forums

The truth about the Grant of Rights Amendment

Empirical Cane said:
Playing "defender of ACC" here...

stupid ≠ illegal right?

GoR still carries legally enforceable weight??
Click to expand...
I do not believe it is enforceable, no. And yet there are also good arguments that can be made that it is completely enforceable. And so its a high stakes business/strategy problem more so than a legal question, because to get a clear answer to the legal question you've got to cross the rubicon and instigate several hundred million dollar level litigation
 
Advertisement
Wake_Cane said:
I do not believe it is enforceable, no. And yet there are also good arguments that can be made that it is completely enforceable. And so its a high stakes business/strategy problem more so than a legal question, because to get a clear answer to the legal question you've got to cross the rubicon and instigate several hundred million dollar level litigation
Click to expand...
Could you take a moment, and again, explain it like I'm 5....

why isn't in enforceable?

Would member schools claim fudiciary malfescence or negligence? Would they claim previous Miami Prez/BoTs didnt have legal authoriry for such a binding lengrh of time??
 
Empirical Cane said:
Could you take a moment, and again, explain it like I'm 5....

why isn't in enforceable?

Would member schools claim fudiciary malfescence or negligence? Would they claim previous Miami Prez/BoTs didnt have legal authoriry for such a binding lengrh of time??
Click to expand...
There are several arguments to be made that it's not enforceable, but the one that would carry the day for me if I was the judge is that there was nothing of value received by the universities in that agreement, only the conference received value. Which makes it not a contract.
 
Wake_Cane said:
There are several arguments to be made that it's not enforceable, but the one that would carry the day for me if I was the judge is that there was nothing of value received by the universities in that agreement, only the conference received value. Which makes it not a contract.
Click to expand...
Interesting. A basic tenet of a contract is that signatory parties need to participate in an exchange of value correct?

Could ACC counter wirh "yes members receive value through annual payments enabled largely because we have contractual long-term stability"?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...
They are not launching a network, unless it is just a streaming option.
 
Empirical Cane said:
Interesting. A basic tenet of a contract is that signatory parties need to participate in an exchange of value correct?

Could ACC counter wirh "yes members receive value through annual payments enabled largely because we have contractual long-term stability"?
Click to expand...

The ACC could absolutely counter with that.

But the counter-counter would be...if you want contractual long-term stability so badly, then just change the exit fee from $120M to $250M. A Grant of Rights should not be the "proper forum" to build long-term stability. It should simply be a vehicle to convey collective rights.

And then think about this. In 2016, when we did the GOR extension because "ESPN required it", we had ELEVEN MORE YEARS under the original GOR (until 2027). That was PLENTY of time for ESPN to hold those 15 teams together for a network launch. ESPN had deals with OTHER conferences that had NO GOR TERM AT ALL (SEC, Big 10) and conferences with SHORTER GOR TERMS (Pac 12, Big 12). ESPN forced the ACC to add 9 years to an ALREADY 11-year GOR deal, AND FOR WHAT.

I'm also going to add one more point to blow some minds. And I mentioned this to a couple people earlier on DMs, including Wake.

Why does ESPN "need" 20 years worth of ACC stability anyhow? I understand why the ACC might want that, and we could accomplish that in the conference Constitution, with a higher exit fee. But why did ESPN "require" us to add 9 extra years to the LONGEST GOR DEAL IN THE COUNTRY?

Here's the real problem. As we have discussed over the years, the ONLY WAY to reopen a lengthy TV contract and get more market value is...TO ADD MORE TEAMS TO THE CONFERENCE. And as we have seen over the past decade, we are long past the days of "hey, let's add Cincinnati, that will really increase our per-school payout, right?" In fact, most of the moves made by the Power Five in the past decade (except for UCF) have involved POACHING OTHER P5 SCHOOLS. Thus, why does ESPN need "20 years of no-movement by ACC teams" when the entire process of conference expansion has been driven...BY WHAT ESPN WILL PAY WHEN A P5 CONFERENCE POACHES OTHER P5 SCHOOLS. In fact, what is technically "best" for ESPN is to have NO GORs that limit P5 movement at all.

1688870256453.png
 
Wake_Cane said:
There are several arguments to be made that it's not enforceable, but the one that would carry the day for me if I was the judge is that there was nothing of value received by the universities in that agreement, only the conference received value. Which makes it not a contract.
Click to expand...


I'd love to see if we could argue that the EXTENSION is unenforceable, and then just live with the original "through 2027" GOR deal.

We had 11 more years of GOR when the ACCN deal was announced in 2016. HOW IS THAT NOT ENOUGH FOR ESPN?

Adding 9 years...gave us NOTHING we didn't already have...
 
I've seen this before here: https://theosceola.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2016-AMENDMENT-ACC-Grant-of-Rights-Agmt.pdf
Just didn't think that was actually the 30 page extension like you said because it was literally like 1 change. So clearly any actual change or "additional Considerations" would be in the ESPN Media deal.

The problem with the GOR is it has ESPN (technically the ACC) retain our rights, which would be expensive to purchase back. But if in ACC media agreement there is specific considerations based on performance/payouts to buy back our rights, that could be something positive.

Guess we need the "Restated Multi-Media Agreement" now...
 
Advertisement
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...
I read on a major media site (ESPN or 247?) that right now, the Big12 distributes about 6 million dollars more to its teams every year than does the ACC.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
We shall see. It should be easy to buy the bandwidth of a Bally channel out of bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
Those are local don’t have national pickup so they may have some infrastructure but not distribution in an era where systems are not adding many new channels to basic tiers so it’s one by one then
 
Ispyin said:
Those are local don’t have national pickup so they may have some infrastructure but not distribution in an era where systems are not adding many new channels to basic tiers so it’s one by one then
Click to expand...
I got an idea - Let all the schools leave the ACC for B10/SEC for free, Then give the rest of the schools and ACCNetwork to the B12. Change the name to B12Network. Done. Think we can have this wrapped up by monday. lol.
 
TpaBayFlyFisher said:
I read on a major media site (ESPN or 247?) that right now, the Big12 distributes about 6 million dollars more to its teams every year than does the ACC.
Click to expand...


Not an apples-to-apples comparison. The core "broadcast" contract (the new one) for the Big 12 will pay out more than the OLDER AND CHEAPER ACC broadcast deal from last decade. But when you factor in the ACCN money, the ACC has a higher OVERALL media payout. For now.

Things could change. As I just pointed out, this would be the PERFECT time for the Big 12 to start its own network by buying one of the bankrupt Bally channels. It is the Big 10's ownership of its own network that is so damned lucrative.
 
Ispyin said:
Those are local don’t have national pickup so they may have some infrastructure but not distribution in an era where systems are not adding many new channels to basic tiers so it’s one by one then
Click to expand...


I understand the issues. But it's a low-cost idea for a startup that doesn't require whoring the conference out to ESPN for 20 years.

Big 10 struggled to get carriage in the early years. But once they did...that mother****ing channel makes money hand-over-fist.

Again, anything is possible. There's at least one Bally channel on nearly every cable network in America. I realize you might have to cobble something together, which is why I referred to BANDWIDTH and not just one channel, like Channel 1307.

There are 19 Bally Sports Channels, and several of them overlap. For instance, you do NOT need to purchase both (old) Sports Channel Florida and Sunshine Network. And with all the MLB content starting to revert, you are not bound by old contracts.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
The ACC could absolutely counter with that.

But the counter-counter would be...if you want contractual long-term stability so badly, then just change the exit fee from $120M to $250M. A Grant of Rights should not be the "proper forum" to build long-term stability. It should simply be a vehicle to convey collective rights.

And then think about this. In 2016, when we did the GOR extension because "ESPN required it", we had ELEVEN MORE YEARS under the original GOR (until 2027). That was PLENTY of time for ESPN to hold those 15 teams together for a network launch. ESPN had deals with OTHER conferences that had NO GOR TERM AT ALL (SEC, Big 10) and conferences with SHORTER GOR TERMS (Pac 12, Big 12). ESPN forced the ACC to add 9 years to an ALREADY 11-year GOR deal, AND FOR WHAT.

I'm also going to add one more point to blow some minds. And I mentioned this to a couple people earlier on DMs, including Wake.

Why does ESPN "need" 20 years worth of ACC stability anyhow? I understand why the ACC might want that, and we could accomplish that in the conference Constitution, with a higher exit fee. But why did ESPN "require" us to add 9 extra years to the LONGEST GOR DEAL IN THE COUNTRY?

Here's the real problem. As we have discussed over the years, the ONLY WAY to reopen a lengthy TV contract and get more market value is...TO ADD MORE TEAMS TO THE CONFERENCE. And as we have seen over the past decade, we are long past the days of "hey, let's add Cincinnati, that will really increase our per-school payout, right?" In fact, most of the moves made by the Power Five in the past decade (except for UCF) have involved POACHING OTHER P5 SCHOOLS. Thus, why does ESPN need "20 years of no-movement by ACC teams" when the entire process of conference expansion has been driven...BY WHAT ESPN WILL PAY WHEN A P5 CONFERENCE POACHES OTHER P5 SCHOOLS. In fact, what is technically "best" for ESPN is to have NO GORs that limit P5 movement at all.

View attachment 245630
Click to expand...
PIN THIS THREAD.
 
Back
Top