forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
FL Cane said:
I’d need to read the hearing transcript or a playback to form an opinion on it, but two points of caution with that Rohan guy.

First, he’s a massive FSU fan and has some bias here (look at some of his past tweets and you’ll see).

Second, he’s a PI, criminal defense, and workers comp attorney. He’s a litigator, but this isn’t his area of practice or expertise whatsoever. Trust but verify if you see stuff from him.

This case is not going to be as short or straightforward as people think.
Click to expand...
Sorry for responding late @Empirical Cane been busy . I agree with what FL Cane said here, especially with regard to needing to see the transcript / hear a full playback to have context necessary to form any useful opinion on it.
 
TheOGCane said:
Only good thing about this scenario fsu is ****ED too
Click to expand...
He really didn't say anything of substance, all basically coach speak. Just might indicate that ND remains independent for another 4-5 years. Which is a good thing for Miami. If the SEC ends up taking Clemson / UNC then the Big 10 might be able to take FSU + Miami.
 
Advertisement
Wake_Cane said:
Sorry for responding late @Empirical Cane been busy . I agree with what FL Cane said here, especially with regard to needing to see the transcript / hear a full playback to have context necessary to form any useful opinion on it.
Click to expand...
There is one attorney on Warchant who is close to retired after a 40+ year career, and he does a detailed analysis of each filing by the ACC and FSU, and is pretty conservative in his evaluations, while Rohan is almost a "cheerleader" in his prognostications. The conservative guy, Allnoles is his Warchant name, believes the strength of the FSU suit against the ACC is 90% or more on the single point of the media rights agreement a). Currently being valid only through June 30, 2027 and b). The option to extend, which was described by ESPN as an AMENDMENT to the 2016 agreement, that was unilaterally extended to 2/25 by Phillips, being INVALID / VOID.

Outside of that issue (the extension being granted without 2/3 approval as required in the bylaws), he sees a tough battle that would have to possibly involve getting the Swofford's involved to show mismanagement of funds etc., but that wouldn't be grounds for impacting the GOR and the media term. The fact that the media agreement is currently ONLY through 6/30/27 and the extension is "likely" illegal, could very well point to only 3 remaining seasons on the CURRENT ESPN commitment and GOR ( which is tied TO that agreement). So we could have the option to leave with rights for the 2027 season, IF we can come up with the $120M ACC exit fee. And .. if we have a home in the B10.
 
Rickd said:
There is one attorney on Warchant who is close to retired after a 40+ year career, and he does a detailed analysis of each filing by the ACC and FSU, and is pretty conservative in his evaluations, while Rohan is almost a "cheerleader" in his prognostications. The conservative guy, Allnoles is his Warchant name, believes the strength of the FSU suit against the ACC is 90% or more on the single point of the media rights agreement a). Currently being valid only through June 30, 2027 and b). The option to extend, which was described by ESPN as an AMENDMENT to the 2016 agreement, that was unilaterally extended to 2/25 by Phillips, being INVALID / VOID.

Outside of that issue (the extension being granted without 2/3 approval as required in the bylaws), he sees a tough battle that would have to possibly involve getting the Swofford's involved to show mismanagement of funds etc., but that wouldn't be grounds for impacting the GOR and the media term. The fact that the media agreement is currently ONLY through 6/30/27 and the extension is "likely" illegal, could very well point to only 3 remaining seasons on the CURRENT ESPN commitment and GOR ( which is tied TO that agreement). So we could have the option to leave with rights for the 2027 season, IF we can come up with the $120M ACC exit fee. And .. if we have a home in the B10.
Click to expand...
if the current deal doesn't exist any longer (or isn't renewed), couldn't the majority of the ACC just dissolve it and therefore remove the ACC exit fee entirely?
 
Yoyo82 said:
if the current deal doesn't exist any longer (or isn't renewed), couldn't the majority of the ACC just dissolve it and therefore remove the ACC exit fee entirely?
Click to expand...
That can be done at any time. Currently takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC. No conference = no exit fee. Question is - how many schools have a landing spot either in the P2 or B12.
 
Rickd said:
That can be done at any time. Currently takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC. No conference = no exit fee. Question is - how many schools have a landing spot either in the P2 or B12.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard 8 votes but I’ve never seen anyone share a document that says it’s a simple majority vs 2/3 etc.

It’s not in the acc bylaws that I have read. It alludes to dissolution but doesn’t spell out the vote needed even though it spells our every other vote which almost always requires 2/3 or 3/4 yes votes of either all members or “present under a quorum” members.

If you’ve seen it vs actually going off of often referenced never supported document on that I’d love to know and see it.

Not saying it’s wrong. Just not sure it’s right.
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
That can be done at any time. Currently takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC. No conference = no exit fee. Question is - how many schools have a landing spot either in the P2 or B12.
Click to expand...
Ispyin said:
I’ve heard 8 votes but I’ve never seen anyone share a document that says it’s a simple majority vs 2/3 etc.

It’s not in the acc bylaws that I have read. It alludes to dissolution but doesn’t spell out the vote needed even though it spells our every other vote which almost always requires 2/3 or 3/4 yes votes of either all members or “present under a quorum” members.

If you’ve seen it vs actually going off of often referenced never supported document on that I’d love to know and see it.

Not saying it’s wrong. Just not sure it’s right.
Click to expand...
When do SMU, Cal, and Stanford have to be considered for voting purposes?
 
JD08 said:
When do SMU, Cal, and Stanford have to be considered for voting purposes?
Click to expand...
Glad you asked because this is an important question. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the last 800 pages of this thread, but once they're full voting members, won't that make getting out of the ACC even more complicated? That's three additional yes votes for keeping the ACC intact. Then IF Clemson and FSU finagle their way out, that's 2 fewer votes.

What am I missing here?
 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
I’ve heard 8 votes but I’ve never seen anyone share a document that says it’s a simple majority vs 2/3 etc.

It’s not in the acc bylaws that I have read. It alludes to dissolution but doesn’t spell out the vote needed even though it spells our every other vote which almost always requires 2/3 or 3/4 yes votes of either all members or “present under a quorum” members.

If you’ve seen it vs actually going off of often referenced never supported document on that I’d love to know and see it.

Not saying it’s wrong. Just not sure it’s right.
Click to expand...
There isn't, as far as I know, a document with specific wording that states "a simple majority vote is sufficient to dissolve the ACC conference", however, there are several attorneys who have evaluated the bylaws and have stated that, according to their analysis, a simple majority of members is sufficient to dissolve the conference. Other items, like adding new members, modifying media agreements etc. require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote of members. At first blush it seems odd, but then looking at it again, if a MAJORITY don't believe it works and want to end it, then OK, end it and let those that want to ... re-form the conference with new members and new direction.
 
SCarolina Ibis said:
Glad you asked because this is an important question. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the last 800 pages of this thread, but once they're full voting members, won't that make getting out of the ACC even more complicated? That's three additional yes votes for keeping the ACC intact. Then IF Clemson and FSU finagle their way out, that's 2 fewer votes.

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
According to "accepted theory" currently 8 votes are required to dissolve the ACC conference, simple majority, 15 members (including ND who is a full voting member). On July 1, 2024 when 3 more programs are added you then have 18 and you will need 10 votes to dissolve, so it gets harder. There are so many rumors ... who knows what is actually true. One rumor is that as part of the CFP negotiations the main media players basically picked their next expansion teams and the current law suits at some point in the near future will be rendered no longer necessary.

One interpretation of that is that FOX agreed NOT to bid on the next CFP series in return for "getting " FSU and UNC, while the SEC will take Clemson and UVA. Another is that ESPN will simply announce that they aren't exercising the option to extend the media agreement past 6/27, therefore anybody wanting to leave can do so by just paying the $120M exit fee (or fight that in court), and the ACC will attempt to backfill with other programs and solicit a new media proposal from .... the market. Speculation there is all over the place ... including getting a media deal about half of the current one (since FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and most likely ND will be out), and then the CFP money will be decreased accordingly ... getting closer to G5 levels. THEN good luck getting any quality air time outside of regional streaming apps.

Major change is taking place, and UM needs leadership willing to step up to the plate and pay the $120M to get out of the ACC, and Mario needs to win THIS YEAR. Crazy times. Unprecedented upheaval.
 
SCarolina Ibis said:
Glad you asked because this is an important question. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the last 800 pages of this thread, but once they're full voting members, won't that make getting out of the ACC even more complicated? That's three additional yes votes for keeping the ACC intact. Then IF Clemson and FSU finagle their way out, that's 2 fewer votes.

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
It will make dissolving the ACC more difficult. Getting out is a $120 million proposition.
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
According to "accepted theory" currently 8 votes are required to dissolve the ACC conference, simple majority, 15 members (including ND who is a full voting member). On July 1, 2024 when 3 more programs are added you then have 18 and you will need 10 votes to dissolve, so it gets harder. There are so many rumors ... who knows what is actually true. One rumor is that as part of the CFP negotiations the main media players basically picked their next expansion teams and the current law suits at some point in the near future will be rendered no longer necessary.

One interpretation of that is that FOX agreed NOT to bid on the next CFP series in return for "getting " FSU and UNC, while the SEC will take Clemson and UVA. Another is that ESPN will simply announce that they aren't exercising the option to extend the media agreement past 6/27, therefore anybody wanting to leave can do so by just paying the $120M exit fee (or fight that in court), and the ACC will attempt to backfill with other programs and solicit a new media proposal from .... the market. Speculation there is all over the place ... including getting a media deal about half of the current one (since FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and most likely ND will be out), and then the CFP money will be decreased accordingly ... getting closer to G5 levels. THEN good luck getting any quality air time outside of regional streaming apps.

Major change is taking place, and UM needs leadership willing to step up to the plate and pay the $120M to get out of the ACC, and Mario needs to win THIS YEAR. Crazy times. Unprecedented upheaval.
Click to expand...
1711479178662.png
 
Advertisement
Back
Top