MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

[Hold My Beer]

I believe that has been fairly proven [that 2/3 DID NOT approve] unless Phillips is using the, "...ya'll gave me authority to act on your behalf in memorandum blah, blah, blah..."?

... and why wouldn't Phillips behave that way?

His predecessor ran the ACC like a fiefdom for 24 years.

The FSU and Clemson lawyers have yet to play their hole card wrt John Swofford's crooked dealings, but best believe both Phillips and ESPN know it would be a major problem

 

[TheOGCane]

So we need to send out a BAT SIGNAL.

FSU and CLEMSON are the pioneers. But we’re 4 shy. MIAMI has to sue so other schools know we just need THREE more to severe ties with the leeches. If it’s just FSU and CLSMSON, then people think we’re too far from the six needed. Throw in MIAMI and an avalanche comes behind it.

 

[Squid Bumciorek]

I come in this thread sporadically. So where we’re at now is that an improper extension (need 2/3 of members and didn’t bring it to the members) was done with ESPN and then the GOR was done on some false basis???

This is where you have to differentiate between pretend internet lawyers and real lawyers. From espn’s perspective, It’s irrelevant whether the bylaws were being followed, unless they should have had a clear understanding that Swofford didn’t have authority. There was no false basis from espns perspective. ESPN has signed similar tv deals a bunch of times dealing with other conference commissioner, there was no reason to things were different this time. One would think that upon being told the commissioner had negotiated an extension as widely reported in the media, some ACC school would have asked questions. None did because they thought they had a great deal at the time.
—
Let’s say you go to buy a fancy minivan (msrp is 59k) and you are talking to a salesman -and you say I’m not paying a dollar more than $50,000 plus I want free floormats. And also I want a free extended 10 year warranty . And that cookie on your desk. The salesman says “I need to talk to my manager". He just goes into the bathroom instead, takes a dump and says "My manager agreed, let’s sign the paperwork. You sign it and drive off.

Then you get a call from the manager saying the salesman didn’t have authority to give you free floor mats and the warranty. You need to bring it back or the contract is void. No court of law would back the dealership. You relied on the apparent authority of the salesman. It’s not your job to go knock the managers door to make sure it’s kosher. If the dealership wants to get out of the warranty, they can try to pay you off, but otherwise they are on the hook and the minivan is yours. Whether Swofford broke bylaws is an internal ACC problem, but even if he did, it doesn’t automatically void espns media deal with the ACC teams. And even if the teams try to get clever and dissolve the conference, the deal still binds the ACC teams because you can’t get out of legal obligations simply by changing company names.

The end game is Either ESPN allows teams to change conferences to espn affiliates Big12/SEC (because it makes espn more money) or it tells the ACC its keeping the deal and you have lots of angry teams chirping about how espn sucks. Most likely COA- and you can take THIS to the bank, is a settlement with extra money to top teams (very unequal distro but that’s still better for the bad teams who would be G5 otherwise ) and extension to 2030. Then UM to B1G after that.

 

[ICANEDOIT]

And you graduated from?

UM undergrad and UVa Law.

 

[Ispyin]

Going to take a judge to rule at some point but at the moment it appears that two major aspects are:

1. The GOR that was signed by members references a SPECIFIC ESPN media agreement including specific AMENDMENTS.

2. The option to extend, from 2027 to 2036, granted by Phillips in August 2021 is a NEW AMENDMENT to the ESPN media agreement (so stated
in the document itself) and any amendment requires 2/3rds member approval, it is NOT referenced in the GOR signed by members and it was
NOT approved by ACC members, therefore it is a non-binding document.

Clemson agrees that the GOR is binding ... for what the GOR covers ... a media agreement that expires on 6/30/27, and FSU agrees.

Correct in theory there could be a GOR in place through 2036 between teams and conference, but no media deal post 2027, and any new extension would need to be properly approved by 2/3….

So aka realignment purgatory pending court resolution or settlement

PLUS

resolution of definition of “current members” on gor and if it applies if you withdraw.

 

[Empirical Cane]

... and why wouldn't Phillips behave that way?

His predecessor ran the ACC like a fiefdom for 24 years.

The FSU and Clemson lawyers have yet to play their hole card wrt John Swofford's crooked dealings, but best believe both Phillips and ESPN know it would be a major problem

Why wouldn't they have played that card by now? Holding it back only prolongs the misery and that is antithetical to what FSU is seeking-- immediate realease.

Am I missing something?

 

[Cane30]

Not only did Phillips amend without members voting, the contract stipulates ESPN has 2 years from the ACCNT being up (2019) to opt in to 36. ESPN said, no. Instead, Phillips and ESPN agreed to draw up and sign a memo extending that date into the future. This was not provided to any member much less voted on. This memo claims to amend the media agreement. The memo was completed 5 years after the current GOR's contract. Any change to the media agreement requires a 2/3rds vote. Surely, the 3 new members were not presented with any of this.

 

[CaneFan79]

... and why wouldn't Phillips behave that way?

His predecessor ran the ACC like a fiefdom for 24 years.

The FSU and Clemson lawyers have yet to play their hole card wrt John Swofford's crooked dealings, but best believe both Phillips and ESPN know it would be a major problem

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradl...man-who-saved-the-acc/HTL2R7KYVXlhuB2S3Ra0LI/

Always gotta like when access/puff piec...Err, News Articles, written by propagandi...Err, journalists, age as well as milk left out in the 95 degree sun.

 

[Empirical Cane]

UM undergrad and UVa Law.

I stayed in Holiday Inn and a tent in the desert once.

Can I object or something? I want to be dramatic.

I also want to bang the hot nympho secretary/paralegal.

 

[Empirical Cane]

"...One would think that upon being told the commissioner had negotiated an extension as widely reported in the media, some ACC school would have asked questions. None did because they thought they had a great deal at the time..."

VERY underrated comment and ***** in FSU's armor no?

Squid von Hammerstein bringing the ink this morning after a bowl of wheaties.

 

[Cane6]

This is where you have to differentiate between pretend internet lawyers and real lawyers. From espn’s perspective, It’s irrelevant whether the bylaws were being followed, unless they should have had a clear understanding that Swofford didn’t have authority. There was no false basis from espns perspective. ESPN has signed similar tv deals a bunch of times dealing with other conference commissioner, there was no reason to things were different this time. One would think that upon being told the commissioner had negotiated an extension as widely reported in the media, some ACC school would have asked questions. None did because they thought they had a great deal at the time.
—
Let’s say you go to buy a fancy minivan (msrp is 59k) and you are talking to a salesman -and you say I’m not paying a dollar more than $50,000 plus I want free floormats. And also I want a free extended 10 year warranty . And that cookie on your desk. The salesman says “I need to talk to my manager". He just goes into the bathroom instead, takes a dump and says "My manager agreed, let’s sign the paperwork. You sign it and drive off.

Then you get a call from the manager saying the salesman didn’t have authority to give you free floor mats and the warranty. You need to bring it back or the contract is void. No court of law would back the dealership. You relied on the apparent authority of the salesman. It’s not your job to go knock the managers door to make sure it’s kosher. If the dealership wants to get out of the warranty, they can try to pay you off, but otherwise they are on the hook and the minivan is yours. Whether Swofford broke bylaws is an internal ACC problem, but even if he did, it doesn’t automatically void espns media deal with the ACC teams. And even if the teams try to get clever and dissolve the conference, the deal still binds the ACC teams because you can’t get out of legal obligations simply by changing company names.

The end game is Either ESPN allows teams to change conferences to espn affiliates Big12/SEC (because it makes espn more money) or it tells the ACC its keeping the deal and you have lots of angry teams chirping about how espn sucks. Most likely COA- and you can take THIS to the bank, is a settlement with extra money to top teams (very unequal distro but that’s still better for the bad teams who would be G5 otherwise ) and extension to 2030. Then UM to B1G after that.

You have no idea how Bylaws, Operating Agreements or Resolutions work…

By your train of thought, the janitor at Tesla can sign a contract selling the company for $1, and Elon can’t object to the sale.

 

[Rickd]

VERY underrated comment and ***** in FSU's armor no?

Squid von Hammerstein bringing the ink this morning after a bowl of wheaties.

The announcement that was widely in the media was July 2016 ... that ESPN had agreed to a 20 year extension through 2036 ... which turns out to be FALSE as the media agreement runs only through June 30, 2027. When that announcement was made in 2016 ESPN had a option to extend an additional 9 years ... but that option had to be exercised within 2 years of the launch of the ACCN which launched in July 2019. So the OPTION expired in July 2021, and that is when Phillips executed an ILLEGAL AMENDMENT to the media agreement, extending the option from 2021 until 2/25. That action was not, to my knowledge, ever publicized. In fact the actual term of the current ESPN media agreement was not known publicly and by most ACC members until the FSU / Clemson attorneys became aware after examining the actual hidden ESPN media agreement at ACC HQ in Charlotte.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Another issue that isn't really being discussed that much is how much incentive / interest does ESPN really have in continuing the ACCN at this point, with the huge focus that both the SEC and Big 10 are making in INCREASING the P2 media exposure via ramped up control of prime viewing windows?

The SEC is introducing their new "SEC ON ABC" logo and promotional program this Fall. The Big 10 is introducing FRIDAY NIGHT BIG 10 FOOTBALL this Fall. Also the new FOX / ESPN / Time Warner Discovery sports streaming service VENUE SPORTS is being launched this Fall.
The only time you will see an ACC game on ABC or other major OTA networks is when an ACC team is playing either an SEC or Big 10 opponent, and as the P2 expand to 9-10 conference games, it will only get worse.

Content, content, content.

 

[Hold My Beer]

The end game is Either ESPN allows teams to change conferences to espn affiliates Big12/SEC (because it makes espn more money) or it tells the ACC its keeping the deal and you have lots of angry teams chirping about how espn sucks. Most likely COA- and you can take THIS to the bank, is a settlement with extra money to top teams (very unequal distro but that’s still better for the bad teams who would be G5 otherwise ) and extension to 2030. Then UM to B1G after that.

Why 2030?

Why not July 1, 2027 or July 1, 2036? Period.

Either:

ESPN is "okay" with the ACC's best brands leaving for a higher-tier conference (SEC or B1G) and the subsequent domino effect.

Or ESPN is not okay with such a maneuver, which begs the question of why would a media partner standby and allow FSU and Clemson to spend millions on lawsuits before theoretically pulling the trapdoor by opting to keep the ACC agreement intact for another nine years?

How does it benefit Jim Phillips and the ACC for the calendar to progress toward Feb. 1, 2025 with a non-committal ESPN remaining on the fence? Answer: It doesn't. At all.

IMO, the only thing that seems plausible is ESPN standing pat (thus keeping its hands clean) with the hope FSU and/or Clemson and the ACC reach a settlement in the next 6 months.

History tells us (see collapse of the Pac-12) that once FSU and Clemson are out the door, UNC and UVA (or, for political purposes, UNC and NC State) will soon enough follow — at which point a trickle becomes a flood.

Don't see any other conclusion to this story, tbh

 

[Hold My Beer]

Why wouldn't they have played that card by now? Holding it back only prolongs the misery and that is antithetical to what FSU is seeking-- immediate realease.

The threat of dropping the big one can be just as effective — witness world history since 1945.

Jim Phillips is well aware of the "liberties" taken by the ACC commissioner — both under Swofford and Phillips himself

 

[1mg of Epi]

This is where you have to differentiate between pretend internet lawyers and real lawyers. From espn’s perspective, It’s irrelevant whether the bylaws were being followed, unless they should have had a clear understanding that Swofford didn’t have authority. There was no false basis from espns perspective. ESPN has signed similar tv deals a bunch of times dealing with other conference commissioner, there was no reason to things were different this time. One would think that upon being told the commissioner had negotiated an extension as widely reported in the media, some ACC school would have asked questions. None did because they thought they had a great deal at the time.
—
Let’s say you go to buy a fancy minivan (msrp is 59k) and you are talking to a salesman -and you say I’m not paying a dollar more than $50,000 plus I want free floormats. And also I want a free extended 10 year warranty . And that cookie on your desk. The salesman says “I need to talk to my manager". He just goes into the bathroom instead, takes a dump and says "My manager agreed, let’s sign the paperwork. You sign it and drive off.

Then you get a call from the manager saying the salesman didn’t have authority to give you free floor mats and the warranty. You need to bring it back or the contract is void. No court of law would back the dealership. You relied on the apparent authority of the salesman. It’s not your job to go knock the managers door to make sure it’s kosher. If the dealership wants to get out of the warranty, they can try to pay you off, but otherwise they are on the hook and the minivan is yours. Whether Swofford broke bylaws is an internal ACC problem, but even if he did, it doesn’t automatically void espns media deal with the ACC teams. And even if the teams try to get clever and dissolve the conference, the deal still binds the ACC teams because you can’t get out of legal obligations simply by changing company names.

The end game is Either ESPN allows teams to change conferences to espn affiliates Big12/SEC (because it makes espn more money) or it tells the ACC its keeping the deal and you have lots of angry teams chirping about how espn sucks. Most likely COA- and you can take THIS to the bank, is a settlement with extra money to top teams (very unequal distro but that’s still better for the bad teams who would be G5 otherwise ) and extension to 2030. Then UM to B1G after that.

In your scenario above, considering the extension hasn’t happened yet, wouldn’t it be more accurate to suggest the car lot manager told you the mats were not approved before you signed the deal and left the lot? My real question tho:

The ACC and espn each signed the initial contract, right? The letter swofford sent to espn supersedes this contract? Hadn’t both sides already agreed to the 2/3 team approval requirement to extend the contract?

Therefore, Why can’t the member schools vote down the extension, and simply negotiate a new deal? Nobody has to change conferences. Seems like too obvious of a solution to actually be a solution.

 

[TooColdToHold]

You have no idea how Bylaws, Operating Agreements or Resolutions work…

By your train of thought, the janitor at Tesla can sign a contract selling the company for $1, and Elon can’t object to the sale.

Bad example. No reasonable person would believe that the janitor would have signing authority to bind the company to an agreement. Now if an officer of the company went rogue and signed a bad agreement that would be a different story. Jim Phillips is essentially an officer of the ACC.

 

[Empirical Cane]

You have no idea how Bylaws, Operating Agreements or Resolutions work…

By your train of thought, the janitor at Tesla can sign a contract selling the company for $1, and Elon can’t object to the sale.

You probably want to delete this friend.

That is waaaaaay over simplifying.

The janitor at Tesla isn't a signitory authority of Tesla, nor anyone with a brain believes as such.

Phillips is a signatory authority of the ACC. He is an Officer of the ACC (I would imagine in corporate terms).

B1G difference.

 

[RVACane]

This is where you have to differentiate between pretend internet lawyers and real lawyers. From espn’s perspective, It’s irrelevant whether the bylaws were being followed, unless they should have had a clear understanding that Swofford didn’t have authority. There was no false basis from espns perspective. ESPN has signed similar tv deals a bunch of times dealing with other conference commissioner, there was no reason to things were different this time. One would think that upon being told the commissioner had negotiated an extension as widely reported in the media, some ACC school would have asked questions. None did because they thought they had a great deal at the time.
—
Let’s say you go to buy a fancy minivan (msrp is 59k) and you are talking to a salesman -and you say I’m not paying a dollar more than $50,000 plus I want free floormats. And also I want a free extended 10 year warranty . And that cookie on your desk. The salesman says “I need to talk to my manager". He just goes into the bathroom instead, takes a dump and says "My manager agreed, let’s sign the paperwork. You sign it and drive off.

Then you get a call from the manager saying the salesman didn’t have authority to give you free floor mats and the warranty. You need to bring it back or the contract is void. No court of law would back the dealership. You relied on the apparent authority of the salesman. It’s not your job to go knock the managers door to make sure it’s kosher. If the dealership wants to get out of the warranty, they can try to pay you off, but otherwise they are on the hook and the minivan is yours. Whether Swofford broke bylaws is an internal ACC problem, but even if he did, it doesn’t automatically void espns media deal with the ACC teams. And even if the teams try to get clever and dissolve the conference, the deal still binds the ACC teams because you can’t get out of legal obligations simply by changing company names.

The end game is Either ESPN allows teams to change conferences to espn affiliates Big12/SEC (because it makes espn more money) or it tells the ACC its keeping the deal and you have lots of angry teams chirping about how espn sucks. Most likely COA- and you can take THIS to the bank, is a settlement with extra money to top teams (very unequal distro but that’s still better for the bad teams who would be G5 otherwise ) and extension to 2030. Then UM to B1G after that.

I understand the appearance of authority and actions after the fact that appear to confirm it. I practiced law at one point in my life too. I just appreciate @Rickd explaining it to me as I’m sure he’s explained it in here already.

 

[caneworld]

If he acted outside of the ACC requirements he may have personal civil liability to ESPN as he would have entered into an amendment for which did not have authority to do. I believe he is the one on the hook to ESPN and that would be ugly.

Outright fraudulent misrepresentation. Wonder if he got some sweetners for it...