forums

FSU testing the waters?

Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...


Anyone can use the words "irrevocably" and "exclusively", and that's fine, but that's not what makes the contract so ironclad or not.

To be honest with you, about 25 years ago, I reviewed the covenants-not-to-compete that my brother's (idiot) business partner had modified from an online template, and he used a 25,000 mile distance.

I then asked my brother the significance of that number (he did not know) and I told him "that's the circumference of the earth". Therefore his idiot business partner thought he could bar competition ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET. I told my brother no court in the land would uphold that covenant, and then I proceeded to draft a much better one.

For the record, EVERY TIME my brother has gone to court with MY covenant-not-to-compete, he has won the case. Because mine set liquidated damages, not an absolute prohibition. My brother has collected quite a bit of money off of my document.

NOW, LET'S GET ON TO THE MORE IMPORTANT LANGUAGE:

"grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

I would argue that there no longer ARE any rights necessary to perform the ESPN agreement. Because there is no ACC. There's certainly not "the same ACC" that ESPN contracted with.

So unless ESPN wants to pay the FULL ACC CONTRACT PRICE for Syracuse, BC, Wake, USF, FAU, FIU, and a few other teams...then the GOR will disappear as if Thanos just snapped his fingers...
 
Advertisement
Cane6 said:
Bingo. Key word being consideration
Click to expand...


1677609098496.jpeg
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Anyone can use the words "irrevocably" and "exclusively", and that's fine, but that's not what makes the contract so ironclad or not.

To be honest with you, about 25 years ago, I reviewed the covenants-not-to-compete that my brother's (idiot) business partner had modified from an online template, and he used a 25,000 mile distance.

I then asked my brother the significance of that number (he did not know) and I told him "that's the circumference of the earth". Therefore his idiot business partner thought he could bar competition ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET. I told my brother no court in the land would uphold that covenant, and then I proceeded to draft a much better one.

For the record, EVERY TIME my brother has gone to court with MY covenant-not-to-compete, he has won the case. Because mine set liquidated damages, not an absolute prohibition. My brother has collected quite a bit of money off of my document.

NOW, LET'S GET ON TO THE MORE IMPORTANT LANGUAGE:

"grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

I would argue that there no longer ARE any rights necessary to perform the ESPN agreement. Because there is no ACC. There's certainly not "the same ACC" that ESPN contracted with.

So unless ESPN wants to pay the FULL ACC CONTRACT PRICE for Syracuse, BC, Wake, USF, FAU, FIU, and a few other teams...then the GOR will disappear as if Thanos just snapped his fingers...
Click to expand...

grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

This is the loophole I was looking for, & I agree w/ u. However, this is a loophole only if there is strength in #’s. If only a couple of teams create this noise, but the conference itself remains standing, then what?

Imo, we would need at least half the conference to unite to fight this, in hopes to threaten to collapse the conference.
 
NE Canes said:
Or maybe the basketball schools should take football seriously instead of coasting off of Clemson and FSU for the past two decades.

Miami is part to blame for this as well. Get serious about football instead of crying about money while sitting back and leeching off others. They want a better deal while they put out below average football. If people wanted to watch their pitiful programs they would make more money.
Click to expand...
those BB schools your saying should take football seriously have been kicking our *** for several years....js
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Why don't you go on a darkness retreat for a couple of years?

Good lord, just when I think I've seen the most tear-jerking puzzy post on this board, someone sets a new low.

Your entire existence is a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I wish you would just tell us how you really feel once in a while. You’re always trying to just be so vague.
 
Rellyrell said:
grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

This is the loophole I was looking for, & I agree w/ u. However, this is a loophole only if there is strength in #’s. If only a couple of teams create this noise, but the conference itself remains standing, then what?

Imo, we would need at least half the conference to unite to fight this, in hopes to threaten to collapse the conference.
Click to expand...

In the partial docs of the GOR that I read, the easiest path was I believe at least 8 teams leaving the conference

The other thing to keep in mind is, realistically not every ACC team is created equal, and therefore getting the heavier weighted ones to join the fight will be critical
 
Advertisement
If what was deemed to be “fair consideration” or “fair exchange”, which are the basic foundations of a contract, are deemed to no longer be fair, a possibility exists to render the contract void

www.upcounsel.com

Why a Contract Without Consideration Is Void and Exceptions

Learn why a contract without consideration is void under contract law, explore key exceptions, and understand the legal elements required for enforceability.
www.upcounsel.com www.upcounsel.com

How the collective acc schools agreed to such a long contract term without periodic adjustments to remain at fair market is the giant head scratcher. Their biggest mistake is going to be their biggest weapon if this ever got disputed in court
 
Rellyrell said:
grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

This is the loophole I was looking for, & I agree w/ u. However, this is a loophole only if there is strength in #’s. If only a couple of teams create this noise, but the conference itself remains standing, then what?

Imo, we would need at least half the conference to unite to fight this, in hopes to threaten to collapse the conference.
Click to expand...


Yes sir. I was having this conversation with someone else very recently.

The GOR is a very effective mechanism to enforce against one or two teams leaving.

It is a very different (and untested) mechanism to prevent 6 or 8 teams from leaving.

The reason is simple. If, say, Louisville wanted to join the Big 12, then the entire ACC TV deal is not imperiled. Everyone knows that the ACC will just vote to take another team, and that the ACC TV contract will remain in place.

And there are two separate components to the financial penalties that Louisville would face. The $120M portion of "leaving the conference" is the regular liquidated damages part, that can be used towards whatever fees are incurred to search for and vet replacement candidates, with the rest of the money to be distributed to the member schools.

But the (and I use this term loosely) punitive component would be the loss of rights money for the duration. So let's say there are 10 years left and the ACC is paying out 36 million per year, then you have a loss of $360 million (on its face, initially).

But what are the rights, specifically? Would that mean that ABC/ESPN would still get to broadcast the Louisville home games? And if so, would Louisville still get the money? What about the Louisville away games? If Fox broadcast those, would they need to pay some money to ABC/ESPN? A lot of people have interpreted this as a purely monetary transfer, and in a "one-team defection", I think it has been interpreted (and/or paid) as such, but what happens if 8 teams left and went to multiple different conferences? And what if the 8 ACC replacements were pale imitations?

There's a lot of brinksmanship to deal with here. I know there are some writers that have written about how "dissolving the conference" does not avoid the GOR contract enforcement. But why not? And unless ABC/ESPN wants to pay P5 money to a G5 conference, I'm not sure why a large-scale defection wouldn't wreck ALL legal agreements, including the GOR.

Anyhow, this whole thing is crazy. And unprecedented.

But I do not see how a GOR agreement could survive the dissolution of a conference. It's wacky.
 
Cane6 said:
In the partial docs of the GOR that I read, the easiest path was I believe at least 8 teams leaving the conference

The other thing to keep in mind is, realistically not every ACC team is created equal, and therefore getting the heavier weighted ones to join the fight will be critical
Click to expand...

Exactly right, & that’s my understanding as well.
 
I remember this being set up when MD bolted for the Big 10. This was seen as a big win at the time to keep the conference together.
 
Cane6 said:
If what was deemed to be “fair consideration” or “fair exchange”, which are the basic foundations of a contract, are deemed to no longer be fair, a possibility exists to render the contract void

www.upcounsel.com

Why a Contract Without Consideration Is Void and Exceptions

Learn why a contract without consideration is void under contract law, explore key exceptions, and understand the legal elements required for enforceability.
www.upcounsel.com www.upcounsel.com

How the collective acc schools agreed to such a long contract term without periodic adjustments to remain at fair market is the giant head scratcher. Their biggest mistake is going to be their biggest weapon if this ever got disputed in court
Click to expand...


OK, first, I'm going to ask your source on your first paragraph. Because it's not in the link.

Second, I'm going to ask you if you are trying to throw a random Google result at a person who took Contracts with Professor Hausler. Because I **** sure know what I'm talking about when it comes to consideration.

For example, let me just pull a couple of quotes from YOUR citation:

---"Consideration usually consists of a promise to do something you aren't required to do by law or a promise not to do something that you have the legal right to do." - which is, you know, EXACTLY what happened in the case of the ACC GOR. A promise not to leave the ACC although you have the legal right to do so, otherwise you forfeit the benefit (TV money) that the ACC contracted for on your (and others') behalf.

---"Even though a deal may seem unfair in hindsight, the court will not usually opine about whether the value of consideration is proportionate." - Yes, you would look at the consideration provided at the time the contract was made, you don't look at the sufficiency of the consideration LATER.

Here is what is relevant. The ACC GOR contract is not unusual. Multiple other conferences did a similar thing and nobody has brought (or won) a case saying "no consideration" applies. Because the "consideration" is valid, which is: the promise not to leave the conference during the lifespan of the TV deal, though you otherwise have the right to do so. And the TERM is important, because the GOR term runs coterminous to the TV deal. Thus, you don't grant your rights for, say, 100 years while the TV rights only last 10 years (though there is a rumor that Beta Blake tried to change Miami's GOR to 100 years, but I'm not so sure that truly happened, and hopefully everyone realizes that I was just joking there, over my hatred for Beta Blake).

If this "fair consideration is no longer fair" principle were to be adopted, contracts wouldn't be worth a **** anymore. And I would ask what specific facts make this "no longer fair", since the facts are the same for everyone in the ACC? Other TV deals pay more? How is that relevant? The purpose of the GOR is to negotiate a deal on behalf of the entire conference, not to guarantee that the TV rights will pay out the most amount of money possible. The fault has ALWAYS been in the excessively long term of the ACC TV deal, which was not tied to any other similar conferences' terms.

On the other hand, if there is no ACC any longer, there is no longer a need for a GOR, because nobody is going to pay ACC money to a glorified AAC. That's just simple math.
 
Cane6 said:
You’re a clown

Go bother someone else’s posts

Unless you’re ready to debate me live on video so we can record it for all of CIS to see, F off you ****
Click to expand...


There's no way I would ever agree to record me murdering you.
 
Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...
I irrevocably and exclusively grant you the right to decide when I am allowed to post on this forum.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
The ACC’s grant of rights contract states member schools “irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement..”

This is the school’s ADs & BOTs reviewed & signed off on.

Simply put, any TV revenue a school is due from the ACC’s contract with ESPN is conference property through June 30, 2036 regardless of whether the school remains an ACC member or leaves for another conference.

So pls tell me what the loophole in this that can be fought in court since it was the participating schools who willingly agreed to this.
Click to expand...

Wake_Cane said:
I irrevocably and exclusively grant you the right to decide when I am allowed to post on this forum.
Click to expand...

I just changed my mind.
 
Also there's a pretty big blind spot in the analysis going on in this thread - This debate presumes that the GOR being ironclad is bad for us and good for the people who want to keep the status quo. That should not be presumed. The reality is probably closer to this- The GOR is NOT ironclad, and that is NOT good for us.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Anyone can use the words "irrevocably" and "exclusively", and that's fine, but that's not what makes the contract so ironclad or not.

To be honest with you, about 25 years ago, I reviewed the covenants-not-to-compete that my brother's (idiot) business partner had modified from an online template, and he used a 25,000 mile distance.

I then asked my brother the significance of that number (he did not know) and I told him "that's the circumference of the earth". Therefore his idiot business partner thought he could bar competition ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET. I told my brother no court in the land would uphold that covenant, and then I proceeded to draft a much better one.

For the record, EVERY TIME my brother has gone to court with MY covenant-not-to-compete, he has won the case. Because mine set liquidated damages, not an absolute prohibition. My brother has collected quite a bit of money off of my document.

NOW, LET'S GET ON TO THE MORE IMPORTANT LANGUAGE:

"grants to the conference...all rights necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement".

So...if the ESPN agreement...AND/OR the conference itself go away...then what in the **** are "all rights necessary...to perform the contractual obligations of the conference...in the ESPN agreement"?

I would argue that there no longer ARE any rights necessary to perform the ESPN agreement. Because there is no ACC. There's certainly not "the same ACC" that ESPN contracted with.

So unless ESPN wants to pay the FULL ACC CONTRACT PRICE for Syracuse, BC, Wake, USF, FAU, FIU, and a few other teams...then the GOR will disappear as if Thanos just snapped his fingers...
Click to expand...
You touched on one part of a noncompete (distance), but a lot of states also have time limits for them. Georgia, for example, is generally 2 years but goes up to 5 for sales, management, key employees. Is this type of a restrictive contract also subject to time constraints? Was this done under North Carolina law and how does that state view these sorts of things?

@AtlAtty would love your thoughts too.
 
So we are back exactly where we were months ago in the conferences thread. Find the handful of teams the big 12 will take.

We were never buying out, we always needed Rad to get the Pitt/Louisville/VaTech etc AD's onboard with a move to the big 12
 
Back
Top