The case seems flimsy.
FSU alleges that in 2013 it was defrauded by the ACC when it willingly signing onto the GOR due to media rights projections for a network being off. Projections are estimates. They are NOT provisos. I supposed the entirety of the PAC should sue Larry Scott right now for defrauding them.

Secondly FSU is not challenging thier willing extension of the GOR in 2016. It seems like extending the GOR 3 YEARS later was enough time to evaluate what you signed for fraud. I am sorry FSU did not do it's due diligence, but a contract is a contract....

(07-31-2023 05:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 04:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 04:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  "My contact alleges the revenue projections presented to Florida State's Board of Trustees on March 7, 2013, by ACC Commissioner John Swofford and TV consultant Dean Jordan, were grossly inaccurate and misleading.

FSU's Board acted on the bad-faith representations of the ACC. Swofford and Jordan knew the revenue projections were unrealistic yet assured the Board profits from a conference network would put the Seminoles on par with their SEC peers."

Well they couldn't go after Swofford without going after Dean Jordan and the Wasserman Group.

https://www.uncsesummit.com/past-speakers/Dean-Jordan

That's a lot of lawyers and a very lengthy trial where FSU will have to prove that the ACC and the Wasserman group colluded to defraud not only FSU but all of the schools in the ACC, or that the data presented to FSU was different from the other schools.
Generally consulting groups submit mountains of data in published reports to support their recommendations.
Lots of lawyers in a lengthy trial..................

It might also serve as a useful tool should ESPN find a reason to use it. We'll see.

Wasserman would probably bring suit against ESPN, in that I would presume that much of the broadcast data was collected from ESPN.
I doubt that ESPN would want that type of discovery, especially when Wasserman's lawyers had John Skipper directing them as to where to look.


Maybe FSU's true goal is to put ESPN in such a bind that they would be willing to provide the $600 Million for the Noles to exit the ACC.

The peculiar thing here X is that the same network owns the SEC's rights and the ACC's rights. Florida State ceded their rights to the conference, then the conference bundled those rights and sold them to ESPN until 2036. Now if FSU cost the other ACC schools a loss on those rights by leaving yes they will owe. But if ESPN chooses to pay the remaining schools as if FSU never left and do so through 2036 the FSU can leave for an exit fee. Damages in a GOR case cannot be claimed unless actual monetary damages have been incurred.

Let's say hypothetically that Clemson and Florida State leave. If ESPN pays the ACC as if they haven't left there are no GOR damages. As FSU has not cost the ACC anything through the duration of the GOR at the end of which they are free to go. IF the ACC is paid then ESPN can show those games anywhere.

If two networks were involved the options wouldn't be there and FSU would be stuck, but there is much ESPN can do to mitigate the damages.

I think this will get interesting in that regard.

Let's do say that Clemson and Florida State left.
Would NC State's gate be hurt on the Saturday's those two schools were supposed to appear in Raleigh.....absolutely.
Might NC State be robbed of an opportunity to play in the 3:30 game on ABC costing them untold exposure....you bet.

Those are real damages multiplied by the number of conference games that FSU and Clemson would have played in.....now you're talking about REAL money.

I doubt that ESPN is willing to pay for those provable losses for the next 13 years for all 12 remaining teams. And because they are provable, it's doubtful that ESPN, Clemson or FSU would have very good days in court.

If FSU successful, could ESPN cancel its contract with the ACC?

(07-31-2023 07:17 AM)Huan Wrote:  If FSU successful, could ESPN cancel its contract with the ACC?

Which would be another reason for the ACC and the 12 remaining ACC schools to sue ESPN, Clemson and Florida State.

(07-31-2023 06:29 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  The case seems flimsy.
FSU alleges that in 2013 it was defrauded by the ACC when it willingly signing onto the GOR due to media rights projections for a network being off. Projections are estimates. They are NOT provisos. I supposed the entirety of the PAC should sue Larry Scott right now for defrauding them.

Secondly FSU is not challenging thier willing extension of the GOR in 2016. It seems like extending the GOR 3 YEARS later was enough time to evaluate what you signed for fraud. I am sorry FSU did not do it's due diligence, but a contract is a contract....

This. I am not a lawyer but understand that (1) projections are estimates and that (2) parties to a contract have to do their due diligence before signing anything. To add, it’s also impossible to accurately predict cost increases due to natural disasters, bad policy making, FED policies, etc. in the economic long run.

Florida State and others will also have to weigh the risk that not only may they lose the case, they might also have to pay the legal costs of the defendants. They would thus wind up in worse financial shape in the future.

Bringing such a suit would be quite stupid and the plaintiffs would deserve their fate if they do so.

(07-31-2023 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 07:17 AM)Huan Wrote:  If FSU successful, could ESPN cancel its contract with the ACC?

Which would be another reason for the ACC and the 12 remaining ACC schools to sue ESPN, Clemson and Florida State.

Going after ESPN seems like a bad idea.

As a result of the ACC's fraud, Florida State's ability to compete with regional rivals in the SEC and Big 12 is jeopardized.

What a clown show from "Big XII Insider"

Yes, all of FSU's regional foes in the Big XII. What a joke. I can't believe you lemmings sometimes.

(07-31-2023 04:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  FSU had to know in 2013 and 2016 it might not be in their long term financial interests to sign a GOR with the ACC. FSU probably knew there was a chance that Swofford's numbers were overly optimistic but they signed the GOR anyway.

Maybe FSU did it for the good of the ACC over their own self interests, but whatever the reason, at the time they willingly signed the GOR knowing the estimates could turn out to be low.

IMO FSU went along with the GOR in 2016 because they believed the ACC was their best path to natl championships & the conference payouts weren't as dissimilar then as now.

Just a reminder there is a non-zero risk to the ACC. And the setup is asymmetrical.

Say FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, challenge the GOR

FSU risks losing legal fees to gain hundreds of millions. The ACC leftovers risk losing legal fees and hundreds of millions to gain status quo.

A settlement is a win-win

(07-31-2023 07:49 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Just a reminder there is a non-zero risk to the ACC. And the setup is asymmetrical.

Say FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, challenge the GOR

FSU risks losing legal fees to gain hundreds of millions. The ACC leftovers risk losing legal fees and hundreds of millions to gain status quo.

A settlement is a win-win

Oh there is absolutely a risk for any school challenging it and ending up outside of the SEC and Big 10. There is no monetary evidence the ACC houses enough programs to warrant inclusion after the additions of Oklahoma, Texas, USC, and UCLA.

The bar has been set and any program not bringing that level of value is dilutive unless those conferences want to start trimming the fat. People often conveniently ignore this when promoting their "P3" agenda.

(07-31-2023 03:00 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The author implies that the ACC committed fraud when they (Swofford and media consultant) presented to the FSU Board of Directors prior to the original 2013 GOR.

Yet FSU agreed to the media rights extension and a new GOR in 2016.

Which of course is what the ACC will argue in court. This is what allows FSU to depart. FSU contests the merits of the GOR. The ACC counter argues and then settlement is reached at some number considerably less than what FSU would actually owe if they had to pay the full GOR exposure.

The bottom line is that FSU has to present a misrepresentation to a) proffer the reason for departure and b) to inevitably buy down the penalty for leaving during the contract.

(07-31-2023 07:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 03:00 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The author implies that the ACC committed fraud when they (Swofford and media consultant) presented to the FSU Board of Directors prior to the original 2013 GOR.

Yet FSU agreed to the media rights extension and a new GOR in 2016.

Which of course is what the ACC will argue in court. This is what allows FSU to depart. FSU contests the merits of the GOR. The ACC counter argues and then settlement is reached at some number considerably less than what FSU would actually owe if they had to pay the full GOR exposure.

The bottom line is that FSU has to present a misrepresentation to a) proffer the reason for departure and b) to inevitably buy down the penalty for leaving during the contract.

The problem with this theory is that the ACC has much more to lose than just FSU if their GOR can be mitigated.

I don't see how there was Criminal Intent to justify Fraud.

At the end of the day FSU signed the contract. If they're too stupid to have read it that's on them.

(07-31-2023 07:57 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 07:54 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 03:00 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The author implies that the ACC committed fraud when they (Swofford and media consultant) presented to the FSU Board of Directors prior to the original 2013 GOR.

Yet FSU agreed to the media rights extension and a new GOR in 2016.

Which of course is what the ACC will argue in court. This is what allows FSU to depart. FSU contests the merits of the GOR. The ACC counter argues and then settlement is reached at some number considerably less than what FSU would actually owe if they had to pay the full GOR exposure.

The bottom line is that FSU has to present a misrepresentation to a) proffer the reason for departure and b) to inevitably buy down the penalty for leaving during the contract.

The problem with this theory is that the ACC has much more to lose than just FSU if their GOR can be mitigated.

Would you choose a controlled burn that is tenable solution to removing catastrophic wildfire risk, or just wait for the wildfire and hope it works out with little collateral damage?

The asymmetry for leftover schools isn’t good. They don’t want this going to court and risk removing the ability to get something out of the GOR. If several schools are willing to challenge, it behooves the other schools to find a settlement- cash in on the GOR and get something

(07-31-2023 07:53 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 07:49 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Just a reminder there is a non-zero risk to the ACC. And the setup is asymmetrical.

Say FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, challenge the GOR

FSU risks losing legal fees to gain hundreds of millions. The ACC leftovers risk losing legal fees and hundreds of millions to gain status quo.

A settlement is a win-win

Oh there is absolutely a risk for any school challenging it and ending up outside of the SEC and Big 10. There is no monetary evidence the ACC houses enough programs to warrant inclusion after the additions of Oklahoma, Texas, USC, and UCLA.

The bar has been set and any program not bringing that level of value is dilutive unless those conferences want to start trimming the fat. People often conveniently ignore this when promoting their "P3" agenda.

If those that challenge the GOR lose, the ACC will take them back.

That conference is weak as it is- ESPN wants no part in paying the ACC the balance of the GOR without its top football schools. And kicking out the top football schools would make 2036 a true death sentence, with no chance of positive expansion

Low risk, high reward for FSU. High risk, no reward over status quo for ACC

I wonder what the chances are that a jury in North Carolina would side with Florida State if this ever went to trial. And whose side would ESPN be on? Would they not have had a hand in whatever projections were made at the time? Or is FSU to claim that they, and only they, were given different projections than all the other parties to the contract, and that all the others were co-conspirators?

(07-31-2023 08:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  I wonder what the chances are that a jury in North Carolina would side with Florida State if this ever went to trial. And whose side would ESPN be on? Would they not have had a hand in whatever projections were made at the time? Or is FSU to claim that they, and only they, were given different projections than all the other parties to the contract, and that all the others were co-conspirators?

If they can't prove that then Wasserman sues Florida State.


From Above
"That's a lot of lawyers and a very lengthy trial where FSU will have to prove that the ACC and the Wasserman group colluded to defraud not only FSU but all of the schools in the ACC, or that the data presented to FSU was different from the other schools.
Generally consulting groups submit mountains of data in published reports to support their recommendations.
Lots of lawyers in a lengthy trial.................."
X

(07-31-2023 07:20 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 06:29 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  The case seems flimsy.
FSU alleges that in 2013 it was defrauded by the ACC when it willingly signing onto the GOR due to media rights projections for a network being off. Projections are estimates. They are NOT provisos. I supposed the entirety of the PAC should sue Larry Scott right now for defrauding them.

Secondly FSU is not challenging thier willing extension of the GOR in 2016. It seems like extending the GOR 3 YEARS later was enough time to evaluate what you signed for fraud. I am sorry FSU did not do it's due diligence, but a contract is a contract....

This. I am not a lawyer but understand that (1) projections are estimates and that (2) parties to a contract have to do their due diligence before signing anything. To add, it’s also impossible to accurately predict cost increases due to natural disasters, bad policy making, FED policies, etc. in the economic long run.

Florida State and others will also have to weigh the risk that not only may they lose the case, they might also have to pay the legal costs of the defendants. They would thus wind up in worse financial shape in the future.

Bringing such a suit would be quite stupid and the plaintiffs would deserve their fate if they do so.

Also not a lawyer. That said, I have to imagine that an extension of a fraudulent contract, is still considered to be invalid if the original contract is demonstrated to be fraudulent to the courts.

It's hard to understand why FSU would sabre rattle this much if the don't at least think they have solid proof or misrepresentation and/or unfulfilled promises... if they don't have that, that would pretty much imply they're just trying to bluff the ACC into revealing embarrassing documents in court in the hopes the ACC will settle to avoid that. Maybe we'll all finally get to see that GOR contract that is stashed in Greensboro.

Keep one thing in mind. You can be rest assured that FSU attorney's have already gamed out a) how much they project they can negotiate the GOR exit down to; b)the revenue increase by going to x conference and c) the delta in terms of how long it will take them to recoup those losses.

Moreover, we know that CFP money is basically set to almost double. When it does the SEC payout is going to be at least double the ACC. And the BIG revenue is already $30M more per school than the AAC and that's before the CFP expansion.

Bottom line is FSU can see that if they can get the GOR buyout down to let's say $40 million, it won't take but a few years to recoup that in the BIG or SEC. I still don't think BIG is viable. Just hypothesizing the discussion FSU is assuredly having to rationalize the decision from monetary standpoint and why it's probably not that big of a concern even if they have to pay a huge penalty.