RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
in other words ...
my argument has merit ...
whad’ya know ...
lil ol’ me ...
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 04:06 PM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
in other words ...
my argument has merit ...
whad’ya know ...
lil ol’ me ...
CRACK THE CODE
The exit fee and the GOR are two different things. The GOR is the much bigger obstacle to leaving the ACC now, not to mention that most of the schools that might like to leave aren’t all that attractive to the SEC or the B10 anyway.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: ....
I’m a little disappointed that those who thought The ACC GOR would be so easy to break haven’t tried. What was it FSU President Dick McCollough said the “Seminoles will be "very aggressive" in conference realignment”.
Apparently not aggressive enough…
He said this a week ago. Impatient much?
He also said the Seminoles were 'getting a lot of help.' Apparently this is something people can do something about.
Everyone knows the ACC grant of rights is a hefty obstacle to any school that would want to leave before 2036. How big an obstacle? Well, that's not really known. Here's why: (1) the strength of the grant has yet to be tested in court, (2) the amount of financial risk changes every year, (3) the risk is relative to outside factors, such as the income that stands to be made elsewhere and new financial demands facing schools, (4) those outside factors are themselves due to change substantially in the next five years, and (5) the network partner's priorities going forward may soon differ substantially from what they were when the grant was first signed.
So that's where we are. All anyone knows for sure is that the odds of a school leaving the ACC before 2036 are greater than 0% and lower than 100%.
We'll see what happens.
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2022 12:56 AM by Gitanole.)
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
you can establish at least a baseline exit fee from what Maryland paid....I think it would be near impossible for a current member of the ACC to argue that they would not be subjected to at least that amount since all but one was there to collect that fee from Maryland.....not to mention the value of the ACC contract is higher than it was with Maryland because of the yearly escalator and because of additional money from the ACCn
then as pointed out up thread the replacement for Maryland was at least a net break even if not better and it seems unlikely for that to happen again.....so you can probably look at an exit fee that is "not punitive" well above what Maryland paid to leave
then you get to the GOR.....an important difference with the GOR vs the separate contract with the exit fee is that unlike the contract with the exit fee where the CONFERENCE has to prove some damages it is generally believed that with the GOR the member(s) leaving have to prove the damages
so you are going to court to try and claim damages from a contract that you willingly signed and that you are now willingly breaking.....that is a horrible legal argument and I don't think an argument of "well we think we can make more elsewhere" is really a good argument.....if that was the case them pretty much no contract would have value if one party thought they could do better by breaking it
in the case of the OP and the "just leave with nowhere to go" well that seems to have a ton of risk including as already pointed out being excluded from conference business after saying you are leaving.....and if you if have a home and can "do better" financially then you run the risk of enticement or collusion to get you to break a contract for your financial gain or the financial gain of another while causing financial harm to the party you have a contract with.....and that can get into 3X damages
which gets back to proving damages for willingly breaking the GOR.....well certainly it would seem the conference and the members could also claim those same damages or more.....they are losing guaranteed games, they will have to replace those games, they might have to buy in some replacement games ect and that has a cost
if moving to another conference that is not 100% owned by ESPN then ESPN could have a claim to damages.....but if being INCENTIVIZED to move to another 100% ESPN owned conference well now ESPN is possibly looking at some collusion or contractual interference and they are not looking to take that risk for sure
plus if the conference keeps your media rights and shows your games then what are your damages?.....your games are still being shown, but the conference of course is not paying you......but if your new conference is paying you well again what are your damages?......but as pointed out why does a conference want a member that does not bring their media rights?.....well they probably do not.....so then you get back to the claim of "we want to break this contract we willingly signed because we can make better money elsewhere now"........which generally seems to be a horrible legal argument and allowing that pretty much means all contracts are worthless if one party feels they can do better financially for breaking it.....and why does the conference not have any damages for you breaking that contract.....and the legally horrible position of being offered financial enticement to break a contract.....which is often not legal and can result in 3X damages
so basically the GOR represents a very tangled legal knot which to successfully break requires a lot of very specious claims of only the party willingly breaking the contract suffering damages and the idea that "well we feel we can make more here" or worse yet "we have been offered more here".....neither of which is a very solid legal argument for unilaterally breaking a contract you willingly signed and one of which is a bad claim to make in court because it could be illegal
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
Quote:While the Big Ten gives a lot of lip-service to academic and athletic “fit,” here’s what I suspect it cares about most: a school’s market size, popularity and TV ratings. So any measure of conference candidacy must also give heavy consideration to those factors. ...
Miami has been a rumored expansion target. That may in part reflect that it’s an easier “get”; the University of Florida would reportedly object to its presence in the SEC. And perhaps Miami feels more “on brand” for the Big Ten, which has a presence in other big urban markets (New York, Chicago and now Los Angeles). Still, it’s a fairly small private school that’s not an AAU member, albeit one with pretty good academics. It actually has a lower fit rating than Clemson. Then again, its market rating is well above the current Big Ten average, which probably matters most for the league.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-03-2022 09:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: you can establish at least a baseline exit fee from what Maryland paid....I think it would be near impossible for a current member of the ACC to argue that they would not be subjected to at least that amount since all but one was there to collect that fee from Maryland.....not to mention the value of the ACC contract is higher than it was with Maryland because of the yearly escalator and because of additional money from the ACCn
then as pointed out up thread the replacement for Maryland was at least a net break even if not better and it seems unlikely for that to happen again.....so you can probably look at an exit fee that is "not punitive" well above what Maryland paid to leave
then you get to the GOR.....an important difference with the GOR vs the separate contract with the exit fee is that unlike the contract with the exit fee where the CONFERENCE has to prove some damages it is generally believed that with the GOR the member(s) leaving have to prove the damages
so you are going to court to try and claim damages from a contract that you willingly signed and that you are now willingly breaking.....that is a horrible legal argument and I don't think an argument of "well we think we can make more elsewhere" is really a good argument.....if that was the case them pretty much no contract would have value if one party thought they could do better by breaking it
in the case of the OP and the "just leave with nowhere to go" well that seems to have a ton of risk including as already pointed out being excluded from conference business after saying you are leaving.....and if you if have a home and can "do better" financially then you run the risk of enticement or collusion to get you to break a contract for your financial gain or the financial gain of another while causing financial harm to the party you have a contract with.....and that can get into 3X (treble) damages
which gets back to proving damages for willingly breaking the GOR.....well certainly it would seem the conference and the members could also claim those same damages or more.....they are losing guaranteed games, they will have to replace those games, they might have to buy in some replacement games ect and that has a cost
if moving to another conference that is not 100% owned by ESPN then ESPN could have a claim to damages.....but if being INCENTIVIZED to move to another 100% ESPN owned conference well now ESPN is possibly looking at some collusion or contractual tortious interference and they are not looking to take that risk for sure
plus if the conference keeps your media rights and shows your games then what are your damages?.....your games are still being shown, but the conference of course is not paying you......but if your new conference is paying you well again what are your damages?......but as pointed out why does a conference want a member that does not bring their media rights?.....well they probably do not.....so then you get back to the claim of "we want to break this contract we willingly signed because we can make better money elsewhere now"........which generally seems to be a horrible legal argument and allowing that pretty much means all contracts are worthless if one party feels they can do better financially for breaking it.....and why does the conference not have any damages for you breaking that contract.....and the legally horrible position of being offered financial enticement to break a contract.....which is often not legal and can result in 3X (treble) damages
so basically the GOR represents a very tangled legal knot which to successfully break requires a lot of very specious claims of only the party willingly breaking the contract suffering damages and the idea that "well we feel we can make more here" or worse yet "we have been offered more here".....neither of which is a very solid legal argument for unilaterally breaking a contract you willingly signed and one of which is a bad claim to make in court because it could be illegal
A for effort, sir ...
what if GOR ruled unconstitutional ...
therefore unenforceable ...
an open question after all ...
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 08:08 AM)green Wrote:
(09-03-2022 09:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: you can establish at least a baseline exit fee from what Maryland paid....I think it would be near impossible for a current member of the ACC to argue that they would not be subjected to at least that amount since all but one was there to collect that fee from Maryland.....not to mention the value of the ACC contract is higher than it was with Maryland because of the yearly escalator and because of additional money from the ACCn
then as pointed out up thread the replacement for Maryland was at least a net break even if not better and it seems unlikely for that to happen again.....so you can probably look at an exit fee that is "not punitive" well above what Maryland paid to leave
then you get to the GOR.....an important difference with the GOR vs the separate contract with the exit fee is that unlike the contract with the exit fee where the CONFERENCE has to prove some damages it is generally believed that with the GOR the member(s) leaving have to prove the damages
so you are going to court to try and claim damages from a contract that you willingly signed and that you are now willingly breaking.....that is a horrible legal argument and I don't think an argument of "well we think we can make more elsewhere" is really a good argument.....if that was the case them pretty much no contract would have value if one party thought they could do better by breaking it
in the case of the OP and the "just leave with nowhere to go" well that seems to have a ton of risk including as already pointed out being excluded from conference business after saying you are leaving.....and if you if have a home and can "do better" financially then you run the risk of enticement or collusion to get you to break a contract for your financial gain or the financial gain of another while causing financial harm to the party you have a contract with.....and that can get into 3X (treble) damages
which gets back to proving damages for willingly breaking the GOR.....well certainly it would seem the conference and the members could also claim those same damages or more.....they are losing guaranteed games, they will have to replace those games, they might have to buy in some replacement games ect and that has a cost
if moving to another conference that is not 100% owned by ESPN then ESPN could have a claim to damages.....but if being INCENTIVIZED to move to another 100% ESPN owned conference well now ESPN is possibly looking at some collusion or contractual tortious interference and they are not looking to take that risk for sure
plus if the conference keeps your media rights and shows your games then what are your damages?.....your games are still being shown, but the conference of course is not paying you......but if your new conference is paying you well again what are your damages?......but as pointed out why does a conference want a member that does not bring their media rights?.....well they probably do not.....so then you get back to the claim of "we want to break this contract we willingly signed because we can make better money elsewhere now"........which generally seems to be a horrible legal argument and allowing that pretty much means all contracts are worthless if one party feels they can do better financially for breaking it.....and why does the conference not have any damages for you breaking that contract.....and the legally horrible position of being offered financial enticement to break a contract.....which is often not legal and can result in 3X (treble) damages
so basically the GOR represents a very tangled legal knot which to successfully break requires a lot of very specious claims of only the party willingly breaking the contract suffering damages and the idea that "well we feel we can make more here" or worse yet "we have been offered more here".....neither of which is a very solid legal argument for unilaterally breaking a contract you willingly signed and one of which is a bad claim to make in court because it could be illegal
A for effort, sir ... what if GOR ruled unconstitutional ...
therefore unenforceable ...
an open question after all ...
FRUIT FROM POISONOUS TREE
How many layers of the court system (trials and appeals) would a case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court? Roughly how long would that process take?
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:
(09-04-2022 08:08 AM)green Wrote:
(09-03-2022 09:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: you can establish at least a baseline exit fee from what Maryland paid....I think it would be near impossible for a current member of the ACC to argue that they would not be subjected to at least that amount since all but one was there to collect that fee from Maryland.....not to mention the value of the ACC contract is higher than it was with Maryland because of the yearly escalator and because of additional money from the ACCn
then as pointed out up thread the replacement for Maryland was at least a net break even if not better and it seems unlikely for that to happen again.....so you can probably look at an exit fee that is "not punitive" well above what Maryland paid to leave
then you get to the GOR.....an important difference with the GOR vs the separate contract with the exit fee is that unlike the contract with the exit fee where the CONFERENCE has to prove some damages it is generally believed that with the GOR the member(s) leaving have to prove the damages
so you are going to court to try and claim damages from a contract that you willingly signed and that you are now willingly breaking.....that is a horrible legal argument and I don't think an argument of "well we think we can make more elsewhere" is really a good argument.....if that was the case them pretty much no contract would have value if one party thought they could do better by breaking it
in the case of the OP and the "just leave with nowhere to go" well that seems to have a ton of risk including as already pointed out being excluded from conference business after saying you are leaving.....and if you if have a home and can "do better" financially then you run the risk of enticement or collusion to get you to break a contract for your financial gain or the financial gain of another while causing financial harm to the party you have a contract with.....and that can get into 3X (treble) damages
which gets back to proving damages for willingly breaking the GOR.....well certainly it would seem the conference and the members could also claim those same damages or more.....they are losing guaranteed games, they will have to replace those games, they might have to buy in some replacement games ect and that has a cost
if moving to another conference that is not 100% owned by ESPN then ESPN could have a claim to damages.....but if being INCENTIVIZED to move to another 100% ESPN owned conference well now ESPN is possibly looking at some collusion or contractual tortious interference and they are not looking to take that risk for sure
plus if the conference keeps your media rights and shows your games then what are your damages?.....your games are still being shown, but the conference of course is not paying you......but if your new conference is paying you well again what are your damages?......but as pointed out why does a conference want a member that does not bring their media rights?.....well they probably do not.....so then you get back to the claim of "we want to break this contract we willingly signed because we can make better money elsewhere now"........which generally seems to be a horrible legal argument and allowing that pretty much means all contracts are worthless if one party feels they can do better financially for breaking it.....and why does the conference not have any damages for you breaking that contract.....and the legally horrible position of being offered financial enticement to break a contract.....which is often not legal and can result in 3X (treble) damages
so basically the GOR represents a very tangled legal knot which to successfully break requires a lot of very specious claims of only the party willingly breaking the contract suffering damages and the idea that "well we feel we can make more here" or worse yet "we have been offered more here".....neither of which is a very solid legal argument for unilaterally breaking a contract you willingly signed and one of which is a bad claim to make in court because it could be illegal
A for effort, sir ... what if GOR ruled unconstitutional ...
therefore unenforceable ...
an open question after all ...
FRUIT FROM POISONOUS TREE
How many layers of the court system (trials and appeals) would a case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court? Roughly how long would that process take?
long enough to incur reputational damage ...
the longer it takes the sweeter the kiss ...
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 10:01 AM)green Wrote:
(09-04-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote:
(09-04-2022 08:08 AM)green Wrote:
(09-03-2022 09:25 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: you can establish at least a baseline exit fee from what Maryland paid....I think it would be near impossible for a current member of the ACC to argue that they would not be subjected to at least that amount since all but one was there to collect that fee from Maryland.....not to mention the value of the ACC contract is higher than it was with Maryland because of the yearly escalator and because of additional money from the ACCn
then as pointed out up thread the replacement for Maryland was at least a net break even if not better and it seems unlikely for that to happen again.....so you can probably look at an exit fee that is "not punitive" well above what Maryland paid to leave
then you get to the GOR.....an important difference with the GOR vs the separate contract with the exit fee is that unlike the contract with the exit fee where the CONFERENCE has to prove some damages it is generally believed that with the GOR the member(s) leaving have to prove the damages
so you are going to court to try and claim damages from a contract that you willingly signed and that you are now willingly breaking.....that is a horrible legal argument and I don't think an argument of "well we think we can make more elsewhere" is really a good argument.....if that was the case them pretty much no contract would have value if one party thought they could do better by breaking it
in the case of the OP and the "just leave with nowhere to go" well that seems to have a ton of risk including as already pointed out being excluded from conference business after saying you are leaving.....and if you if have a home and can "do better" financially then you run the risk of enticement or collusion to get you to break a contract for your financial gain or the financial gain of another while causing financial harm to the party you have a contract with.....and that can get into 3X (treble) damages
which gets back to proving damages for willingly breaking the GOR.....well certainly it would seem the conference and the members could also claim those same damages or more.....they are losing guaranteed games, they will have to replace those games, they might have to buy in some replacement games ect and that has a cost
if moving to another conference that is not 100% owned by ESPN then ESPN could have a claim to damages.....but if being INCENTIVIZED to move to another 100% ESPN owned conference well now ESPN is possibly looking at some collusion or contractual tortious interference and they are not looking to take that risk for sure
plus if the conference keeps your media rights and shows your games then what are your damages?.....your games are still being shown, but the conference of course is not paying you......but if your new conference is paying you well again what are your damages?......but as pointed out why does a conference want a member that does not bring their media rights?.....well they probably do not.....so then you get back to the claim of "we want to break this contract we willingly signed because we can make better money elsewhere now"........which generally seems to be a horrible legal argument and allowing that pretty much means all contracts are worthless if one party feels they can do better financially for breaking it.....and why does the conference not have any damages for you breaking that contract.....and the legally horrible position of being offered financial enticement to break a contract.....which is often not legal and can result in 3X (treble) damages
so basically the GOR represents a very tangled legal knot which to successfully break requires a lot of very specious claims of only the party willingly breaking the contract suffering damages and the idea that "well we feel we can make more here" or worse yet "we have been offered more here".....neither of which is a very solid legal argument for unilaterally breaking a contract you willingly signed and one of which is a bad claim to make in court because it could be illegal
A for effort, sir ... what if GOR ruled unconstitutional ...
therefore unenforceable ...
an open question after all ...
FRUIT FROM POISONOUS TREE
How many layers of the court system (trials and appeals) would a case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court? Roughly how long would that process take?
long enough to incur reputational damage ...
the longer it takes the sweeter the kiss ...
LAYER UPON LAYER
Then that's probably too long to have any bearing on the current realignment situation.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
Which really matters little since the big obstacle is the GOR. Not to mention that there’s a good chance that the exit fee will be upheld no matter who hears the case. At the worst for the ACC the exit fee gets reduced a bit but it plus the GOR is an impossible hurdle. And also not to mention that every conference depends upon GORs so NO conference is interested in invalidating GORs.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 11:08 AM)Hallcity Wrote:
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
Which really matters little since the big obstacle is the GOR. Not to mention that there’s a good chance that the exit fee will be upheld no matter who hears the case. At the worst for the ACC the exit fee gets reduced a bit but it plus the GOR is an impossible hurdle. And also not to mention that every conference depends upon GORs so NO conference is interested in invalidating GORs.
I don't mean to be X's apologist, but every one of the 5 judges in the Middle District are beholden to WF, UVa, NC State, and/or UNC. Where they went to school is nearly meaningless. What matters is who got them appointed. If Jim Hunt or Kay Hagen got you appointed or you worked for years with Smith-Helms-Mullis-Moore-Wicker, or Womble-Carlyle, you are in the Va/NC legal back pocket. What looks like an ACC Athletic Issue to someone from Miami, misses the economic development issue it is considered to be with anyone with a hotel, restaurant, etc., up and down I-85 and I-77.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 12:56 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(09-04-2022 11:08 AM)Hallcity Wrote:
(09-01-2022 03:34 PM)XLance Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:37 AM)green Wrote:
(09-01-2022 09:19 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: any ACC school is going to be willing to take on that price tag.
how many times must I tell y’all before it sinks in ..
exit penalty can’t be punitive ...
akin to indentured servitude ...
applying to inanimate objects like for-profit corporations, too ...
HIGH COST OF LIVING
One more time.....
The ACC got a Federal Court Ruling that stipulated that ALL issues regarding membership was the jurisdiction of District Court in Greensboro, NC., where most of the judges are either Carolina or Wake Forest graduates. I can assure you that you will not you find a single judge that serves the District Court in Greensboro that would agree that the ACC's exit fee is punitive.
Which really matters little since the big obstacle is the GOR. Not to mention that there’s a good chance that the exit fee will be upheld no matter who hears the case. At the worst for the ACC the exit fee gets reduced a bit but it plus the GOR is an impossible hurdle. And also not to mention that every conference depends upon GORs so NO conference is interested in invalidating GORs.
I don't mean to be X's apologist, but every one of the 5 judges in the Middle District are beholden to WF, UVa, NC State, and/or UNC. Where they went to school is nearly meaningless. What matters is who got them appointed. If Jim Hunt or Kay Hagen got you appointed or you worked for years with Smith-Helms-Mullis-Moore-Wicker, or Womble-Carlyle, you are in the Va/NC legal back pocket. What looks like an ACC Athletic Issue to someone from Miami, misses the economic development issue it is considered to be with anyone with a hotel, restaurant, etc., up and down I-85 and I-77.
The University of Maryland employed the late US Senator Kay Hagan's husband Chip's law firm to represent them in Greensboro when Maryland departed the ACC. Agreement generally can be reached before things ever get to the courtroom and the government then just gives their stamp of approval.
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2022 02:49 PM by XLance.)
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 02:49 PM)XLance Wrote: The University of Maryland employed the late US Senator Kay Hagan's husband Chip's law firm to represent them in Greensboro when Maryland departed the ACC. Agreement generally can be reached before things ever get to the courtroom and the government then just gives their stamp of approval.
Author Anne Bishop said “Everything has a price” and the late Ray Kroc said “Contracts are like hearts, they’re made to be broken.”
I’m surprised at least one ACC school hasn’t tried to break The ACC GOR. Perhaps the risk is too great if you fail as many here have pointed out. I’m not sure discussions could even go through a third party. If anyone in the conference office got wind of a school wanting to leave, it would most likely be their fiduciary responsibility to inform conference membership.
RE: Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
(09-04-2022 09:25 AM)XLance Wrote: How many layers of the court system (trials and appeals) would a case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court? Roughly how long would that process take?
review is not automatic ...
at least 4 justices must agree to hear case ...
formally ...
granting certiorari or cert ...
success rate rather small ...
/
Why don’t schools who want to leave tell The ACC and just leave?
