The truth about the Grant of Rights Amendment

[TheOriginalCane]

Ease up on the attacks. Relax. I respect your opinion. You don't seem like a lightweight like the other douchebag. You just use 10,000 words when 50 would suffice.

It looks like espn entered into a new agreement in reliance on the extension. That's valid consideration. If this is not enforceable, a zillion assignment of proceeds type agreements used every day are not enforceable either.

In my view, a big 2 conference isn't going to risk expansion until this issue is settled. Maybe Miami or Clemson could seek some sort of equitable declaration or injunctive relief stating its invalid and unenforceable, but that is extremely unlikely and wouldn't be resolved for years.

Should be interesting. Lots of billable hours for sure.

No. It's. Not. Valid. Consideration.

ESPN is not a party to the agreement. Read the law review article, and don't just dismiss it because the author is young.

It doesn't matter what ESPN did or relied upon. ESPN can **** off for all I care. The ACC already had an 11-year Grant of Rights IN PLACE in 2016, and ESPN was a third party beneficiary to that deal, NOT a party to the deal. ESPN cannot require a subsequent agreement to be made between two different parties.

There was no separate consideration for the 9-year extension. That's a fact, no matter what boilerplate recitations are made.

On top of which you ignore the failure of the "GOR extension requirement" for ESPN to "rely on". There was no GOR for the Big 10 or SEC in 2016. And ESPN did not require GOR extensions from the Big 12 or Pac 12. So there is no case to be made for the 9 year extension being some necessity or standard business arragement. It was a unique and bizarre request.

If you honestly go to your clients and urge them to sign 9-year extensions to agreements that are already in place for the next 11 years, and for which no new, valid, separate, and valuable consideration has been given, then you might have a problem.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I write consideration into amendments all the time and it’s that same bull**** language so I always add some new benefit to each party into the Recitals, even if it’s not strong because of this.

Yes.

The ACC could have figured out something to justify adding NINE years to an ALREADY-EXISTING 11-year term. And documented that. But they didn't.

I could understand if there was some other change of substance. Like "the internet was invented in 2016", and we never had anything about website rights included previously. The world changes. There are a lot of movies and TV shows from the 1980s that couldn't use the original music because nobody thought to include new media like DVDs and CDs in the contracts. Now that stuff is included in contracts.

Here's how things SHOULD HAVE gone in the ACC-ESPN negotiations.



ESPN: We want you to have a 20-year GOR.

ACC: And?

ESPN: Well it's only 11 years.

ACC: And how long are the GORs for the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 and Pac 12?

ESPN: OK, we can live with 11 years. We're still only paying you $45 million, right?

ACC: You had me at hello.

 

[RVACane]

Yes.

The ACC could have figured out something to justify adding NINE years to an ALREADY-EXISTING 11-year term. And documented that. But they didn't.

I could understand if there was some other change of substance. Like "the internet was invented in 2016", and we never had anything about website rights included previously. The world changes. There are a lot of movies and TV shows from the 1980s that couldn't use the original music because nobody thought to include new media like DVDs and CDs in the contracts. Now that stuff is included in contracts.

Here's how things SHOULD HAVE gone in the ACC-ESPN negotiations.



ESPN: We want you to have a 20-year GOR.

ACC: And?

ESPN: Well it's only 11 years.

ACC: And how long are the GORs for the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 and Pac 12?

ESPN: OK, we can live with 11 years. We're still only paying you $45 million, right?

ACC: You had me at hello.

Do you think a judge goes by the letter of contract law and says - no new consideration or do you think they say - two sophisticated parties at an arm’s length distance?

 

[Wake_Cane]

Do you think a judge goes by the letter of contract law and says - no new consideration or do you think they say - two sophisticated parties at an arm’s length distance?

Best to not let it get to such a point imo. Truly don't know. Losing would be a catastrophic cost.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Do you think a judge goes by the letter of contract law and says - no new consideration or do you think they say - two sophisticated parties at an arm’s length distance?

I think there is some daylight between the original GOR and the extension on the issue of consideration. But as with anything, it's hard to tell. There have been some truly idiotic federal court judges appointed in the last few decades.

I hope the "sophistication" angle doesn't get explored, because I'd be happy to file an amicus brief showing the game contract that Beta Blake signed with Arkansas State. I think that one was drafted by a fifth-grade special-needs class.

I'm with Wake, you have to make your BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT and put a bit of fear into the ACC decision-makers. Only then will they come to the table and talk about an equitable settlement. As the law review article indicates, the only reason these GOR deals continue to exist is because everyone has been too scared to challenge them, so hopefully a fear of being the first conference to LOSE a GOR case will motivate the ACC to avoid the nuclear option.

 

[RVACane]

I think there is some daylight between the original GOR and the extension on the issue of consideration. But as with anything, it's hard to tell. There have been some truly idiotic federal court judges appointed in the last few decades.

I hope the "sophistication" angle doesn't get explored, because I'd be happy to file an amicus brief showing the game contract that Beta Blake signed with Arkansas State. I think that one was drafted by a fifth-grade special-needs class.

I'm with Wake, you have to make your BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT and put a bit of fear into the ACC decision-makers. Only then will they come to the table and talk about an equitable settlement. As the law review article indicates, the only reason these GOR deals continue to exist is because everyone has been too scared to challenge them, so hopefully a fear of being the first conference to LOSE a GOR case will motivate the ACC to avoid the nuclear option.

Not sure what the ACC can do. We have the votes to dissolve the ACC I thought???

 

[PhenomCane]

Not sure what the ACC can do. We have the votes to dissolve the ACC I thought???

I'm just speculating, but I don't think the simple majority votes are there, only because no one wants to be "left behind" and some schools consider being relegated to the Big XII as a step down or being left behind.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Not sure what the ACC can do. We have the votes to dissolve the ACC I thought???

Seems like we may have hit a li'l pause getting to 8, between ND still looking for love in all the wrong places, plus the SEC getting chilly feet.

But is lifelong marriage to the ACC any better?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I'm just speculating, but I don't think the simple majority votes are there, only because no one wants to be "left behind" and some schools consider being relegated to the Big XII as a step down or being left behind.

San Diego State running around without any pants on was a like a bucket of cold water to a couple o' schools.