After reading that FSU didn't sign the re-up, I was thinking the simplest solution might be to just hold them to the current deal without it. I'm not sure if it's 2026 or 2027, but either way, that's still roughly in time for the new CFP.

If they need out a year earlier, there's the TX/OK settlement precedent.

And this way everyone sidesteps the GoR question.

QED.

Let's just save everyone a lot of time, and just turn to the last page, and end all this now.

(12-25-2023 11:19 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  After reading that FSU didn't sign the re-up,

...what EXACTLY are you talking about? Because that doesn't match anything that seems to have happened.

Quote:I was thinking the simplest solution might be to just hold them to the current deal without it. I'm not sure if it's 2026 or 2027, but either way, that's still roughly in time for the new CFP.

If they need out a year earlier, there's the TX/OK settlement precedent.

And this way everyone sidesteps the GoR question.

"sidestepping" the GOR seems like "give FSU everything they want"

Quote:QED.

Let's just save everyone a lot of time, and just turn to the last page, and end all this now.

John Swofford's existing deal with ESPN expires June 30, 2027. ESPN's option to extend for another 10 seasons — should it choose to do so — would kick in for the fall of 2027.

Be interesting to see the revelation that "right now, there is no guaranteed media rights money for ACC members past 2027" impacts the ironclad GoR

(12-25-2023 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

John Swofford's existing deal with ESPN expires June 30, 2027. ESPN's option to extend for another 10 seasons — should it choose to do so — would kick in for the fall of 2027.

Be interesting to see the revelation that "right now, there is no guaranteed media rights money for ACC members past 2027" impacts the ironclad GoR

Not at all, I think
You took money from the new deal (ACC Network revenues).

(12-25-2023 12:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2023 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

John Swofford's existing deal with ESPN expires June 30, 2027. ESPN's option to extend for another 10 seasons — should it choose to do so — would kick in for the fall of 2027.

Be interesting to see the revelation that "right now, there is no guaranteed media rights money for ACC members past 2027" impacts the ironclad GoR

Not at all, I think
You took money from the new deal (ACC Network revenues).

If I'm not mistaken, the rights to ACC games have been granted to the ACC, not to ESPN. So even if ESPN opted not to renew its media contract, then the ACC retains the right to sell/lease them to other networks. But the GoR itself does not rely on there being media contracts with ESPN. And the contract in which ESPN became a 50% equity holder in the ACCN should not be affected. A major unanswered question in the event ESPN opts out of its media contract is how the parties decide which ACC games are broadcast on the ACCN and which go to their primary rights holder, be that FOX, NBC, CBS, Amazon, Apple et al.

(12-25-2023 12:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, the rights to ACC games have been granted to the ACC, not to ESPN. So even if ESPN opted not to renew its media contract, then the ACC retains the right to sell/lease them to other networks. But the GoR itself does not rely on there being media contracts with ESPN. And the contract in which ESPN became a 50% equity holder in the ACCN should not be affected. A major unanswered question in the event ESPN opts out of its media contract is how the parties decide which ACC games are broadcast on the ACCN and which go to their primary rights holder, be that FOX, NBC, CBS, Amazon, Apple et al.

This is a contradiction, or did Kliavkoff have it right all along? Sign a GoR and then try and do a media deal a year later???

If ESPN can opt out, the GoR should be invalid. ACC can shop but there is no way the big 3 would accept any media deal offered (barring unequal revenue sharing). Members are in a lose, lose situation. If FSUs argument holds, there should be a mandatory opt out for every member.

(12-25-2023 12:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-25-2023 12:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2023 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

John Swofford's existing deal with ESPN expires June 30, 2027. ESPN's option to extend for another 10 seasons — should it choose to do so — would kick in for the fall of 2027.

Be interesting to see the revelation that "right now, there is no guaranteed media rights money for ACC members past 2027" impacts the ironclad GoR

Not at all, I think
You took money from the new deal (ACC Network revenues).

If I'm not mistaken, the rights to ACC games have been granted to the ACC, not to ESPN. So even if ESPN opted not to renew its media contract, then the ACC retains the right to sell/lease them to other networks. But the GoR itself does not rely on there being media contracts with ESPN. And the contract in which ESPN became a 50% equity holder in the ACCN should not be affected. A major unanswered question in the event ESPN opts out of its media contract is how the parties decide which ACC games are broadcast on the ACCN and which go to their primary rights holder, be that FOX, NBC, CBS, Amazon, Apple et al.

I haven't seen the contracts, but the way I was assuming it would work:

For purposes of brevity, if ESPN declines the option, then the ACC Network goes away.

To be more specific, if ESPN does't pick up the option,
they don't own the rights to show the games on the cable channel labelled the ACC Network,
probably doesn't have the license to use the "ACC" trademark.
Without the ACC games and the ACC branding, I don't think the carriers are still obligated to carry the "SchmACC Schmetwork" or whatever ESPN converts it into.
Which adds up to: ACC Network goes away.

The ACC then makes whatever media deal they want, for their entire media rights package -- the ACC Network games, the CW games, the ESPN/ABC games. Just to sketch it out, let's say that a merged PAramount Warner buys the whole magilla and shows a Saturday primetime game on CBS, a couple of Saturday games on TBS, and the rest on MAX (or whatever they call their streamer at that point).

EDIT: Scrolling through the FSU lawsuit, I found:

66. The 2016 ACC Network Agreement granted ESPN the power to shut down the ACC Network even after launch under certain circumstances. In the event of such shutdown, ESPN would be obliged to start making the network placeholder consideration payments again, but only until June 30, 2027 (rather than to 2036).

(12-25-2023 12:54 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-25-2023 12:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, the rights to ACC games have been granted to the ACC, not to ESPN. So even if ESPN opted not to renew its media contract, then the ACC retains the right to sell/lease them to other networks. But the GoR itself does not rely on there being media contracts with ESPN. And the contract in which ESPN became a 50% equity holder in the ACCN should not be affected. A major unanswered question in the event ESPN opts out of its media contract is how the parties decide which ACC games are broadcast on the ACCN and which go to their primary rights holder, be that FOX, NBC, CBS, Amazon, Apple et al.

This is a contradiction, or did Kliavkoff have it right all along? Sign a GoR and then try and do a media deal a year later???

You're allowed to do that, certainly. The problem with that Kliavkoff plan was that even the PAC 12 schools weren't going to sign a GOR when they had no idea what the media contract was going to look like.

Quote:If ESPN can opt out, the GoR should be invalid.

That's not how it works. The ACC has already collected moneys from the 2016 contract. It doesn't matter how the moneys are budgeted over the life of the contract.

1. Even if FSU leaves, ESPN would likely consider the contract worth the money for the remaining teams.
2. Should ESPN decide not to renew, the rights revert to the ACC, not the schools. The ACC could then go to the open market - not necessarily a bad thing.
3. The GoR remains in place until 2036 regardless of what ESPN does. The only ones who could invalidate the GoR would be (a) a court with jurisdiction, or (b) the ACC member schools (but it might take 100% of them to end the GoR, as any who vote against it risk losing their voting rights).

Ok, so first, I said "settlement". : )

That aside, looking at what you all are talking about, I believe the text of the GoR makes it clear that it's linked to the espn deal.

Which sounds to me like: no deal, no GoR.

Look under the section called "recitals"

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...d1w2if.pdf

(Apparently the only update to this one was the 2016 extension.)

But that wasn't what I was looking at.

I was thinking that it says a lot about applying to "accepted members". So the settlement could be just that FSU is no longer considered an "accepted member" as far as the extension is concerned, if they just leave before the extension takes effect. (in 2027)

And also, if the contract they signed was to 2027, then that's an easy place to settle upon. Just hold them to that contract, and not to the unilateral expansion.

Doing it this way, yes, it would be the conference voting to let them out of the conference, etc.

But it allows the concept of a GoR to continue to be unchallenged.

I would think the various stake-holders and powers-that-be would jump at this solution.

And honestly - to address "fairness" (ie to avoid other schools' filing follow-up suits) allow any other ACC members who want to leave, to also do so.

The ACC rebuilds, and we go from there.

There's still the exit fee. and if they want out in 2026, and not 2027, there's that cost as well.

So whoever stays in the ACC will likely have some money to play with.

(12-25-2023 01:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Ok, so first, I said "settlement". : )

That aside, looking at what you all are talking about, I believe the text of the GoR makes it clear that it's linked to the espn deal.

Which sounds to me like: no deal, no GoR.

It's about seven years too late to say "no deal."
It's not a set of 20 one-year deals. The deal was sealed as soon as the ACC took the extra money from ESPN in 2016 and as soon as the schools took their share of that extra money.

Quote:Look under the section called "recitals"


Doing it this way, yes, it would be the conference voting to let them out of the conference, etc.

But it allows the concept of a GoR to continue to be unchallenged.

No it doesn't. Courts aren't idiots. Letting FSU out of the contract makes the Grant Of Rights a dead letter, and Clemson, Notre Dame, Miami, North Carolina or whoever can exit on the same terms.

Quote:I would think the various stake-holders and powers-that-be would jump at this solution.

And honestly - to address "fairness" (ie to avoid other schools' filing follow-up suits) allow any other ACC members who want to leave, to also do so.

The ACC rebuilds, and we go from there.

Would you sign this deal if you were the Wake Forest president? Syracuse? Boston College?

"The ACC rebuilds." There is no "rebuilding." Without your king programs, you're dead in the water. The Big 12 managed to outmaneuver the PAC 12 and survive, but that is a set of circumstances unlikely to recur.

Simplest solution;”: FSU shuts up, realizes they screwed up, and honors the contract THEY signed

(12-25-2023 01:46 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Simplest solution;”: FSU shuts up, realizes they screwed up, and honors the contract THEY signed

After they get a paper from a judge saying they have to, that they can show their donors and fans. I don't know that that's my prediction, but it's a better than 10% chance.

If we are being honest with each other, FSU should not owe the ACC anything. That's like an employer holding onto a former employee's check after he put in his 2 weeks notice and telling him he still owes the company more money besides that, but I realize that honest business dealing does not apply in the realm of conference realignment.

The 20 year GoR came into existence because ESPN required it as a condition to invest in a ACCN. Did the ACC get the ACCN? YES. Does that one team in Florida possibly leaving reduce carriage rates in the state? NO. Does that 1 team possibly leaving reduce the money each ACC member receives from ESPN? NO.

There is no damage done to the ACC, if there was damage done to ESPN then ESPN would be the one filing a suit against FSU.

The GoR should never be a tool to restrict somebody or some entity's right to free trade.

The exit fee will be negotiated and settled. The ACC is not going to settle for the GoR, though.

(12-31-1969 07:00 PM)random asian guy/03531876' Wrote:  The exit fee will be negotiated and settled. [b]The ACC is not going to settle for the GoR, though.[b]

Then there's no exit.

(12-25-2023 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-31-1969 07:00 PM)random asian guy/03531876' Wrote:  The exit fee will be negotiated and settled. [b]The ACC is not going to settle for the GoR, though.[b]

Then there's no exit.

I don’t know. FSU can buy out the entire amount, no?

(12-25-2023 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-31-1969 07:00 PM)random asian guy/03531876' Wrote:  The exit fee will be negotiated and settled. [b]The ACC is not going to settle for the GoR, though.[b]

Then there's no exit.

FSU will pay an exit fee, ethically it's a rip, but hopefully the ACC will accept a reduced payment and in return FSU could schedule some OOC games vs it's former conference members and still maintain a good relationship. Personally I think this is way more valuable, even in the short run.

(12-25-2023 01:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Ok, so first, I said "settlement". : )

That aside, looking at what you all are talking about, I believe the text of the GoR makes it clear that it's linked to the espn deal.

Which sounds to me like: no deal, no GoR.

Look under the section called "recitals"

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...d1w2if.pdf

(Apparently the only update to this one was the 2016 extension.)

But that wasn't what I was looking at.

I was thinking that it says a lot about applying to "accepted members". So the settlement could be just that FSU is no longer considered an "accepted member" as far as the extension is concerned, if they just leave before the extension takes effect. (in 2027)

And also, if the contract they signed was to 2027, then that's an easy place to settle upon. Just hold them to that contract, and not to the unilateral expansion.

Doing it this way, yes, it would be the conference voting to let them out of the conference, etc.

But it allows the concept of a GoR to continue to be unchallenged.

I would think the various stake-holders and powers-that-be would jump at this solution.

And honestly - to address "fairness" (ie to avoid other schools' filing follow-up suits) allow any other ACC members who want to leave, to also do so.

The ACC rebuilds, and we go from there.

There's still the exit fee. and if they want out in 2026, and not 2027, there's that cost as well.

So whoever stays in the ACC will likely have some money to play with.

I believe thats where this is headed. If ESPN was smart, they would have re-upped the contract prior to the FSU lawsuit.

Since they did not, the GOR will likely include up to the 2027 season.

A big reason for this is that the ACC signed a deal, not ratified by the schools, that gave ESPN an option to renew or not post 2027. If that is true, then the GOR 2027-2036 is not going to be valid. Had the schools ratified it, then FSU would lose on the GOR grounds.

So the likely result, if what we know is true, is that FSU gets out of the GOR for anything beyond the 2027 timeframe, as their equity on that part of the contract was nullified by the ACC single handidly granting espn a "look-out" period, which removed FSU's equity stake for their GOR.

So, if I had to guess, FSU is out of the GOR in 2027, and will have to pay an exit fee equal to what Maryland paid.

Thats what it will likely come down to.

(12-25-2023 01:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Ok, so first, I said "settlement". : )

That aside, looking at what you all are talking about, I believe the text of the GoR makes it clear that it's linked to the espn deal.

Which sounds to me like: no deal, no GoR.

Look under the section called "recitals"

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset...d1w2if.pdf

(Apparently the only update to this one was the 2016 extension.)

But that wasn't what I was looking at.

I was thinking that it says a lot about applying to "accepted members". So the settlement could be just that FSU is no longer considered an "accepted member" as far as the extension is concerned, if they just leave before the extension takes effect. (in 2027)

And also, if the contract they signed was to 2027, then that's an easy place to settle upon. Just hold them to that contract, and not to the unilateral expansion.

Doing it this way, yes, it would be the conference voting to let them out of the conference, etc.

But it allows the concept of a GoR to continue to be unchallenged.

I would think the various stake-holders and powers-that-be would jump at this solution.

And honestly - to address "fairness" (ie to avoid other schools' filing follow-up suits) allow any other ACC members who want to leave, to also do so.

The ACC rebuilds, and we go from there.

There's still the exit fee. and if they want out in 2026, and not 2027, there's that cost as well.

So whoever stays in the ACC will likely have some money to play with.

I believe thats where this is headed. If ESPN was smart, they would have re-upped the contract prior to the FSU lawsuit.

Since they did not, the GOR will likely include up to the 2027 season.

A big reason for this is that the ACC signed a deal, not ratified by the schools, that gave ESPN an option to renew or not post 2027. If that is true, the the GOR 2027-2036 is not going to be valid. Had the schools ratified it, then FSU would lose on the GOR grounds.

So the likely result, if what we know is true, is that FSU gets out of the GOR for anything beyond the 2027 timeframe, as their equity on that part of the contract was nullified by the ACC single handidly granting espn a "look-out" period.

So, if I had to guess, FSU is out of the GOR in 2027, and will have to pay an exit fee equal to what Maryland paid.

Thats what it will likely come down to.