forums

The truth about the Grant of Rights Amendment

7 ACC schools had a meeting without any ACC representatives. My guess is ND would just drop the ACC once these 7 schools land in new conferences. Also is my guess but this would have to all take place rapidly for the 7 schools plus ND to vote to ratify? The ACC will not just roll over and let teams leave piecemeal. Is this the most likely scenario?
 
Advertisement
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...
Just catching up now and, assuming this is the actual contact, I am shocked. If I'm reading this correctly, this contract is not with any of the schools but between ESPN and "the conference." "The Conference is a party..." "The
Conference has negotiated..."

There is a line about it only being valid if the members, the schools, agree to amend. There is a vague reference to consideration. But I don't see how any of this would be binding, or at worst, something that would prevent schools challenging it. I'm really surprised at how basic, and lacking, this agreement is.
 
ItsMeD said:
Just catching up now and, assuming this is the actual contact, I am shocked. If I'm reading this correctly, this contract is not with any of the schools but between ESPN and "the conference." "The Conference is a party..." "The
Conference has negotiated..."

There is a line about it only being valid if the members, the schools, agree to amend. There is a vague reference to consideration. But I don't see how any of this would be binding, or at worst, something that would prevent schools challenging it. I'm really surprised at how basic, and lacking, this agreement is.
Click to expand...


To be fair, THIS ONE is just an extended date for the original GOR. It took them over 1 page to amend one sentence.

On the other hand, there should have been separate consideration for the extension of the date, and I'm not sure that there was.

IN ADDITION TO the problematic original contract.
 
The consideration is that, but for the extension, ESPN isn't going to enter into the Prospective Agreements, obviously.

This is clearly an enforceable amendment. Nothing to it ...
 
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
The consideration is that, but for the extension, ESPN isn't going to enter into the Prospective Agreements, obviously.

This is clearly an enforceable amendment. Nothing to it ...
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Read the law review article.

Realize that we already had 11 more years on the original GOR at the time of the extension.

Acknowledge that ESPN is not a party to the GOR contract.

Consider the fact that there was no new consideration for the extension, and just SAYING there is consideration doesn't make it so.

You really work hard to be so wrong so frequently.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Wrong.

Read the law review article.

Realize that we already had 11 more years on the original GOR at the time of the extension.

Acknowledge that ESPN is not a party to the GOR contract.

Consider the fact that there was no new consideration for the extension, and just SAYING there is consideration doesn't make it so.

You really work hard to be so wrong so frequently.
Click to expand...
The title of the Law Review summary was a pretty clear hint "Irrevocable but Uninforceable". Very clear and simple ... the GOR is between the ACC Conference and the members ... it was extended .... with NO consideration, hence, no contract. Disney at this point in the decline of linear TV performance is not going to support ESPN entering costly litigation that appears to be very slanted towards the ACC members. Disney CEO Bob Iger announced this morning that Disney is open to selling an equity stake in ESPN and also to spinning off it's legacy cable channels and ABC. Doesn't sound like a company that is getting ready for costly litigation.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Wrong.

Read the law review article.

Realize that we already had 11 more years on the original GOR at the time of the extension.

Acknowledge that ESPN is not a party to the GOR contract.

Consider the fact that there was no new consideration for the extension, and just SAYING there is consideration doesn't make it so.

You really work hard to be so wrong so frequently.
Click to expand...
Every village needs its idiot
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Wrong.

Read the law review article.

Realize that we already had 11 more years on the original GOR at the time of the extension.

Acknowledge that ESPN is not a party to the GOR contract.

Consider the fact that there was no new consideration for the extension, and just SAYING there is consideration doesn't make it so.

You really work hard to be so wrong so frequently.
Click to expand...
That nonsense by the Pepper associate? Come on.

Good luck with that argument.
 
It's an Amendment. Therefore, we will need a constitutional convention.
 
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
That nonsense by the Pepper associate? Come on.

Good luck with that argument.
Click to expand...


Right. You're going to dismiss it because the guy is young.

The reality is that he's correct, it was in a HARVARD publication, it's been peer-reviewed, and I've heard the same arguments from attorneys who are much more closely connected to this issue than you are.

Whenever you manage to pull your head from your ******, please explain how the EXTENSION one-page document involves new consideration, separate from the original Grant of Rights. We already were under an 11-remaining-years GOR when the ACC signed the ACCN deal with ESPN, so please tell us about the requirement of the "new" contract and the "new" consideration provided to add 9 years onto an existing 11 year GOR deal.

One of the worst schticks of all is your combination of cluelessness and arrogance.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Right. You're going to dismiss it because the guy is young.

The reality is that he's correct, it was in a HARVARD publication, it's been peer-reviewed, and I've heard the same arguments from attorneys who are much more closely connected to this issue than you are.

Whenever you manage to pull your head from your ******, please explain how the EXTENSION one-page document involves new consideration, separate from the original Grant of Rights. We already were under an 11-remaining-years GOR when the ACC signed the ACCN deal with ESPN, so please tell us about the requirement of the "new" contract and the "new" consideration provided to add 9 years onto an existing 11 year GOR deal.

One of the worst schticks of all is your combination of cluelessness and arrogance.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Wrong.

Read the law review article.

Realize that we already had 11 more years on the original GOR at the time of the extension.

Acknowledge that ESPN is not a party to the GOR contract.

Consider the fact that there was no new consideration for the extension, and just SAYING there is consideration doesn't make it so.

You really work hard to be so wrong so frequently.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Back
Top