Interesting FOX blog on the Maryland/ACC lawsuit:

From the article:

Only one lawsuit is currently pending.

But, man oh man, is it a doozy.

On Friday came news that Maryland had sent detailed subpoenas to ten ACC schools, seeking information about their role in realignment. But that wasn't all, Maryland also subpoenaed ESPN, alleging, once more, that ESPN drove the ACC's realignment decisions. You probably haven't heard much about this lawsuit because ESPN doesn't write much about ESPN being involved in a lawsuit.

But back in January, when Maryland filed a $156.8 million counterclaim against the ACC, the school alleged the ACC's desire to expand was driven "in large part on counsel and direction that the conference received from ESPN." ESPN denied the allegation then, but now Maryland has stepped up the accusation and demanded documents consisting of "all communication with ESPN relating to the ACC’s broadcast rights, strategy meetings involving the integration of Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame into the league, and contact with any Big Ten members about joining the ACC."

Oh, this could get really good.

A messy college divorce and a trial about that messy college divorce would be gold.

That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

I got front row seat and plenty popcorn

I'm still not understanding why ESPN's role in the Big East saga is relevant. ESPN and the ACC are business partners and business partners are allowed to advise each other and work together for their mutual benefit. It's neither ESPN's nor the ACC's responsibility to look out for the good of the Big East. I don't agree with their actions and wish things had turned out differently, but if what they did hurt the Big East and their interests, that sucks, but that's the way things work in business. And let's not kid ourselves... these are businesses we're talking about even though they call themselves non-profits. Sometimes in the business world, you win and sometimes, you lose.

I've also heard the word 'collusion' mentioned by several people, but collusion typically applies when supposed competitors are working together to the detriment of consumers or another business. That's not the case here. ESPN and the ACC sell complementary products; they are not direct competitors like ESPN and NBC or the ACC and the Big 10 are. We're not looking at a collusion case here.

As far as Maryland is concerned, if anything, ESPN's actions with regards to the Big East helped Maryland while they were still an ACC member. Any dirt there isn't going to help their case and seems nothing but a distraction. The information that ESPN can provide that is relevant is two numbers: the value of ACC TV rights with Maryland in the conference and the value of the same TV rights without Maryland. Similarly, all this information that Maryland is seeking from the other schools is also irrelevant to the case. What matters is whatever internal projections the ACC has on the combined value of the conference with Maryland and that without Maryland.

In the end, I think Maryland is right and will win and exit without paying anywhere close to $50 million, but it won't be because of what comes back from the subpoenas.

(03-26-2014 12:07 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

Do you not understand that there is a GoR in place? No one is leaving, frankly this exit fee business is irrelevant to the ACC as it stands today--the fee was pre-GoR.

This is an old agreement and old contracts between the ACC & UMd, they'll settle and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the future of the ACC.

As was stated, it's a divorce, kinda messy w/ some hurt feelings-- the 2 sides are simply deciding who gets what in the split, visiting rights & whatnot. UMd has hired a PI to provide evidence that their spouse was messin' round on the side... the irony here is is that UMd was fine with the mistress (even joined in some threesomes themselves)... until they weren't any longer.

You are conflating more into this than is warranted.

In other old news, you still work the graveyard shift @ the Clown Shoe Factory...

(03-26-2014 01:28 AM)prp Wrote:  I'm still not understanding why ESPN's role in the Big East saga is relevant. ESPN and the ACC are business partners and business partners are allowed to advise each other and work together for their mutual benefit. It's neither ESPN's nor the ACC's responsibility to look out for the good of the Big East. I don't agree with their actions and wish things had turned out differently, but if what they did hurt the Big East and their interests, that sucks, but that's the way things work in business. And let's not kid ourselves... these are businesses we're talking about even though they call themselves non-profits. Sometimes in the business world, you win and sometimes, you lose.

I've also heard the word 'collusion' mentioned by several people, but collusion typically applies when supposed competitors are working together to the detriment of consumers or another business. That's not the case here. ESPN and the ACC sell complementary products; they are not direct competitors like ESPN and NBC or the ACC and the Big 10 are. We're not looking at a collusion case here.

As far as Maryland is concerned, if anything, ESPN's actions with regards to the Big East helped Maryland while they were still an ACC member. Any dirt there isn't going to help their case and seems nothing but a distraction. The information that ESPN can provide that is relevant is two numbers: the value of ACC TV rights with Maryland in the conference and the value of the same TV rights without Maryland. Similarly, all this information that Maryland is seeking from the other schools is also irrelevant to the case. What matters is whatever internal projections the ACC has on the combined value of the conference with Maryland and that without Maryland.

In the end, I think Maryland is right and will win and exit without paying anywhere close to $50 million, but it won't be because of what comes back from the subpoenas.

At the time of the ACC-ESPN raid to get Syracuse and Pitt, the Big East was also a partner with ESPN. That may make things different...

(03-26-2014 02:53 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 12:07 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

Do you not understand that there is a GoR in place? No one is leaving, frankly this exit fee business is irrelevant to the ACC as it stands today--the fee was pre-GoR.

This is an old agreement and old contracts between the ACC & UMd, they'll settle and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the future of the ACC.

As was stated, it's a divorce, kinda messy w/ some hurt feelings-- the 2 sides are simply deciding who gets what in the split, visiting rights & whatnot. UMd has hired a PI to provide evidence that their spouse was messin' round on the side... the irony here is is that UMd was fine with the mistress (even joined in some threesomes themselves)... until they weren't any longer.

You are conflating more into this than is warranted.

In other old news, you still work the graveyard shift @ the Clown Shoe Factory...

Right. The writer is wrong. There is no need to push the $52 million. And there is a risk in doing so. It could be totally invalidated. At this point I think the Maryland comment is right. The ACC is stalling until they have withheld all they can withhold from Maryland and then will try to settle. At that point, Maryland has to decide whether it is worth the risk of possibly paying the full $52 million to try to get some of the $30+ million withheld back.

I don't see how putting on the public record the ACC-ESPN dealings that led to the 2011 raid helps Maryland. I'm guessing it's a Samson strategy for Maryland, bringing down the temple on top of everyone.

CLay Travis doesn't think the GOR will stand in court. I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised either way. But let's say it's a coin flip. If you were looking to move, you wouldn't risk the GOR.

The fact is that the Big Ten went after the ACC and came up with--Maryland. Not UNC, not UVa, not GT, not Duke. I don't think anyone believes that Maryland was the Big Ten's #1 ACC target. So the upshot is that UNC doesn't have to worry about Virginia jumping if UNC says no and vice versa. I think that's why the GOR gets signed after Maryland leaves--everyone left in the ACC can trust each other not to jump.

If the courts allow Maryland to bring in all these ACC and ESPN discussions via discovery, then why couldn't the ACC sue the Big Ten for tortious interference and then request discovery for documents related to their media and expansion discussions?

I think this Hail Mary pass fails. And if by chance it starts looking like it might gain some traction, then the above scenario becomes more likely.

Isn't this the same story that we talked about last week?

A blog on the media partner of the B1G Network? Now there's some fair and balanced reporting for you. Yea, they have no dog in this fight.

I am just listening and watching. Right now Maryland and the ACC are engaged in a game of chicken or at best a Mexican Stand off.

(03-26-2014 02:53 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 12:07 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

Do you not understand that there is a GoR in place? No one is leaving, frankly this exit fee business is irrelevant to the ACC as it stands today--the fee was pre-GoR.

This is an old agreement and old contracts between the ACC & UMd, they'll settle and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the future of the ACC.

As was stated, it's a divorce, kinda messy w/ some hurt feelings-- the 2 sides are simply deciding who gets what in the split, visiting rights & whatnot. UMd has hired a PI to provide evidence that their spouse was messin' round on the side... the irony here is is that UMd was fine with the mistress (even joined in some threesomes themselves)... until they weren't any longer.

You are conflating more into this than is warranted.

In other old news, you still work the graveyard shift @ the Clown Shoe Factory...

Concerned for you here--you do understand that the highlighted info you are attempting to chastise me about is from a BLOG? I didn't write that, it's on a national FOX sight.

(03-26-2014 06:09 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 01:28 AM)prp Wrote:  I'm still not understanding why ESPN's role in the Big East saga is relevant. ESPN and the ACC are business partners and business partners are allowed to advise each other and work together for their mutual benefit. It's neither ESPN's nor the ACC's responsibility to look out for the good of the Big East. I don't agree with their actions and wish things had turned out differently, but if what they did hurt the Big East and their interests, that sucks, but that's the way things work in business. And let's not kid ourselves... these are businesses we're talking about even though they call themselves non-profits. Sometimes in the business world, you win and sometimes, you lose.

I've also heard the word 'collusion' mentioned by several people, but collusion typically applies when supposed competitors are working together to the detriment of consumers or another business. That's not the case here. ESPN and the ACC sell complementary products; they are not direct competitors like ESPN and NBC or the ACC and the Big 10 are. We're not looking at a collusion case here.

As far as Maryland is concerned, if anything, ESPN's actions with regards to the Big East helped Maryland while they were still an ACC member. Any dirt there isn't going to help their case and seems nothing but a distraction. The information that ESPN can provide that is relevant is two numbers: the value of ACC TV rights with Maryland in the conference and the value of the same TV rights without Maryland. Similarly, all this information that Maryland is seeking from the other schools is also irrelevant to the case. What matters is whatever internal projections the ACC has on the combined value of the conference with Maryland and that without Maryland.

In the end, I think Maryland is right and will win and exit without paying anywhere close to $50 million, but it won't be because of what comes back from the subpoenas.

At the time of the ACC-ESPN raid to get Syracuse and Pitt, the Big East was also a partner with ESPN. That may make things different...

If they were sharing confidential Big East insider information with the ACC, that's possibly illegal, or at least, grounds for a civil case from the Big East. If all they did was give advice, it's within their rights as a business partner. In either case, whatever happened is between ESPN and the Big East. Maryland and the rest of the ACC, if anything, benefitted from the arrangement. Maryland would have to show adding Syracuse and Pitt to the conference damaged them financially for the matter to be relevant to their case. I'm not sure how that's possible since the indications are the value of the TV contract went up afterwards.

i don't say this lightly, but that might be the dumbest article i have ever read. it completely igores the ACC GOR as if it did not exist, much less the fact that the schools with options and/or standing offers all chose to sign it. clay travis is delusional.

(03-26-2014 02:53 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 12:07 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

Do you not understand that there is a GoR in place? No one is leaving, frankly this exit fee business is irrelevant to the ACC as it stands today--the fee was pre-GoR.

This is an old agreement and old contracts between the ACC & UMd, they'll settle and it will have no bearing whatsoever on the future of the ACC.

As was stated, it's a divorce, kinda messy w/ some hurt feelings-- the 2 sides are simply deciding who gets what in the split, visiting rights & whatnot. UMd has hired a PI to provide evidence that their spouse was messin' round on the side... the irony here is is that UMd was fine with the mistress (even joined in some threesomes themselves)... until they weren't any longer.

You are conflating more into this than is warranted.

In other old news, you still work the graveyard shift @ the Clown Shoe Factory...

(03-26-2014 01:28 AM)prp Wrote:  I'm still not understanding why ESPN's role in the Big East saga is relevant. ESPN and the ACC are business partners and business partners are allowed to advise each other and work together for their mutual benefit. It's neither ESPN's nor the ACC's responsibility to look out for the good of the Big East. I don't agree with their actions and wish things had turned out differently, but if what they did hurt the Big East and their interests, that sucks, but that's the way things work in business. And let's not kid ourselves... these are businesses we're talking about even though they call themselves non-profits. Sometimes in the business world, you win and sometimes, you lose.

Weren't ESPN and the Big East business partners? They owned all of the Big East's rights too. It was therefore just as much their responsibility to look out for the Big East, no?

I've also heard the word 'collusion' mentioned by several people, but collusion typically applies when supposed competitors are working together to the detriment of consumers or another business. That's not the case here. ESPN and the ACC sell complementary products; they are not direct competitors like ESPN and NBC or the ACC and the Big 10 are. We're not looking at a collusion case here.

The collusion here might be that the Big East was going to put their rights up for open bidding from different networks, so ESPN and the ACC colluded to destroy that league before they could. If courts see it as so that could be worrisome for both-and not something they would want out in the public domain.

As far as Maryland is concerned, if anything, ESPN's actions with regards to the Big East helped Maryland while they were still an ACC member. Any dirt there isn't going to help their case and seems nothing but a distraction. The information that ESPN can provide that is relevant is two numbers: the value of ACC TV rights with Maryland in the conference and the value of the same TV rights without Maryland. Similarly, all this information that Maryland is seeking from the other schools is also irrelevant to the case. What matters is whatever internal projections the ACC has on the combined value of the conference with Maryland and that without Maryland.

The information probably illustrates for the courts interference with other schools and conferences by the ACC and their partners which may very well be illegal. There's also going to be information in there as to how exactly the new buyouts were thought up, and by who, and for what purpose. The courts may see that other schools in the conference were looking elsewhere and these actions were taken to attempt to block them in a punitive manner. It would seem relevant that a conference that raided another into oblivion is now attempting to stop others from doing the same from their own conference with extremely high buyouts.

In the end, I think Maryland is right and will win and exit without paying anywhere close to $50 million, but it won't be because of what comes back from the subpoenas.

The subpoenas may well have a strong impact on the outcome because there will be lots of "inside" information parties do not want to be outed in a court of law.

(03-26-2014 07:05 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  If the courts allow Maryland to bring in all these ACC and ESPN discussions via discovery, then why couldn't the ACC sue the Big Ten for tortious interference and then request discovery for documents related to their media and expansion discussions?

I think this Hail Mary pass fails. And if by chance it starts looking like it might gain some traction, then the above scenario becomes more likely.

Tortious interference would be hard to prove by the ACC or, for that matter, by the Big East with respect to Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame. The mere fact that there is an "exit" fee demonstrates that the parties anticipated that member schools may want to leave the conference from time to time and they mutually agreed on procedures and terms to cover such departures. In other words, Maryland had a right to leave. As long as the B1G did not encourage them to leave in a manner that violated the exit requirements of the ACC by-laws, I don't think it would be tortious interference. Of course UMD is trying to avoid paying the full exit fee, but that appears to be their decision.

I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

(03-26-2014 06:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't see how putting on the public record the ACC-ESPN dealings that led to the 2011 raid helps Maryland. I'm guessing it's a Samson strategy for Maryland, bringing down the temple on top of everyone.

This is what I was thinking. The ESPN issue would be liability for breaking its fiduciary responsibility to the Big East, since ESPN was a Big East partner and basically worked with the ACC to implode the Big East. But Maryland was a part of the ACC when all that happened. So Maryland would also be liable for any damages. Weird case.

(03-26-2014 09:08 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 07:05 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  If the courts allow Maryland to bring in all these ACC and ESPN discussions via discovery, then why couldn't the ACC sue the Big Ten for tortious interference and then request discovery for documents related to their media and expansion discussions?

I think this Hail Mary pass fails. And if by chance it starts looking like it might gain some traction, then the above scenario becomes more likely.

Tortious interference would be hard to prove by the ACC or, for that matter, by the Big East with respect to Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame. The mere fact that there is an "exit" fee demonstrates that the parties anticipated that member schools may want to leave the conference from time to time and they mutually agreed on procedures and terms to cover such departures. In other words, Maryland had a right to leave. As long as the B1G did not encourage them to leave in a manner that violated the exit requirements of the ACC by-laws, I don't think it would be tortious interference. Of course UMD is trying to avoid paying the full exit fee, but that appears to be their decision.

Great point, and it definitely seems to be the strategy. But I wonder just how clean Maryland is on this regarding the ACC's destruction of the Big East.

(03-26-2014 09:08 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 07:05 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  If the courts allow Maryland to bring in all these ACC and ESPN discussions via discovery, then why couldn't the ACC sue the Big Ten for tortious interference and then request discovery for documents related to their media and expansion discussions?

I think this Hail Mary pass fails. And if by chance it starts looking like it might gain some traction, then the above scenario becomes more likely.

Tortious interference would be hard to prove by the ACC or, for that matter, by the Big East with respect to Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame. The mere fact that there is an "exit" fee demonstrates that the parties anticipated that member schools may want to leave the conference from time to time and they mutually agreed on procedures and terms to cover such departures. In other words, Maryland had a right to leave. As long as the B1G did not encourage them to leave in a manner that violated the exit requirements of the ACC by-laws, I don't think it would be tortious interference. Of course UMD is trying to avoid paying the full exit fee, but that appears to be their decision.

One baseless lawsuit deserves another. Or not...

Maybe as part of defending against the Maryland suit, the ACC can bring discovery against the B1G and their network partners into play. Why should Maryland be the only ones who can raise the ante?