forums

The truth about the Grant of Rights Amendment

TheOriginalCane said:
There is the ACC Constitution, which is construed under the laws of North Carolina, so I've been told that only a "majority" would be required to dissolve (8 votes out of 15).

I'm certain that you will understand what I'm about to say, I really suspect that this is moving to "the nuclear option", wherein everyone wants to avoid such a destructive outcome. We shall see.
Click to expand...
Let's count'em...

Nuclear (sure fire)
- FSU
- Clemson
- Miami
- ND (do they get a vote??)
- GTech
- Vajayjay Tech

Nuclear (maybe...local/regional bonds are strong and "hey let's really think about this a minute")
- UNC
- NC State
- UVA
- Wake

Not nuclear because where do they go?
- Fighting Blake Jameses
- Syracuse
- Pitt
- Louie Louie
- Duke


The ACC seditionists are probably 2-5 votes short of 8...



Are my categories accurate??
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
Let's count'em...

Nuclear (sure fire)
- FSU
- Clemson
- Miami
- ND (do they get a vote??)
- GTech
- Vajayjay Tech

Nuclear (maybe...local/regional bonds are strong)
- UNC
- NC State
- UVA
- Wake

Not nuclear because where do they go?
- Fighting Blake Jameses
- Syracuse
- Pitt
- Louie Louie
- Duke


The ACC seditionists are probably 2-5 votes short of 8...



Are my categories accurate??
Click to expand...


I would say this.

UNC and UVa can bump up to Nuclear (sure fire) with a firm offer (not sure if UVa has one yet) and not too much political interference (do NC politicians want to help out NC State at the possible expense of UNC?).

Also, Pitt could jump all the way to the top level with a firm offer from the Big 12. Pitt-WVU has (historically) been a pretty hot rivalry. Louisville too, though I'm sure they would KILL to join the SEC. I know that the Big 12 would like a couple more eastern teams to pair up with WVU and UCF.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't think it was stupidity, there was just a massive power imbalance between the Worldwide Leader and the only P5 conference without a network of its own.

The ACC was just a puppy, and ESPN was Lennie Small...
Click to expand...
I can get with that.

Without a doubt the rush to get the ACC network off the ground led to a lot of what's happening now.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I would say this.

UNC and UVa can bump up to Nuclear (sure fire) with a firm offer (not sure if UVa has one yet) and not too much political interference (do NC politicians want to help out NC State at the possible expense of UNC?).

Also, Pitt could jump all the way to the top level with a firm offer from the Big 12. Pitt-WVU has (historically) been a pretty hot rivalry. Louisville too, though I'm sure they would KILL to join the SEC. I know that the Big 12 would like a couple more eastern teams to pair up with WVU and UCF.
Click to expand...
KEY QUESTION:

How does resurging Big 12 now compare with ACC today?

If its a wash, then I could see the non-SEC/Big 10 candidates being more willing to dissolve ACC...
 
Rickd said:
No articles laying out a dissolution procedure ... simply stated in the articles of constitution of the conference that decisions on actions outside of adding new members and a few other specific actions that require 2/3 vote only require a simple majority, i.e. 8 programs. Therefore if a majority vote to dissolve the ACC that's it folks. No more conference however ESPN will take the position that the rights had been assigned and are still theirs until 2036 and the attorneys for both sides and for all media partners will then negotiate some settlement.
Click to expand...
ESPN can't take that position. The rights were not assigned to ESPN they were assigned to the ACC.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't think it was stupidity, there was just a massive power imbalance between the Worldwide Leader and the only P5 conference without a network of its own.

The ACC was just a puppy, and ESPN was Lennie Small...
Click to expand...
I do think a significant amount of stupidity was involved. The media deal can even just be held aside that GOR should never have been agreed to or extended. The media deal itself was also stupid after the initial period because the extension happened during a time period in which it was OBVIOUS that the entire digital media industry was undergoing SEISMIC change and disruptions through both tech and new entrants. Locking in a decade+ term deal under those conditions is essentially shooting craps. Derelict.
 
Wake_Cane said:
ESPN can't take that position. The rights were not assigned to ESPN they were assigned to the ACC.
Click to expand...
Did you ever have a mortgage? You take out a mortgage with City Bank and they sell ... assign the mortgage to another lender. Same here ... each program assigned their media rights to the ACC Conference and those rights were assigned to ESPN in that same agreement ... and each program was a co-signatory to the agreement.

"The ACC and each of the following entities (names each program) ... each member institution hereby irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights set forth in the ESPN agreement regardless of whether such member institution remains a member of the conference during the entirety of the term". That is one of the introductory clauses in the ACC GOR agreement. So based on that agreed to clause ... even if a program pulls out of the conference the ACC Conference / ESPN still have the media rights until the expiration of the agreement. The schools just didn't simply give their rights to the ACC so the ACC could "manage" them. They agreed to a Grant of Rights according to terms and conditions contained in the "ESPN Agreement". Pretty specific.

Dissolve the conference, litigate with ESPN, and reach and agreed settlement.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
OK, it's time to end all the mistaken information and myth-building.

Someone was kind enough to share the GOR Amendment (extension). And to quote John Cleese...

View attachment 245490

All of the claims that the GOR Amendment is "30-40 pages" or adds new terminology is incorrect.

What I have is a 2-page (1-page plus one sentence) document and what should be 16 signatory pages, and then there is a duplication of those pages, which is what potentially rounds up to 36 pages.

Sadly, ALL that the GOR Amendment does is to change ONE sentence in the original, thus adding 9 years to our prison sentence.

I would also add that I believe it would be important to view our various ESPN contracts, as well as the ESPN contracts with other P5 conferences, in order to figure out certain key elements. For instance, does the ESPN contract require unanimous consent by all ACC members to make revisions to the GOR (and can it)? Does the ESPN contract address what happens if the ACC dissolves? And at what level does ESPN own or license or hold the rights that each ACC school granted to the ACC in order to satisfy the ESPN deal(s)?

One other important takeaway: NOTRE DAME IS BOUND BY THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, even if football is not (via the ESPN contracts). That would mean that ND basketball, baseball, etc. are still covered by the GOR until 2036, so ND would ALSO have an interest (though not as strong) in killing the GOR and/or ACC itself.

In the end, I still believe that the GOR Amendment (the EXTENSION of time) could be found to be unenforceable, but the absence of any real "new terms" in the GOR Amendment leads me to conclude that voting to dissolve the entire ACC is the best approach (and/or would bring about the quickest compromise solution).

I'm sure that all the non-lawyers will have strong opinions on the enforceability (or lack thereof) on the document provided below, but there's no good reason not to confront all the pros and cons out in the open.

So...enjoy...

View attachment 245492
View attachment 245493
Click to expand...
Remember when you , myself and @Wake_Cane said the GOR wasn’t nearly as huge of an issue as some weee making here ?
 
Advertisement
So, basically everything in holding pattern because of Pac 12 and their media rights??

Guessing Colorado and the others would like to know the deal before bolting to Big 12.

B1G has been stated by some that they do not want to implode Pac 12 so they’re waiting.

No clue what SEC is thinking.
 
Rickd said:
Did you ever have a mortgage? You take out a mortgage with City Bank and they sell ... assign the mortgage to another lender. Same here ... each program assigned their media rights to the ACC Conference and those rights were assigned to ESPN in that same agreement ... and each program was a co-signatory to the agreement.

"The ACC and each of the following entities (names each program) ... each member institution hereby irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights set forth in the ESPN agreement regardless of whether such member institution remains a member of the conference during the entirety of the term". That is one of the introductory clauses in the ACC GOR agreement. So based on that agreed to clause ... even if a program pulls out of the conference the ACC Conference / ESPN still have the media rights until the expiration of the agreement. The schools just didn't simply give their rights to the ACC so the ACC could "manage" them. They agreed to a Grant of Rights according to terms and conditions contained in the "ESPN Agreement". Pretty specific.

Dissolve the conference, litigate with ESPN, and reach and agreed settlement.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, that's not what this is.
 
Empirical Cane said:
KEY QUESTION:

How does resurging Big 12 now compare with ACC today?

If its a wash, then I could see the non-SEC/Big 10 candidates being more willing to dissolve ACC...
Click to expand...


All-in (including conference network), ACC > Big 12.

But it's close. All that needs to happen for the Big 12 to get the upper hand is to launch a solid conference network. But times are tough right now, with Bally collapsing and ESPN laying people off.

And if ACC loses some of its best teams and Big 12 picks off a few, the $$$ script could flip.
 
Rickd said:
Did you ever have a mortgage? You take out a mortgage with City Bank and they sell ... assign the mortgage to another lender. Same here ... each program assigned their media rights to the ACC Conference and those rights were assigned to ESPN in that same agreement ... and each program was a co-signatory to the agreement.

"The ACC and each of the following entities (names each program) ... each member institution hereby irrevocably and exclusively grants to the conference during the term all rights set forth in the ESPN agreement regardless of whether such member institution remains a member of the conference during the entirety of the term". That is one of the introductory clauses in the ACC GOR agreement. So based on that agreed to clause ... even if a program pulls out of the conference the ACC Conference / ESPN still have the media rights until the expiration of the agreement. The schools just didn't simply give their rights to the ACC so the ACC could "manage" them. They agreed to a Grant of Rights according to terms and conditions contained in the "ESPN Agreement". Pretty specific.

Dissolve the conference, litigate with ESPN, and reach and agreed settlement.
Click to expand...


Don't get this twisted, this is just a mild warning...

Do NOT try to out-argue Wake on this GOR stuff. I promise.
 
Wake_Cane said:
I do think a significant amount of stupidity was involved. The media deal can even just be held aside that GOR should never have been agreed to or extended. The media deal itself was also stupid after the initial period because the extension happened during a time period in which it was OBVIOUS that the entire digital media industry was undergoing SEISMIC change and disruptions through both tech and new entrants. Locking in a decade+ term deal under those conditions is essentially shooting craps. Derelict.
Click to expand...


Yes, and you know how I feel about all of this. I guess I might see the terminology slightly differently. While I don't think we were "fall for a handful of magic beans" stupid, I think we rushed forward with a mix of desperation, stupidity, and misplaced optimism, particularly in relation to the concept that Notre Dame might ever REALLY be interested in joining the ACC for football.

I've said my piece on Beta Blake and overly long contracts. I think there were other ADs (and Swofford) who were just desperate to get the ACCN off the ground. When I was googling a few articles, there was a quote that Swofford gave when the ACCN was announced, where he said something along the lines of "well, you won't be able to get me to dance around about a conference network any longer". Swofford was the mo-fo who raised his arms at the 60-yard mark of a 100-yard dash, acting like he won the race.

I'm actually going to revise my ratio to include "more stupidity" now, based on a couple of your points. You are right, by 2016 when the extension was signed, there had been multiple instances of P5 poaching. Anyone with a tiny amount of foresight could have realized that there would be "more" poaching rather than "less" poaching over the next 20 years.

I don't think 15 different ADs were equally stupid. I think that the BCs and Syracuses of the world were just as happy to sign the GOR for its "poison pill" nature as they were for the ACCN implications (and maybe more so).
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
The GoR podcast episode needs to open with Judas Priests' Breaking the Law
Click to expand...

IMG_0393.jpeg
 
Wake_Cane said:
I do think a significant amount of stupidity was involved. The media deal can even just be held aside that GOR should never have been agreed to or extended. The media deal itself was also stupid after the initial period because the extension happened during a time period in which it was OBVIOUS that the entire digital media industry was undergoing SEISMIC change and disruptions through both tech and new entrants. Locking in a decade+ term deal under those conditions is essentially shooting craps. Derelict.
Click to expand...
Playing "defender of ACC" here...

stupid ≠ illegal right?

GoR still carries legally enforceable weight??
 
Back
Top