RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
They have to be careful to avoid an action for tortious interference in a contract that can be filed in Charlotte by any of the ACC members. The introduction of the FSU timeline of actions through 2023 is a warning shot to that. The league does not need to bring that suit, it can be brought by a member with standing against the FSU Board who has no sovereign immunity when acting as a Football or Basketball pimp in the State of NC.
Sovereign immunity happens when you engage in Governmental actions like policing nor commercial actions. This is what makes your city's water and sewer a Public Enterprise, not a Governmental thing. FSU has ratified that by deed and action for over a decade.
Most of us remember Blumenthal's time as Connecticut Attorney General. Imagine a future NC Attorney General who wants to make hay for carrying water for WF, Duke, or another NC member of the ACC.
FSU would be wise stop now, but they may be politically unable to walk back their rhetoric. That will mean eventually meeting WF and Duke in court in Charlotte and then again Richmond.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 08:31 AM by SouthernConfBoy.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
I see what you are saying. My thought is that what FSU claims somethings says and what it really says is usually different - like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context. I suspect it might actually mention ESPN as if it were an example with the actual language pledging the rights to the ACC in such as fashion as to make those rights portable to another entity like CBS or NBC without stating that explicitly.
I suspect that FSU gave their rights to the ACC not only for the ESPN Base Contract and/or the ACCN but gave them to the ACC for the purpose of all future TV contracts that can be negotiated. I might be wrong. If that's the case, ESPN itself is sort of a red herring. I just don't trust anything that FSU describes as being fully accurate.
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Thats true, if you are a reasonable person who is able to look at a situation and draw a reasonable conclusion based on logic. Some here dont always display that sort of reasonableness.
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context.
The claim was that the FSU president did not have the authority to sign and the BOT are the only ones that could approve. Technically, that is the law in Florida, but after 7-8 years of payments it was not likely to be upheld. It was a 70 yard FG attempt at the end of the half, if it goes in great, if not then it was expected.
The ACC having their claim of “FSU having feduciary duty to the ACC” and not the other way around was the ACC’s Hail Mary, they got sacked on the play and flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 10:41 AM by Garrettabc.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
It doesn't make sense that a grant of rights can be eternal, which is what you are implying.
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
I see what you are saying. My thought is that what FSU claims somethings says and what it really says is usually different - like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context. I suspect it might actually mention ESPN as if it were an example with the actual language pledging the rights to the ACC in such as fashion as to make those rights portable to another entity like CBS or NBC without stating that explicitly.
I suspect that FSU gave their rights to the ACC not only for the ESPN Base Contract and/or the ACCN but gave them to the ACC for the purpose of all future TV contracts that can be negotiated. I might be wrong. If that's the case, ESPN itself is sort of a red herring. I just don't trust anything that FSU describes as being fully accurate.
It doesn't make sense that a grant of rights is eternal, which is what you are suggesting. And how do you place a value on "future contracts to be negotiated" in an uncertain market environment?
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 11:10 AM by Redwood86.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 11:08 AM)Redwood86 Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
It doesn't make sense that a grant of rights can be eternal, which is what you are implying.
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
I see what you are saying. My thought is that what FSU claims somethings says and what it really says is usually different - like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context. I suspect it might actually mention ESPN as if it were an example with the actual language pledging the rights to the ACC in such as fashion as to make those rights portable to another entity like CBS or NBC without stating that explicitly.
I suspect that FSU gave their rights to the ACC not only for the ESPN Base Contract and/or the ACCN but gave them to the ACC for the purpose of all future TV contracts that can be negotiated. I might be wrong. If that's the case, ESPN itself is sort of a red herring. I just don't trust anything that FSU describes as being fully accurate.
It doesn't make sense that a grant of rights is eternal, which is what you are suggesting. And how do you place a value on "future contracts to be negotiated" in an uncertain market environment?
It would not be eternal, it would exist concurrent to membership in the conference. You get out of it with notice plus any value relative to the contracts that are in place. That means a variable GOR value for the life of it's utility. Right now for example the ACC schools are on the hook for a GOR through the end of ACC contracts with ESPN. From the moment an extension was hypothesized, documents passed, and money received, every ACC was on the hook. The value of that hook is different for each school. I've often thought that WF's GOR value to the ACC might be near zero with FSU's, UNC's, and Clemson's far and away the highest. Noticing an exit in the future does not get you off the GOR hook until the contracts associated with are gone. If 2027 rolls around and ESPN has walked away and no other media outlet has picked up the ACC then all the GOR's lapse. Essentially you are being forced into a nearly decade long notice and you can't take money from the next contract and they sue against it.
I think the way to look at the ACC GOR is to look at it from the point of view of WF, Duke, and GT - it's maximum protection for the little guys so to speak because they have the most to lose if bigger guys fail to live up to the terms of the bargain.
You don't need to be a fiduciary to WF because you are in a contract with them via the ACC.
The ACC can pull up in 2025 and sign a deal with NBC if ESPN folds. FSU will be stuck in that deal as well unless and until they notice an exit. They will be stuck in the deal even if they vote against if it passes by 3/4ths.
The entire premise of FSU's actions is that they are the damaged party and are owed something by the ACC. The Judge reminded them yesterday that it's the other way around.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 11:39 AM by SouthernConfBoy.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
Think of it this way. FSU bought a time share that stipulates maintenance fees and who sets them. FSU says it no longer wants the time share but the bills keep coming for the maintenance. FSU wants to resolve the issue without using bankruptcy and without paying any of the fees - they want to walk away clean. And while this is happening they want to lease part of another time share that's in a better location.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 11:45 AM by SouthernConfBoy.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 10:39 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context.
The claim was that the FSU president did not have the authority to sign and the BOT are the only ones that could approve. Technically, that is the law in Florida, but after 7-8 years of payments it was not likely to be upheld. It was a 70 yard FG attempt at the end of the half, if it goes in great, if not then it was expected.
The ACC having their claim of “FSU having feduciary duty to the ACC” and not the other way around was the ACC’s Hail Mary, they got sacked on the play and flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.
At least you didn't say they were flagged for holding... as I'm sure you know, it's in the bylaws that ACC teams don't get holding penalties when they play FSU!
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 04:02 PM by Hokie Mark.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:59 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote: Nothing yesterday was a surprise so FSU's chance were unaffected by yesterday's rulings.
Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
I see what you are saying. My thought is that what FSU claims somethings says and what it really says is usually different - like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context. I suspect it might actually mention ESPN as if it were an example with the actual language pledging the rights to the ACC in such as fashion as to make those rights portable to another entity like CBS or NBC without stating that explicitly.
I suspect that FSU gave their rights to the ACC not only for the ESPN Base Contract and/or the ACCN but gave them to the ACC for the purpose of all future TV contracts that can be negotiated. I might be wrong. If that's the case, ESPN itself is sort of a red herring. I just don't trust anything that FSU describes as being fully accurate.
I don't think it's a case of FSU misreading it this time. Obviously, I don't have a copy of the latest Grant of Rights document, but I do have a copy of the 2013 version (it appears to be the UNC copy, downloaded from WRALSports). Here's what I'm talking about:
Quote:1. Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement... the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the ESPN Agreement... Works that are created under the ESPN Agreement... events of such Member Institution during the Term which are reserved to the Conference and the Member Institution under the ESPN Agreement and which may be exercised as permitted by the ESPN Agreement...
IANAL, but it looks to me like there's no GoR without "the ESPN Agreement"!
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 04:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:42 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 08:19 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:
(04-05-2024 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: Agreed. Even the Florida judge was likely to agree that NC is the right venue once Clemson sued (maybe even before). We'll hear from that judge next Tuesday, IIRC.
I don't like FSU's chances in this case, but that 2027-36 contract option gives them a glimmer of hope...
What about the contract option give them "hope".
The language in the GoR says it's purpose is to allow the ACC to meet it's obligations under the ESPN contract. If, for whatever reason, they don't extent it past 2027, the GoR ends with the contract (most likely - IANAL).
I see what you are saying. My thought is that what FSU claims somethings says and what it really says is usually different - like their claim that the Board of Trustees is not FSU and that FSU never signed anything. No one has posted the actual GOR language in full context. I suspect it might actually mention ESPN as if it were an example with the actual language pledging the rights to the ACC in such as fashion as to make those rights portable to another entity like CBS or NBC without stating that explicitly.
I suspect that FSU gave their rights to the ACC not only for the ESPN Base Contract and/or the ACCN but gave them to the ACC for the purpose of all future TV contracts that can be negotiated. I might be wrong. If that's the case, ESPN itself is sort of a red herring. I just don't trust anything that FSU describes as being fully accurate.
I don't think it's a case of FSU misreading it this time. Obviously, I don't have a copy of the latest Grant of Rights document, but I do have a copy of the 2013 version (it appears to be the UNC copy, downloaded from WRALSports). Here's what I'm talking about:
Quote:1. Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement... the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the ESPN Agreement... Works that are created under the ESPN Agreement... events of such Member Institution during the Term which are reserved to the Conference and the Member Institution under the ESPN Agreement and which may be exercised as permitted by the ESPN Agreement...
IANAL, but it looks to me like there's no GoR without "the ESPN Agreement"!
I tend to agree with your analysis of what the 2013 GOR says. I note the stating of a term in Part 1 - until June 30 2027 that is stated in Part 5. Part 6 indicates that the schools can take a negative action or fail to act in support of the contract. Part 8 has a severability clause but the wording on modification is tricky. Modification is possible but the exact method of modification is not stated. Could it be that subsequent action by the Executive, then supported after the fact by the Board of Directors then by the necessary 2/3 or 3/4 have bound FSU and all others to 2036? Would cashing a check ratify that?
The trick to boards like this is that subcommittees of the Board and changing sets of minorities on the board can be shifted and traded to create a de facto majority that covers up any action after the fact.
I think the 2013 GOR document may be worthless and that one or two intervening documents have to be out there. If they were out there, I think FSU would have floated them.
It seems to me that the cheapest thing FSU can do is notice a July 1, 2027 exit subject to ESPN not picking up the contract. Then if the contract is picked up determine what is owed by FSU after July 2027, That stops the bleeding at a date certain 2036.
The way I read the fourth Whereas section combined with the Section 3 on the agreement to sign anything that advances the whole thing - the description that strikes me is "blank check". I think all the schools signed the equivalent of a blank check that the schools promised to make good in all circumstances. That's sorta of against public policy but these are big boys playing at entertainment, not playing at government.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2024 04:52 PM by SouthernConfBoy.)
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(03-29-2024 02:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote: A cogent summary of key points by Matt Baker (Tampa Bay Times) that gets mention early in the video.
Like Mr Rohan, Mr Baker doesn't see the Florida State 'intention to leave' language as the news that Mr Schoffel does. The key legal point is the push for discovery.
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-05-2024 06:45 PM)green Wrote:
(03-29-2024 02:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote: A cogent summary of key points by Matt Baker (Tampa Bay Times) that gets mention early in the video.
Like Mr Rohan, Mr Baker doesn't see the Florida State 'intention to leave' language as the news that Mr Schoffel does. The key legal point is the push for discovery.
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
(04-06-2024 07:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2024 06:45 PM)green Wrote:
(03-29-2024 02:20 AM)Gitanole Wrote: A cogent summary of key points by Matt Baker (Tampa Bay Times) that gets mention early in the video.
Like Mr Rohan, Mr Baker doesn't see the Florida State 'intention to leave' language as the news that Mr Schoffel does. The key legal point is the push for discovery.
RE: Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/4/24)
Thank you for the discussion, I have learned a lot.
It's a shame that there are those that try to re-direct away from meaty discussion that doesn't have a positive FSU spin.
It appears as tough the 'Noles learned a lot from Maryland's internet campaign.
/
Doug Rohan comments on FSU vs the ACC (4/22/24)
