invited to the Jan 12 meeting. 13 teams of the 15 ACC teams showed up to vote on Jan 12, where they were voting on approval of the amended lawsuit. Two teams didn't show up: FSU because it wasn't invited and a mystery team. The missing mystery team obviously couldn't vote yes or no on the amended lawsuit because it wasn't at the meeting. His guess is that the mystery team was Clemson since it just filed the lawsuit.

I don’t like him because he’s a non litigator pencil pusher from California and his “analysis” is just accepting every argument the acc makes as the gospel truth while saying FSU is dumb and wrong during the one time in history they aren’t

 

[Cajuncane]

Still say all this back and forth of who goes and who stays and who has a spot where and who doesn’t becomes moot as it pertains to Miami if Mario can knock out a couple of 10 win seasons and trips to the CFP.

No way both ESPN and Fox don’t force one of the SEC or B1G to take Miami in if this happens..

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

I don’t like him because he’s a non litigator pencil pusher from California and his “analysis” is just accepting every argument the acc makes as the gospel truth while saying FSU is dumb and wrong during the one time in history they aren’t

Bruh, I'm sorry but FSUs lawsuit is laughably bad and just reeks of butthurt. I wish it wasn't the case and they had the ACC dead to rights, but they don't. Everyone knows the objective of the lawsuit wasn't a serious attempt to win in court, the point was to bring enough skeletons out of the closet that the ACC says, "ok you can get out of the ACC, please stop making us look so incompetent." FSU literally accused the acc of "naughtiness." That is the actual word used in the lawsuit. Are they planning on calling Santa Claus as an expert witness?

I think Clemson has been approaching this more professionally than FSU. I have more confidence that Clemson lawsuit is going to be more serious than FSU's lawsuit and stick to the contract issues, instead of just generally *****ing about how awesome they are and how the acc has been mean to them.

 

[Ispyin]

Clemson was negotiating with the ACC post the amended FSU lawsuit in mid January up until the other day according to the NEW ACC lawsuit against clemson... bullet point 118.

FIrst time this is out ever...

 

[Ispyin]

Cliffs? Member-only content it seems.

yeah I'll go back to the original post in a minute and add it in

 

[AtrainCane]

View attachment 284943

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-football-realignment-projecting-where-fsu-clemson-unc-and-others-land-if-acc-collapses-228982260/

But remember there is no bias against Miami. No way….. Miami finally starts recruiting at a national championship level. Spending money at a national championship level and…..were doing it to go to the little kids table in football. They find every opportunity to throw shade at Miami. From not having money to now paying ridiculous money for recruits. No way was Mario coming back….the list list goes on and on.

 

[FL Cane]

But remember there is no bias against Miami. No way….. Miami finally starts recruiting at a national championship level. Spending money at a national championship level and…..were doing it to go to the little kids table in football. They find every opportunity to throw shade at Miami. From not having money to now paying ridiculous money for recruits. No way was Mario coming back….the list list goes on and on.

I think it's frustrating to a lot of reporters that they don't know whats going on inside our program. I can't believe that Lake would basically confirm that he has no idea what's going on inside Miami on realignment. His entire perception of what we're doing is based on public facing actions. Because we haven't been loud, to him, that means we haven't been "proactive." What a joke.

 

[thesentinel]

Bruh, I'm sorry but FSUs lawsuit is laughably bad and just reeks of butthurt. I wish it wasn't the case and they had the ACC dead to rights, but they don't. Everyone knows the objective of the lawsuit wasn't a serious attempt to win in court, the point was to bring enough skeletons out of the closet that the ACC says, "ok you can get out of the ACC, please stop making us look so incompetent." FSU literally accused the acc of "naughtiness." That is the actual word used in the lawsuit. Are they planning on calling Santa Claus as an expert witness?

I think Clemson has been approaching this more professionally than FSU. I have more confidence that Clemson lawsuit is going to be more serious than FSU's lawsuit and stick to the contract issues, instead of just generally *****ing about how awesome they are and how the acc has been mean to them.

I gave my analysis as a florida litigator on the subject. I find their argument that Phillips wasn't unliterally allowed to grant the extension persuasive. I also think they should prevail on the venue issue given the ACC's failure to follow its own bylaws prior to filing suit and the cases they cited on point to that.

everything else they put in their lawsuit besides the extension is meaningless and designed to generate clicks, but the unilateral extension and exposing ESPN's failure to actually extend the ACC deal were a huge

twist-n-hook would have you believe that FSU is about to get sanctioned for their filings. He doesn't engage with anything in good faith, and given that he's paper pusher with no real courtroom experience who isn't even licensed in NC or FL, his analysis means jack **** anyway.

The clemson lawsuit has two unique angles re: trying to make the GOR only apply to conference members (probably doomed to fail) and the ND exit fee angle. But neither is anything particularly more interesting than what FSU file.

 

[USNAVYCANE]

But remember there is no bias against Miami. No way….. Miami finally starts recruiting at a national championship level. Spending money at a national championship level and…..were doing it to go to the little kids table in football. They find every opportunity to throw shade at Miami. From not having money to now paying ridiculous money for recruits. No way was Mario coming back….the list list goes on and on.

It’s weird reading/listening to fans of teams in the B1G and SEC and like 90% of them do not want Miami in their conference.

 

[Handsome Squidbum]

I gave my analysis as a florida litigator on the subject. I find their argument that Phillips wasn't unliterally allowed to grant the extension persuasive. I also think they should prevail on the venue issue given the ACC's failure to follow its own bylaws prior to filing suit and the cases they cited on point to that.

I'm a florida lawyer but not a litigator so you obviously have more expertise here, but assuming FSU''s claim about the bylaw violation is persuasive (which I agree it is), how does that abrogate the contract between ESPN and the ACC? It's not ESPN's job to verify Phillips is following the ACC's bylaws. As far as ESPN is concerned, Phillips had apparent authority as the agent of the ACC, he signed the deal, now the ACC is bound by the contract. I can't imagine the court would establish a principle that one party in a contract is legally obligated to make sure that the other party is following its own internal procedures in a business deal.

FSU can sue Phillips and the ACC for violating the bylaws, but even if they win, the GOR is still in effect (since the GOR is part of the tv deal). I don't see how that gets them out of the ESPN deal. The ACC would have to sue ESPN, and I presume they would claim that the tv deal is invalid because they did not receive adequate consideration. The problem with that is that I don't think ACC will sue ESPN (too many small market teams like the tv deal, even though for us it's terrible), and I also think the consideration argument is going to be hard to prove. Am I missing something?

 

[moshated305]

I think it's frustrating to a lot of reporters that they don't know whats going on inside our program. I can't believe that Lake would basically confirm that he has no idea what's going on inside Miami on realignment. His entire perception of what we're doing is based on public facing actions. Because we haven't been loud, to him, that means we haven't been "proactive." What a joke.

It's hilarious. All those words when he should have just said I have no idea and can't make a prediction. Then says Big 12 lol We have the weirdest people covering this program.

 

[Dacrowcane]

I'm a florida lawyer but not a litigator so you obviously have more expertise here, but assuming FSU''s claim about the bylaw violation is persuasive (which I agree it is), how does that abrogate the contract between ESPN and the ACC? It's not ESPN's job to verify Phillips is following the ACC's bylaws. As far as ESPN is concerned, Phillips had apparent authority as the agent of the ACC, he signed the deal, now the ACC is bound by the contract. I can't imagine the court would establish a principle that one party in a contract is legally obligated to make sure that the other party is following its own internal procedures in a business deal.

FSU can sue Phillips and the ACC for violating the bylaws, but even if they win, the GOR is still in effect (since the GOR is part of the tv deal). I don't see how that gets them out of the ESPN deal. The ACC would have to sue ESPN, and I presume they would claim that the tv deal is invalid because they did not receive adequate consideration. The problem with that is that I don't think ACC will sue ESPN (too many small market teams like the tv deal, even though for us it's terrible), and I also think the consideration argument is going to be hard to prove. Am I missing something?

I am definitely not a lawyer, but can you can explain how it would be legally binding for someone without contracted authority to negotiate a contract? Whether ESPN had an obligation to see if it was true or not. I assume of my wife negotiated I has to donate my kidney to someone without my permission a court would say I had to do because she signed on my behalf?

 

[Peachycarnahan]

I'm a florida lawyer but not a litigator so you obviously have more expertise here, but assuming FSU''s claim about the bylaw violation is persuasive (which I agree it is), how does that abrogate the contract between ESPN and the ACC? It's not ESPN's job to verify Phillips is following the ACC's bylaws. As far as ESPN is concerned, Phillips had apparent authority as the agent of the ACC, he signed the deal, now the ACC is bound by the contract. I can't imagine the court would establish a principle that one party in a contract is legally obligated to make sure that the other party is following its own internal procedures in a business deal.

FSU can sue Phillips and the ACC for violating the bylaws, but even if they win, the GOR is still in effect (since the GOR is part of the tv deal). I don't see how that gets them out of the ESPN deal. The ACC would have to sue ESPN, and I presume they would claim that the tv deal is invalid because they did not receive adequate consideration. The problem with that is that I don't think ACC will sue ESPN (too many small market teams like the tv deal, even though for us it's terrible), and I also think the consideration argument is going to be hard to prove. Am I missing something?

I disagree that it was not ESPN's job to verify the ACC's bylaws. First, I'm willing to bet that the bylaws were incoporated by reference into the contract. Second, a contracting party with an agent of the principal has to act reasonably and that includes the duty to inquire from the principal about the extent of the agent's authority. See, All Seasons Condo. ***'n, Inc. v. Patrician Hotel, LLC, 274 So. 3d 438, 449–50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). “An agent's authority need not be conferred in express terms, but may be implied or apparent under justifying circumstances.” Am. Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Miami Ventilated Awning Mfg. Co., 161 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (citing Thomkin Corp. v. Miller, 156 Fla. 388, 24 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1945) ). An agency relationship based on apparent authority only exists if the following three elements are present: “1) a representation by the purported principal; 2) reliance on that representation by a third party; and 3) a change in position by the third party in reliance on the representation.” Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So.2d 319, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119, 121 (Fla. 1995) ). “Apparent authority does not arise from the subjective understanding of the person dealing with the purported agent, nor from appearances created by the purported agent himself.” Izquierdo v. Hialeah Hosp., Inc., 709 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A., 483 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ). Instead, the words and actions of the principal must be the focus because apparent authority exists only where the principal creates the appearance of an agency relationship. SeeGuadagno v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc., 972 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see alsoJackson Hewitt, Inc. v. Kaman, 100 So.3d 19, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“In considering a claim based on apparent authority, the inquiry properly focuses on the actions of or appearances created by the principal, not by the agent.”). However, any reliance by a third party on a purported agent's apparent authority must be reasonable. Regions Bank v. Maroone Chevrolet, L.L.C., 118 So.3d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Izquierdo, 709 So.2d at 188); see alsoSterling Crest, Ltd. v. Blue Rock Partners Realty Group, LLC, 164 So.3d 1273, 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Reliance *450 of a third party on the apparent authority of a principal's agent must be reasonable and rest in the actions of or appearances created by the principal, and not by agents who often ingeniously create an appearance of authority by their own acts.” (internal quotations and citations omitted) ).

 

[FL Cane]

It's hilarious. All those words when he should have just said I have no idea and can't make a prediction. Then says Big 12 lol We have the weirdest people covering this program.

That is an issue. Other big programs have die hards covering them. They’d never publish a bad word about the program absent scandal. Unfortunately for us, we have mercenaries that’ll speculate for clicks.

 

[Ispyin]

It’s weird reading/listening to fans of teams in the B1G and SEC and like 90% of them do not want Miami in their conference.

INJECT THE ******* HATE INTO OUR VEINS

 

[Ispyin]

I disagree that it was not ESPN's job to verify the ACC's bylaws. First, I'm willing to bet that the bylaws were incoporated by reference into the contract. Second, a contracting party with an agent of the principal has to act reasonably and that includes the duty to inquire from the principal about the extent of the agent's authority. See, All Seasons Condo. ***'n, Inc. v. Patrician Hotel, LLC, 274 So. 3d 438, 449–50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). “An agent's authority need not be conferred in express terms, but may be implied or apparent under justifying circumstances.” Am. Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Miami Ventilated Awning Mfg. Co., 161 So.2d 699, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (citing Thomkin Corp. v. Miller, 156 Fla. 388, 24 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 1945) ). An agency relationship based on apparent authority only exists if the following three elements are present: “1) a representation by the purported principal; 2) reliance on that representation by a third party; and 3) a change in position by the third party in reliance on the representation.” Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So.2d 319, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119, 121 (Fla. 1995) ). “Apparent authority does not arise from the subjective understanding of the person dealing with the purported agent, nor from appearances created by the purported agent himself.” Izquierdo v. Hialeah Hosp., Inc., 709 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A., 483 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ). Instead, the words and actions of the principal must be the focus because apparent authority exists only where the principal creates the appearance of an agency relationship. SeeGuadagno v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., Inc., 972 So.2d 214, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see alsoJackson Hewitt, Inc. v. Kaman, 100 So.3d 19, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“In considering a claim based on apparent authority, the inquiry properly focuses on the actions of or appearances created by the principal, not by the agent.”). However, any reliance by a third party on a purported agent's apparent authority must be reasonable. Regions Bank v. Maroone Chevrolet, L.L.C., 118 So.3d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Izquierdo, 709 So.2d at 188); see alsoSterling Crest, Ltd. v. Blue Rock Partners Realty Group, LLC, 164 So.3d 1273, 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Reliance *450 of a third party on the apparent authority of a principal's agent must be reasonable and rest in the actions of or appearances created by the principal, and not by agents who often ingeniously create an appearance of authority by their own acts.” (internal quotations and citations omitted) ).

Perhaps but apparent authority is in play here too and the fact that time after time members then continued to act as if the deal they negotiated including the amendments continued on only serves to back that up.

Hence court

 

[mcnaire2004]

 

[Canedude08]

Big 12's response:

If we end up in the Big 12, it's because we couldn't get into the Big Ten or SEC — and, in which case, we'd have zero leverage.

It'd be a brutal outcome in many ways, including some unforeseen.

I wouldn't follow Canes Football any less, but I'm sure a lot of UM fans would fall by the wayside.

If something that is for the most part beyond our control(We can lobby all we want, but if we don't control whether the B1G or SEC adds us or anyone else) something that would turn you off to Miami, then hit the bricks. Seriously. We're all frustrated, but honestly, tired of the "If I don't get my way" nonsense from the cheapest, least involved fanbase in collegiate athletics.

A backroom deal with the ACC is the rational take?

The point that was made, that you obviously missed is that there may be multiple things going on and us not filing a lawsuit doesn't preclude it happening. It's shameful how many of our "Fans" run to the worst possible scenario, despite a complete lack of evidence. We also don't know a **** thing about what the SEC/B1G thinks about all of this and whether they are going to add anyone else. FSU/Clemson may be trying to force a breakup, in the hopes of getting in, and the SEC/B1G may straight up reject them and us. Who knows?

 

[thesentinel]

I'm a florida lawyer but not a litigator so you obviously have more expertise here, but assuming FSU''s claim about the bylaw violation is persuasive (which I agree it is), how does that abrogate the contract between ESPN and the ACC? It's not ESPN's job to verify Phillips is following the ACC's bylaws. As far as ESPN is concerned, Phillips had apparent authority as the agent of the ACC, he signed the deal, now the ACC is bound by the contract. I can't imagine the court would establish a principle that one party in a contract is legally obligated to make sure that the other party is following its own internal procedures in a business deal.

FSU can sue Phillips and the ACC for violating the bylaws, but even if they win, the GOR is still in effect (since the GOR is part of the tv deal). I don't see how that gets them out of the ESPN deal. The ACC would have to sue ESPN, and I presume they would claim that the tv deal is invalid because they did not receive adequate consideration. The problem with that is that I don't think ACC will sue ESPN (too many small market teams like the tv deal, even though for us it's terrible), and I also think the consideration argument is going to be hard to prove. Am I missing something?

ESPN had an original deadline of 2021( i think) to extend the deal. They did not. They put the screws to phillips and say extend the deadline for us to extend the deal. Phillips, without authority, grants this extension to a material term of the contract *without consideration*. This is both a breach of his fiduciary duty to the ACC's member institutions and a violation basic tenants of contract law. I think the appropriate remedy for this is to roll back the deadline for ESPN to extend the deal to its original expiration, which has now past. as you soon as you roll back that extension, FSU and Clemson bolt and the ACC crumbles. Even if you think the GOR is still valid, it means *at best* the acc goes back to the negotiating table, where they will be offered peanuts just like the pac 12 was.

If i purchase a house from a real estate agent who has apparent authority from the seller, and then it turns out the seller never authorized any of the deal, i don't get to keep the house. I get to sue the fraud real estate agent.


again, this is just how i would rule if i was a judge. An actual judge is going to rule and probably disagree with me entirely.