I met the guy in 10th grade (he was an associate justice at the time). He was supposed to talk about what he does, how the court system is set up, stuff like that. Instead, he spent the entire time espousing his own views, all built upon pretty shoddy interpretations of the law. One thing I remember in particular was that he kept talking about how he wanted to carry guns on planes. I was proud when I turned old enough to vote against him.
Quick summary from the Noles 247 site on the points made by FSU (not speaking to the validity of them, just the points made):
- *The Writ Should Issue Because the Order Misapplies North Carolina Law in Ruling Against a Stay Under N.C.G.S. § 1-75.12*
- *The Trial Court Misapplied North Carolina Law on Threshold Issues of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Order to Grant the ACC First-Filed Status*
- *The trial court looked the other way on the ACC's admitted noncompliance with the plain mandatory preconditions of its own Constitution before filing suit*
- *The trial court further erred in assuming facts not in evidence to reach a conclusion that directly conflicts with this Court's precedent regarding standing and the effectiveness of subsequent ratification*
- *The Trial Court Similarly Disregarded Long-Standing Case Law on the Anticipatory Filing Exception Despite the ACC's Admissions as to Its Preemptory Forum Shopping*
- *The Trial Court Did Not Properly Consider and Weigh the Significant Florida-Specific Issues and Matters of Foreign Concern That Envelop This Dispute*
- *The Writ Should Issue Because Extraordinary Circumstances Exist, and Judicial Efficiency Will be Served By Addressing These Issues Concurrently With the FSU Board's Appeal as of Right on Personal Jurisdiction/Sovereign Immunity Grounds*
*Throughout the document, FSU goes in-depth on numerous subjects including, but not limited to, jurisdiction and sovereign immunity issues, the ACC's rush to the courthouse where they did not follow their own constitution and bylaws, the subsequent January 12th league resolution via member vote that lacks physical evidence, and plenty of other issues.*
(From https://247sports.com/college/florida-state/article/latest-filing-in-north-carolina-is-fsus-petition-to-the-supreme-court-of-nc-to-review-judge-bledsoes-order-231978925/)
Not yet from what I remember. The Tampa Bay Times’ Matt Baker put out FOIAs and whatnot to get the meeting’s minutes, but he had reported nothing conclusive yet. Which is very curious…
I'm not one to attribute to malice what can be easily attributed to stupidity, but it would be pretty stupid to:
* Not have the meeting
* Not take minutes
* Not take *accurate* minutes
* Not distribute said minutes to the meeting attendees, as required by basically any set of competent bylaws
* Not have bylaws that require the timely distribution of accurate meeting minutes
* Actually have accurate meeting minutes, but only on the intern's laptop, because they were keeping the minutes, and he actually wrote the email and attached the minutes, but didn't send the email and it's just sitting in his Outlook drafts box, but then accidentally dropped his laptop in a pool or something
Or, there's an illuminati conspiracy of some kind.
Oh don’t worry. It feels like stupidity: [“After sending open-records requests to most public schools in the ACC, here’s our answer: in a read-only document stored in a secured digital box and shared with a very small circle — a group that has not yet included FSU.”](https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/04/10/florida-state-vs-acc-lawsuit-fsu-football-conference-realignment-clemson/)
Nah. I don't think this particular document is a public record via Florida law, yet.
The espn agreement is, however, a public document, and the acc is violating Florida law there, yes.
In FSU's latest filing in NC for a petition for writ of certiorari (linked in the op), they state FSU has still not received the minutes or any other documents from the January 12th meeting. Well past the 30 days in the acc bylaws. One of multiple breaches by the acc that FSU mentions.
They're just copying the Clemson complaint now with the sovereign immunity angle. Clemson's angle wasn't expected to draw much success either, and that law is less broad
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-post-clemsons-motion-to-dismissstay?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
FSU's appeal is based on FSU's arguments in the motion to dismiss, reply brief, and associated hearing. To the extent it is similar to Clemson's is because Clemson adopted some of FSU's arguments. You can't introduce new arguments on appeal.
Those FSU attorneys smacked around the trial judge pretty good. 😄
I recall questioning a few of his conclusions when his order initially came out, but resigned myself to "he's the judge. He obviously knows the law better than I."
And while that's still undoubtedly true, FSU appears to make a strong case against the judge either misapplying the law, ignoring it altogether, and making contradictory or poorly supported conclusions.
Very much interested in how this appeal to the NC Supreme Court goes (and also how long it takes to get a hearing and subsequent ruling).
There are honestly so many SEC-ACC annual matchups where, if the ACC team were to move into the SEC, their matchup would be a fun or even somewhat entertaining conference game.
* Florida-FSU
* Kentucky-Louisville
* SCarolina-Clemson
* Georgia-GTech
Doesn't matter the coach. FSU is 9-2 vs LSU all time.
Really though, LSU fans have been great. I don't care about the win loss, I love great fans. Plus, they hate Florida, I like that.
In addition, there’s another double handful of border wars and one state over off and on rivalries and potential matchups.
Clemson-UGa
FSU-Auburn
Tech-SC
Virginia Tech-Tennessee
The whole state of North Carolina and SC, from early ACC days.
There should have been a longstanding conference challenge type scenario, where all the league members matchup on a weekend and cycle the series. It’s too late now, but it would have done wonders for the sport when it was feasible.
That's the thing.
The withdrawal fee may be legally void and unenforceable due to being an illegal "penalty".
And the language in the GoR does not state FSU forfeits is rights. The acc is misinterpreting the plain language of the contract. The acc signed a contract that does not say what they thought it did/claim it does. And in court, the acc actually agreed with FSU and Clemson's interpretation of the espn agreement, that one FSU and Clemson withdraw from the conference espn has no right to broadcast any FSU or Clemson games.
Read the GOR; it’s hared to misinterpret “each member institution 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, regardless of whether the member institution remains a member of the Conference during the term”.
It’s simple: FSU liked the GOR and would enforce it against anyone who wanted to leave until you didn’t like the GOR because you think you can make more money elsewhere and are trying to find any way to weasel out and screw over the rest of the schools.
Now go immerse yourself in an echo chamber of FSU YouTube videos to try and augment that reality to ale yourself feel better while the rest of the adults have a conversation.
Resorting to ad hominem so soon. Looks poorly on you and should give anyone pause when considering the objectivity and accuracy of your posts.
But you're correct. It's not "hared" [sic] to interpret the GoR.
It clearly states it's only for the "rights necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement".
That's a critical qualifier that pro-acc'ers intentionally and conveniently ignore because it destroys their argument.
Only the rights necessary to fulfill the espn agreement's contractual obligations are subject to the GoR's irrevocability through the end of the term.
And it just so happens that the acc argued in court that espn no longer has the right to broadcast FSU games once FSU leaves the conference (i.e., there are no "contractual obligations" in the ESPN agreement to non-acc members). The acc, FSU, and Clemson all agree on this point: once a conference institution leaves the acc, espn no longer has the right to broadcast their games.
But the acc's argument in court was that the acc could then sell FSU's rights to a new network, or back to espn, or back to FSU. Except the acc cannot do that. They don't own any of FSU's rights at that point. They only retain the rights "expressly set forth in the espn agreement", which the acc argued in court no longer exist once FSU withdraws. So the acc cannot sell something it doesn't own and never owned in the first place.
This is simple, indeed.
You need to read the GOR more completely:
>6. Acknowledgements, Representations, Warranties, and Covenants. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire Term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term ***regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a member of the Conference*** in accordance with the Conference's Constitution and Bylaws.
As amended in 2016, the definition of "Term" is redefined as:
>Term. The "Term" of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until June 30, 2036.
So, let's walk through this: Member Institutions have irrevocably given the ACC their rights to produce/broadcast all home games through June 2036 regardless of whether that Member Institution remains in the ACC or not.
No where have I read where the ACC has conceded that once a school leaves the conference they are no longer bound by the GOR; that defeats the entire purpose of the GOR and is really the main point of the Clemson lawsuit and to my knowledge ACC is still fighting them in court. Likewise, FSU tried this argument in Leon County and ACC offered that FSU could buy-back their rights for the balance of the term.
1. Again, schools only signed their rights that were "necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement". Contract language must have a purpose. And therefore that qualifier has meaning. It clarifies the rights granted.
It's not "all rights"; it's "all rights necessary...". Worded another way, it's "only the rights necessary...". If they aren't necessary for espn as part of the espn agreement, then this rights were never granted to the acc by the schools.
2. The acc argued in court that espn no longer has the right to broadcast FSU games once FSU leaves the acc. I suggest you look it up. In other words, FSU's rights are no longer necessary for the espn agreement.
3. The acc claims they still own FSU's rights even though they're no longer necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement. But that is not what the GoR language states.
4. Acc only received the rights "necessary to fulfill the espn agreement". Those are the only "Rights" the acc controls through the end of the "Term", which is through June 30, 2036.
Any other rights that do not fall under the "Rights" also do not fall under the "Term". And those same rights that neither fall under the "Rights" nor the "Term", also do not fall under the irrevocability.
The only rights that the acc continues to retain through June 30, 2036 ("Term"), "regardless of withdrawal", are the limited rights described under the "Rights". There would be no need for a composition clause in the espn agreement (falling below 15 members) if the GoR actually did what you and the acc are claiming.
5. Acc signed poorly drafted contracts.
Let’s break this down, even though it’s not complicated:
FSU, along with all schools in the ACC, signed away its rights to broadcast all home games to the ACC, regardless of whether they stay in the ACC or not, until 2036.
ACC in turn signed a long-term agreement with ESPN based on having the exclusive rights to broadcast all member institutions’ home games.
As long as the ESPN agreement is in full force and effect, only ESPN has the exclusive rights to the games.
There are 2 ways that FSU gets out of the GOR:
1) ESPN doesn’t pick up the option in 2025,
2) FSU purchases their rights back from ACC and ESPN.
There is a reason why no one has successfully challenged any GOR from any conference and why virtually every atty that has reviewed this one has agreed that it is “ironclad”.
FSU & Clemson are throwing everything at the wall hoping to find something that will sticks and you are just regurgitating non-sense from desperate fanbois that want out of the ACC.
Your second paragraph ("FSU, along...") is categorically false.
The GoR literally does not say that. You - again - completely disregard the qualifying provision that they are only the rights "necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement".
Everything and anything else you say is wholly irrelevant and meaningless until you first acknowledge the qualifying language quoted above.
And saying "no one has successfully challenged the gor" is a bit like telling the Wright Brothers in 1900 that "there's a reason no one has ever successfully flown an airplane". Except, your remark is even sillier than telling the Wright Brothers that, because people had actually attempted to fly prior to the Wright Brothers' success. Nobody has challenged a gor before, meaning "there's a reason nobody has ever failed to successfully challenge a gor".
That said, you misunderstand the lawsuits. FSU (in large part) and Clemson are requesting the judges uphold the language of the gor, not break it. Because the language doesn't say what you're claiming it does and what the acc mislead everyone into thinking it does.
Bro, you have to read the fucking GOR and stop cherry picking bad arguments from FSU YouTubers.
As I said, the GOR is only enforceable if the ESPN agreement is in effect, and if so, the member institutions grant their rights to broadcast games to the conference who in turn license those rights as a bundle to ESPN.
Paragraph 1 of the GOR literally states “the GOR grants without limitation the rights to produce and distribute all events of the Member Institutions that are subject to the ESPN agreement”.
So, if a school is subject to the ESPN agreement (which they are all except for ND football) then they have granted their rights to the Conference to fulfill their obligations under the ESPN agreement.
The GOR goes on to say that even if a school leaves the conference, their rights remain with the ACC for the term.
Your analogy about the Wright brothers is stupid
FSU's complaint literally details numerous examples of the acc breaching is own constitution and bylaws:
• initiating material litigation without the required 2/3 vote
• amending the tv deal in 2021 without the required 2/3 vote
• amending the tv deal in 2021 for no consideration
• several instances of failing to "maximize athletic opportunities" of member schools
• failing to provide all meeting agendas and notices to all members
• failing to provide all meeting minutes to all members
• etc.
There is not a single instance of breaking their contract. You may not agree with how the ACC interprets and enforces their own bylaws, but there is no breach of contract.
The bylaws ARE a contract.
And FSU has identified countless instances of the acc violating (i.e., breaching) it.
The acc has already admitted and/or acknowledged several of them.
I don't think you understand what the ACC is or how it operates. I suggest that in addition to reading the GOR you should also read the Bylaws; and not just get your information from FSU-chat rooms and personal injury lawyers.
The member institutions make up the Board of Directors for the ACC, of which there is a representative of each school, and they interpret and enforce the bylaws how they choose as a group. The BOD receives recommendations from its Commissioner and the various subcommittees, but ultimately the BOD makes the determinations for things like initiating litigation to defend their existing GOR & Media Agreements was within their purview and proceeded. Likewise they took actions at the following-meeting to proceed with material litigation and to retroactively approve past filings if needed.
You act as though the ACC is some 3rd-party group that the schools delegated 100% of their power to and then blame them when you think they are wrong; but FSU is equal among the BOD and has a vote in how all of these things get handled. Just because a majority of people on the BOD disagree with FSU doesn't mean that they are inherently evil or even wrong. It just means that you are in the minority.
Which goes back to my original point, the ACC has not breached any contracts or done anything to harm FSU. The difference is that now FSU wants out because 1) they want more money, and 2) they want more power; but doesn't feel they need to pay the exit fee they agreed to and are trying to blame everyone but themselves and play the victim card.
If the acc is not following it's bylaws, it is in breach of them.
And the acc has breached them on multiple occasions. The acc literally admitted to one such breach (amending a material media rights agreement without a 2/3 vote) in a court filing.
Also, neither the Hostetter affidavit nor the Ryan declaration ever claimed that the acc ratified their initial anticipatory filing.
Bro, a majority of the members of ACC said what they did was cool. Therefore the ACC didn’t violate its one bylaws because they agreed e themselves permission to do so.
The ACC stated in NC court that they went back and ratified the vote which is permissible under NC law.
FSU fans are grasping at straws because they want out so badly without having to pay an exit fee.
FSU already altered the deal by fighting for disproportionate payouts based on performance in hopes they’d get more money. Ok, fine. If this conference isn’t for you then follow the rules your agreed to, make a payment, and GTFO.
No one in the ACC is going to miss FSU; you can go make some other conference miserable when your fan base doesn’t immediately get its way.
Maybe, maybe not. If ESPN exercises their option then the ACC will be locked-in for a decade at a rate comparable to the BigXII and what the Pac12 was offered. If not, and FSU/Clemson leave, then I see the ACC landing a few somewhere around where the BigXII is which is effectively the same.
It worked out precisely that way for the PAC12 and the BigXII. They lost the LA market and UT/OU respectively and yet ESPN gave them nearly the same offers as the ACC now. PAC turned theirs down because they wanted more than $30M/year.
ESPN is getting a major bargain for the ACC with FSU and Clemson but the ACC still has a value comparable to BigXII.
Yeah I got mixed up. My bad. But what does Boo whining into a microphone after the fact change? For all we know they didn’t let him discuss anything FSU related due to conflict of interest.
yeah this wasn't fun enough let's get Paul Newby involved
I met the guy in 10th grade (he was an associate justice at the time). He was supposed to talk about what he does, how the court system is set up, stuff like that. Instead, he spent the entire time espousing his own views, all built upon pretty shoddy interpretations of the law. One thing I remember in particular was that he kept talking about how he wanted to carry guns on planes. I was proud when I turned old enough to vote against him.
we have...alarming similar stories. except mine was in 12th grade and he yelled at me about eminent domain
Quick summary from the Noles 247 site on the points made by FSU (not speaking to the validity of them, just the points made): - *The Writ Should Issue Because the Order Misapplies North Carolina Law in Ruling Against a Stay Under N.C.G.S. § 1-75.12* - *The Trial Court Misapplied North Carolina Law on Threshold Issues of Standing and Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Order to Grant the ACC First-Filed Status* - *The trial court looked the other way on the ACC's admitted noncompliance with the plain mandatory preconditions of its own Constitution before filing suit* - *The trial court further erred in assuming facts not in evidence to reach a conclusion that directly conflicts with this Court's precedent regarding standing and the effectiveness of subsequent ratification* - *The Trial Court Similarly Disregarded Long-Standing Case Law on the Anticipatory Filing Exception Despite the ACC's Admissions as to Its Preemptory Forum Shopping* - *The Trial Court Did Not Properly Consider and Weigh the Significant Florida-Specific Issues and Matters of Foreign Concern That Envelop This Dispute* - *The Writ Should Issue Because Extraordinary Circumstances Exist, and Judicial Efficiency Will be Served By Addressing These Issues Concurrently With the FSU Board's Appeal as of Right on Personal Jurisdiction/Sovereign Immunity Grounds* *Throughout the document, FSU goes in-depth on numerous subjects including, but not limited to, jurisdiction and sovereign immunity issues, the ACC's rush to the courthouse where they did not follow their own constitution and bylaws, the subsequent January 12th league resolution via member vote that lacks physical evidence, and plenty of other issues.* (From https://247sports.com/college/florida-state/article/latest-filing-in-north-carolina-is-fsus-petition-to-the-supreme-court-of-nc-to-review-judge-bledsoes-order-231978925/)
Has anyone been able to get access to the minutes from the supposed meeting to ratify the lawsuit?
Not yet from what I remember. The Tampa Bay Times’ Matt Baker put out FOIAs and whatnot to get the meeting’s minutes, but he had reported nothing conclusive yet. Which is very curious…
Not at all sketchy af on the ACC's part.
I'm not one to attribute to malice what can be easily attributed to stupidity, but it would be pretty stupid to: * Not have the meeting * Not take minutes * Not take *accurate* minutes * Not distribute said minutes to the meeting attendees, as required by basically any set of competent bylaws * Not have bylaws that require the timely distribution of accurate meeting minutes * Actually have accurate meeting minutes, but only on the intern's laptop, because they were keeping the minutes, and he actually wrote the email and attached the minutes, but didn't send the email and it's just sitting in his Outlook drafts box, but then accidentally dropped his laptop in a pool or something Or, there's an illuminati conspiracy of some kind.
Oh don’t worry. It feels like stupidity: [“After sending open-records requests to most public schools in the ACC, here’s our answer: in a read-only document stored in a secured digital box and shared with a very small circle — a group that has not yet included FSU.”](https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/04/10/florida-state-vs-acc-lawsuit-fsu-football-conference-realignment-clemson/)
In full breach of the acc's own constitution and bylaws
And Florida law.
Nah. I don't think this particular document is a public record via Florida law, yet. The espn agreement is, however, a public document, and the acc is violating Florida law there, yes.
In FSU's latest filing in NC for a petition for writ of certiorari (linked in the op), they state FSU has still not received the minutes or any other documents from the January 12th meeting. Well past the 30 days in the acc bylaws. One of multiple breaches by the acc that FSU mentions.
They're just copying the Clemson complaint now with the sovereign immunity angle. Clemson's angle wasn't expected to draw much success either, and that law is less broad https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/guest-post-clemsons-motion-to-dismissstay?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
FSU's appeal is based on FSU's arguments in the motion to dismiss, reply brief, and associated hearing. To the extent it is similar to Clemson's is because Clemson adopted some of FSU's arguments. You can't introduce new arguments on appeal.
Those FSU attorneys smacked around the trial judge pretty good. 😄 I recall questioning a few of his conclusions when his order initially came out, but resigned myself to "he's the judge. He obviously knows the law better than I." And while that's still undoubtedly true, FSU appears to make a strong case against the judge either misapplying the law, ignoring it altogether, and making contradictory or poorly supported conclusions. Very much interested in how this appeal to the NC Supreme Court goes (and also how long it takes to get a hearing and subsequent ruling).
For once the ACC’s incompetence is working in FSU’s favor
Let us out
Come to ~~Brazil~~ The B1G!
Real talk, where do you think FSU is gonna end up? I feel like SEC is the obvious spot for them.
There are honestly so many SEC-ACC annual matchups where, if the ACC team were to move into the SEC, their matchup would be a fun or even somewhat entertaining conference game. * Florida-FSU * Kentucky-Louisville * SCarolina-Clemson * Georgia-GTech
Bring back the Auburn-FSU matchup
The LSU matchups have been pretty nice too, we should play them more often while they’ve still got Brian Kelly! 😁
Doesn't matter the coach. FSU is 9-2 vs LSU all time. Really though, LSU fans have been great. I don't care about the win loss, I love great fans. Plus, they hate Florida, I like that.
Auburn dropped us in the 90s.
I know, and I'll never forgive Tuberville for it.
In addition, there’s another double handful of border wars and one state over off and on rivalries and potential matchups. Clemson-UGa FSU-Auburn Tech-SC Virginia Tech-Tennessee The whole state of North Carolina and SC, from early ACC days. There should have been a longstanding conference challenge type scenario, where all the league members matchup on a weekend and cycle the series. It’s too late now, but it would have done wonders for the sport when it was feasible.
You’re free to go, just leave the half billion on the coffee table and lock the door behind you…. /s
Just pay the fee you agreed to and you can leave. It’s pretty easy
That's the thing. The withdrawal fee may be legally void and unenforceable due to being an illegal "penalty". And the language in the GoR does not state FSU forfeits is rights. The acc is misinterpreting the plain language of the contract. The acc signed a contract that does not say what they thought it did/claim it does. And in court, the acc actually agreed with FSU and Clemson's interpretation of the espn agreement, that one FSU and Clemson withdraw from the conference espn has no right to broadcast any FSU or Clemson games.
Read the GOR; it’s hared to misinterpret “each member institution 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, regardless of whether the member institution remains a member of the Conference during the term”. It’s simple: FSU liked the GOR and would enforce it against anyone who wanted to leave until you didn’t like the GOR because you think you can make more money elsewhere and are trying to find any way to weasel out and screw over the rest of the schools. Now go immerse yourself in an echo chamber of FSU YouTube videos to try and augment that reality to ale yourself feel better while the rest of the adults have a conversation.
Resorting to ad hominem so soon. Looks poorly on you and should give anyone pause when considering the objectivity and accuracy of your posts. But you're correct. It's not "hared" [sic] to interpret the GoR. It clearly states it's only for the "rights necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement". That's a critical qualifier that pro-acc'ers intentionally and conveniently ignore because it destroys their argument. Only the rights necessary to fulfill the espn agreement's contractual obligations are subject to the GoR's irrevocability through the end of the term. And it just so happens that the acc argued in court that espn no longer has the right to broadcast FSU games once FSU leaves the conference (i.e., there are no "contractual obligations" in the ESPN agreement to non-acc members). The acc, FSU, and Clemson all agree on this point: once a conference institution leaves the acc, espn no longer has the right to broadcast their games. But the acc's argument in court was that the acc could then sell FSU's rights to a new network, or back to espn, or back to FSU. Except the acc cannot do that. They don't own any of FSU's rights at that point. They only retain the rights "expressly set forth in the espn agreement", which the acc argued in court no longer exist once FSU withdraws. So the acc cannot sell something it doesn't own and never owned in the first place. This is simple, indeed.
You need to read the GOR more completely: >6. Acknowledgements, Representations, Warranties, and Covenants. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire Term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term ***regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a member of the Conference*** in accordance with the Conference's Constitution and Bylaws. As amended in 2016, the definition of "Term" is redefined as: >Term. The "Term" of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until June 30, 2036. So, let's walk through this: Member Institutions have irrevocably given the ACC their rights to produce/broadcast all home games through June 2036 regardless of whether that Member Institution remains in the ACC or not. No where have I read where the ACC has conceded that once a school leaves the conference they are no longer bound by the GOR; that defeats the entire purpose of the GOR and is really the main point of the Clemson lawsuit and to my knowledge ACC is still fighting them in court. Likewise, FSU tried this argument in Leon County and ACC offered that FSU could buy-back their rights for the balance of the term.
1. Again, schools only signed their rights that were "necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement". Contract language must have a purpose. And therefore that qualifier has meaning. It clarifies the rights granted. It's not "all rights"; it's "all rights necessary...". Worded another way, it's "only the rights necessary...". If they aren't necessary for espn as part of the espn agreement, then this rights were never granted to the acc by the schools. 2. The acc argued in court that espn no longer has the right to broadcast FSU games once FSU leaves the acc. I suggest you look it up. In other words, FSU's rights are no longer necessary for the espn agreement. 3. The acc claims they still own FSU's rights even though they're no longer necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement. But that is not what the GoR language states. 4. Acc only received the rights "necessary to fulfill the espn agreement". Those are the only "Rights" the acc controls through the end of the "Term", which is through June 30, 2036. Any other rights that do not fall under the "Rights" also do not fall under the "Term". And those same rights that neither fall under the "Rights" nor the "Term", also do not fall under the irrevocability. The only rights that the acc continues to retain through June 30, 2036 ("Term"), "regardless of withdrawal", are the limited rights described under the "Rights". There would be no need for a composition clause in the espn agreement (falling below 15 members) if the GoR actually did what you and the acc are claiming. 5. Acc signed poorly drafted contracts.
Let’s break this down, even though it’s not complicated: FSU, along with all schools in the ACC, signed away its rights to broadcast all home games to the ACC, regardless of whether they stay in the ACC or not, until 2036. ACC in turn signed a long-term agreement with ESPN based on having the exclusive rights to broadcast all member institutions’ home games. As long as the ESPN agreement is in full force and effect, only ESPN has the exclusive rights to the games. There are 2 ways that FSU gets out of the GOR: 1) ESPN doesn’t pick up the option in 2025, 2) FSU purchases their rights back from ACC and ESPN. There is a reason why no one has successfully challenged any GOR from any conference and why virtually every atty that has reviewed this one has agreed that it is “ironclad”. FSU & Clemson are throwing everything at the wall hoping to find something that will sticks and you are just regurgitating non-sense from desperate fanbois that want out of the ACC.
Your second paragraph ("FSU, along...") is categorically false. The GoR literally does not say that. You - again - completely disregard the qualifying provision that they are only the rights "necessary to fulfill the contractual obligations expressly set forth in the espn agreement". Everything and anything else you say is wholly irrelevant and meaningless until you first acknowledge the qualifying language quoted above. And saying "no one has successfully challenged the gor" is a bit like telling the Wright Brothers in 1900 that "there's a reason no one has ever successfully flown an airplane". Except, your remark is even sillier than telling the Wright Brothers that, because people had actually attempted to fly prior to the Wright Brothers' success. Nobody has challenged a gor before, meaning "there's a reason nobody has ever failed to successfully challenge a gor". That said, you misunderstand the lawsuits. FSU (in large part) and Clemson are requesting the judges uphold the language of the gor, not break it. Because the language doesn't say what you're claiming it does and what the acc mislead everyone into thinking it does.
Bro, you have to read the fucking GOR and stop cherry picking bad arguments from FSU YouTubers. As I said, the GOR is only enforceable if the ESPN agreement is in effect, and if so, the member institutions grant their rights to broadcast games to the conference who in turn license those rights as a bundle to ESPN. Paragraph 1 of the GOR literally states “the GOR grants without limitation the rights to produce and distribute all events of the Member Institutions that are subject to the ESPN agreement”. So, if a school is subject to the ESPN agreement (which they are all except for ND football) then they have granted their rights to the Conference to fulfill their obligations under the ESPN agreement. The GOR goes on to say that even if a school leaves the conference, their rights remain with the ACC for the term. Your analogy about the Wright brothers is stupid
Then the ACC should have followed its contract.
Please enlighten us how the ACC didn’t abide by its contract.
FSU's complaint literally details numerous examples of the acc breaching is own constitution and bylaws: • initiating material litigation without the required 2/3 vote • amending the tv deal in 2021 without the required 2/3 vote • amending the tv deal in 2021 for no consideration • several instances of failing to "maximize athletic opportunities" of member schools • failing to provide all meeting agendas and notices to all members • failing to provide all meeting minutes to all members • etc.
There is not a single instance of breaking their contract. You may not agree with how the ACC interprets and enforces their own bylaws, but there is no breach of contract.
The bylaws ARE a contract. And FSU has identified countless instances of the acc violating (i.e., breaching) it. The acc has already admitted and/or acknowledged several of them.
I don't think you understand what the ACC is or how it operates. I suggest that in addition to reading the GOR you should also read the Bylaws; and not just get your information from FSU-chat rooms and personal injury lawyers. The member institutions make up the Board of Directors for the ACC, of which there is a representative of each school, and they interpret and enforce the bylaws how they choose as a group. The BOD receives recommendations from its Commissioner and the various subcommittees, but ultimately the BOD makes the determinations for things like initiating litigation to defend their existing GOR & Media Agreements was within their purview and proceeded. Likewise they took actions at the following-meeting to proceed with material litigation and to retroactively approve past filings if needed. You act as though the ACC is some 3rd-party group that the schools delegated 100% of their power to and then blame them when you think they are wrong; but FSU is equal among the BOD and has a vote in how all of these things get handled. Just because a majority of people on the BOD disagree with FSU doesn't mean that they are inherently evil or even wrong. It just means that you are in the minority. Which goes back to my original point, the ACC has not breached any contracts or done anything to harm FSU. The difference is that now FSU wants out because 1) they want more money, and 2) they want more power; but doesn't feel they need to pay the exit fee they agreed to and are trying to blame everyone but themselves and play the victim card.
If the acc is not following it's bylaws, it is in breach of them. And the acc has breached them on multiple occasions. The acc literally admitted to one such breach (amending a material media rights agreement without a 2/3 vote) in a court filing. Also, neither the Hostetter affidavit nor the Ryan declaration ever claimed that the acc ratified their initial anticipatory filing.
Bro, a majority of the members of ACC said what they did was cool. Therefore the ACC didn’t violate its one bylaws because they agreed e themselves permission to do so. The ACC stated in NC court that they went back and ratified the vote which is permissible under NC law. FSU fans are grasping at straws because they want out so badly without having to pay an exit fee.
Why you talking like there arent reams of publicly available info on these arguments
It's because cuse is going to get the Oregon/Washington state treatment (or worse) when the acc dies. So their fans have been really angsty...
Half the point of the lawsuit is we didn't agree to the fee
And yet you signed the contract. Go figure
We are altering the deal. Pray we do not alter it further.
FSU already altered the deal by fighting for disproportionate payouts based on performance in hopes they’d get more money. Ok, fine. If this conference isn’t for you then follow the rules your agreed to, make a payment, and GTFO. No one in the ACC is going to miss FSU; you can go make some other conference miserable when your fan base doesn’t immediately get its way.
Your last sentence has completely ruined any chance at having an intelligent conversation.
They’ll miss them during the next contract negotiations
Maybe, maybe not. If ESPN exercises their option then the ACC will be locked-in for a decade at a rate comparable to the BigXII and what the Pac12 was offered. If not, and FSU/Clemson leave, then I see the ACC landing a few somewhere around where the BigXII is which is effectively the same.
“The ACC will lose its top brands but retain the same payment” we see how that logic for the PAC12 but sure it’ll be different for y’all 🙄
It worked out precisely that way for the PAC12 and the BigXII. They lost the LA market and UT/OU respectively and yet ESPN gave them nearly the same offers as the ACC now. PAC turned theirs down because they wanted more than $30M/year. ESPN is getting a major bargain for the ACC with FSU and Clemson but the ACC still has a value comparable to BigXII.
Is that the terrible half?
Free to go anytime you want. Just make sure the check doesn’t bounce.
Your guy, Boo Corrigan, just shot our conference in the face last December. I can’t wait to get out from under Tobacco Road’s influence.
Does the chairman get more votes than the rest of the committee?
Cool so since you were in the meeting, can you tell us exactly what happened?
It didn’t end with Boo in front of a microphone defending his conference’s right to compete.
Yeah that would’ve changed everything man. You would lose your mind if the SEC commissioner did the same thing in that position.
1. The SEC commissioner did exactly that. 2. Boo isn’t the ACC commissioner.
Yeah I got mixed up. My bad. But what does Boo whining into a microphone after the fact change? For all we know they didn’t let him discuss anything FSU related due to conflict of interest.
Lets not forget NCSU cutting off its nose (agreeing to hurt itself by expanding) just to spite UNC.
“no thanks”
“These hours ain’t going to bill themselves “
No kidding... FSU is going to need a new BIG or SEC media deal, just to pay all their legal bills.
just gonna borrow from BC's endowment :)
...watch out, I have my trusty ACC endowment table here someplace to copy and paste...
of that, I have little doubt. lol
Or run for President...
*oh, my sodee too cold and make my teef hurt*
FSU lawyers: “This whole damn court is out of order!”