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

[Rickd]

Like what your saying Rickster!

Where you seeing this stuff you're bringing to the board?

It makes a lot of sense Phillips (like his predecessor) feels he's had the juice to run the ACC like a tinpot dictator.

Thing is those kind of leaders tend not to dot all their "i's" or cross all their "t's" ...

So when consitutents rebel, that sloppiness becomes a real problem.

This is directly from the UNREDACTED portion of sections of the ESPN media agreement that were provided to the State of Florida Attorney General's office yesterday. The media agreement stated that the agreement ran until 6/2/27 and ESPN had the option to extend for 9 additional years and the option HAD TO BE EXECUTED within 2 years of the launch date of the ACCN which was August 2019. Also included in the documents provided to the AG was the extension agreement that was signed by Phillips it was titled AMENDMENT TO .... etc. So it is officially an AMENDMENT TO THE ESPEN MEDIA AGREEMENT which according to bylaws requires a 2/3rds member approval. So both the media agreement AND the GOR are done on 6/2/27 and in order to extend ESPN needs to provide a new media agreement and it will require a new GOR.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Hey cat daddy...I don't disagree with you specific to this , but...

ACC's position feels like they had the authority (doesn't make them right), but the whole "nobody knew they did this several years ago" argument is Ludacris (even in deh birthday suit).

I go away on my CIS sponsored 1-week vacay (earned and well deserved I might add) and I come back and people are talkeng crazee meng. Habla pollo lococito!

Peeps eating from the edible dish like its chips and salsa at Applebees. Slow the consumption down my man, take ONE gummie and let the good vibes wash over you...no need to pound down 15 of and get a bad trip. Hey maaaahn, we gotta slow down here.

Just today we gotta drink of water talking about Jorgelito the Janitor at the Miami Tesla Service Center selling the whole **** corporation to Jean-Baptiste in Wynwood for $1 and a hot dog on a stick then telling Elon to, "lick deez nutz ***** and fly yo broke *** to Marz".

You know what that tells me?

We aren't healthy as a porsting community. I want you to be healthy. I want me to be healthy. I want this thread to be healthy.

Right now we are in a bad and desperate place in dire need of adult supervision (@RVACane @JD08 @PIPO @Felonious Monk @Brains ).

Our porsting gut is ****ed up. We need some porsting probiotics. We need a porsting cleanse.

We need to take a spiritual journey where we get injected with Blue Ring Octupus venom and lick frogs in South America in steaming hot yurts (preferably clothed).

We need to pull our **** together.

**** ... CIS stepping up their PTO program with sponsored time off... that certainly explains people slipping to DMs to practice their insider presence ... D$ about to take this ***** public...

 

[Angry Ibis]

It is becoming more and more obvious the schools knew about this, yet failed to act.

Now, question:

It's obvious ACC Commissioner is the appointed "compelling authority" to speak for ACC correct? ESPN did so amd negotiated a contract in good faith (allegedly).

From an ESPN perspective, is this enforceable regardless of internal ACC conflict?

Let me give you an example that probably doesn't have relevance to this, but I'll mention it anyways from givernment contracting.

If you are a government contractor performing goods and services and a reasonable member of the government, regardless if they are the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or Contracting Officer (CO) comes up to you and says, "hey we need x, y, or z" that is reasonably within the scope of your current contract and you go off and do it...guess what?

US Government is 100% obligated to reimburse for that expense unless you were given in writing instructions prior that you only take direction from the COR or CO.

Now, what does that have to do with ACC? Probably not a **** thing.

Was Jimmy P communicated to ESPN, by ACC membership, as having authority to make contract media decisions? Did ACC tell ESPN, "hey, our Janitor Jorgelito is the point man on Grant of Rights Negotiations as he takes the lead on all important ACC matters"?

I dunno, but if he [Jimmy P] was and ACC can prove that...

Footage of Blake James and Rad Dan while the Commish sells off the member schools' futures for magic beans...

 

[Empirical Cane]

I searched the web and found video of ACC's lead negotiator meeting with ESPN to sign extension agreement.

FSU's case flushing down the toilet.

**** is getting real.

Literally.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Only problem there is that there was no document signed in 2019 by anybody. The ESPN media agreement stated THE option to extend had to be executed within 2 years of launching the ACCN. Never did. Phillips then issued an AMEnDMENT without approval as required by the bylaws.

How do you explain away and reconcile the multiple public (and undoubtedly private meetings) statements of the extension to 2036 and not a single ACC member raised **** about this for years?

Somebody between FSU + Clemson vs ACC is smoky heavy amounts of wacky tobacky. Somebody is gonna be really right and somebody is gonna be really wrong.

Let me be clear, I don't know if the GOR is/is not thru 2036 or not. What I am good at though is looking at data and evidence (as presently known) and determining that's bull**** and that's fertilizer.

Personally I hope the ACC burns to the ground and they lock all the ACC officials in the barn for how they cheat Miami. It just appears this "ACC members didn't know extension was in place" is utter garbage. IF that is a major component of what FSU + Clemson are hanging their hat on, well this lawsuit would seem a big waste of time and effort and they likely fall far short of target, at least near/mid term.

Where is my logic flawed here?

 

[Empirical Cane]

Why does it matter if we knew that amendment was done or not? The fact is it can't/shouldn't be legally binding without a 2/3rd vote of approval as is laid out in the ACC Bylaws. ESPECIALLY because the ACC has kept this agreement locked away in the office like it's top secret information..."

If I'm ESPN, that's a you problem [ACC] not a me problem.

Your corporate officer signed a contract document in good faith that he was empowered to do so, at least in principle.

I'll bet if you look at ACC Commissioner's job description and other key filings, somewhere in there says "signatory authority and Corporate Officer" of ACC. @Cane6 be aces and look that up for us.

Just because he didn't follow your internal process is on you, not me buckaroonie

Don't want trouble with your bank account? Don't let Jimmy P write checks next time dumb asses.

I guess that's a position ESPN could take right??

 

[CaneinBroward]

It is becoming more and more obvious the schools knew about this, yet failed to act.

Now, question:

It's obvious ACC Commissioner is the appointed "compelling authority" to speak for ACC correct? ESPN did so amd negotiated a contract in good faith (allegedly).

From an ESPN perspective, is this enforceable regardless of internal ACC conflict?

Let me give you an example that probably doesn't have relevance to this, but I'll mention it anyways from givernment contracting.

If you are a government contractor performing goods and services and a reasonable member of the government, regardless if they are the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or Contracting Officer (CO) comes up to you and says, "hey we need x, y, or z" that is reasonably within the scope of your current contract and you go off and do it...guess what?

US Government is 100% obligated to reimburse for that expense unless you were given in writing instructions prior that you only take direction from the COR or CO.

Now, what does that have to do with ACC? Probably not a **** thing.

Was Jimmy P communicated to ESPN, by ACC membership, as having authority to make contract media decisions? Did ACC tell ESPN, "hey, our Janitor Jorgelito is the point man on Grant of Rights Negotiations as he takes the lead on all important ACC matters"?

I dunno, but if he [Jimmy P] was and ACC can prove that...

Seems like a slam dunk for FSU and Clemson (or any other ACC school to get out) IF Phillips signed an agreement without 2/3 school approval per ACC bylaws. I imagine it isn't that cut and dried though.

From what I read, the "agreement" Phillips approved in 2021 was a rewording of the original deal moving the date for ESPN to exercise its option to keep the ACC contract active through 2036. It went from 2021 to 2025. It could be argued the change was actually to the ACC's benefit - guaranteed continuation of the agreement for 4 years.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules. If the Constitutional By-Laws require a 2/3 school vote for ANY agreement amendments, FSU and Clemson should be able to get out no problem. If it's only for changes related to material changes to the ACC's payouts, responsibilities, etc., plenty of gray area there and these cases could last years.

In the meantime, I'm sure there is plenty of negotiating going on now between ESPN, the ACC, and the SEC to determine an exit for FSU and Clemson (plus NC & UVA?) to the SEC with ESPN using the leverage of being able to terminate the ACC's deal in February 2025 if the ACC decides not to play ball.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Seems like a slam dunk for FSU and Clemson (or any other ACC school to get out) IF Phillips signed an agreement without 2/3 school approval per ACC bylaws. I imagine it isn't that cut and dried though.

From what I read, the "agreement" Phillips approved in 2021 was a rewording of the original deal moving the date for ESPN to exercise its option to keep the ACC contract active through 2036. It went from 2021 to 2025. It could be argued the change was actually to the ACC's benefit - guaranteed continuation of the agreement for 4 years.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules. If the Constitutional By-Laws require a 2/3 school vote for ANY agreement amendments, FSU and Clemson should be able to get out no problem. If it's only for changes related to material changes to the ACC's payouts, responsibilities, etc., plenty of gray area there and these cases could last years.

In the meantime, I'm sure there is plenty of negotiating going on now between ESPN, the ACC, and the SEC to determine an exit for FSU and Clemson (plus NC & UVA?) to the SEC with ESPN using the leverage of being able to terminate the ACC's deal in February 2025 if the ACC decides not to play ball.

Mutally Assured Destruction.

What path does ACC agree to anything that sees its near term implosion?

Absent a court ruling that invalidates whatever is holding FSU + Clemson....

NOT

GOING

TO

HAPPEN.

 

[CaneinBroward]

If I'm ESPN, that's a you problem [ACC] not a me problem.

Your corporate officer signed a contract document in good faith that he was empowered to do so.

I'll bet if you look at ACC Commissioner's job description and other key filings, somewhere in there says "signatory authority and Corporate Officer" of ACC. @Cane6 be aces and look that up for us.

Just because he didn't follow your internal process is on you, not me buckaroonie

Don't want trouble with your bank account? Don't let Jimmy P write checks next time dumb asses.

I guess that's a position ESPN could take right??

Agreed. I don't think ESPN has anything to worry about. They acted in good faith (based on what is known publicly at the moment).

However, I don't see how the ACC would be able to keep FSU, Clemson, or any other school from leaving if they broke their own Conference By-Laws in accepting the deal.

 

[CaneinBroward]

Mutally Assured Destruction.

What path does ACC agree to anything that sees its near term implosion?

Absent a court ruling that invalidates whatever is holding FSU + Clemson....

NOT

GOING

TO

HAPPEN.

What leverage does the ACC have if the GOR is linked to the current TV deal with ESPN? If ESPN/SEC want FSU and Clemson (or others for that matter), doesn't ESPN just announce in February it's opting out of the ACC agreement as of 6/1/27. Then, on that date, the GOR goes away and the ACC's programs become free agents at that time?

 

[CaneFan79]

It is becoming more and more obvious the schools knew about this, yet failed to act.

Now, question:

It's obvious ACC Commissioner is the appointed "compelling authority" to speak for ACC correct? ESPN did so amd negotiated a contract in good faith (allegedly).

From an ESPN perspective, is this enforceable regardless of internal ACC conflict?

Let me give you an example that probably doesn't have relevance to this, but I'll mention it anyways from givernment contracting.

If you are a government contractor performing goods and services and a reasonable member of the government, regardless if they are the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) or Contracting Officer (CO) comes up to you and says, "hey we need x, y, or z" that is reasonably within the scope of your current contract and you go off and do it...guess what?

US Government is 100% obligated to reimburse for that expense unless you were given in writing instructions prior that you only take direction from the COR or CO.

Now, what does that have to do with ACC? Probably not a **** thing.

Was Jimmy P communicated to ESPN, by ACC membership, as having authority to make contract media decisions? Did ACC tell ESPN, "hey, our Janitor Jorgelito is the point man on Grant of Rights Negotiations as he takes the lead on all important ACC matters"?

I dunno, but if he [Jimmy P] was and ACC can prove that...

Okay, so in a late Friday meeting, in a state that is not Florida, I find out our Test Manager, who is a COR, is a Miami grad from the early 80s. Then our late arriving Cyber Chief, walking in with his Gator Polo and lanyard, now gets accosted by both of us...And you bring up CORs in this thread. So is August 31st already decided in our favor?

 

[Empirical Cane]

Okay, so in a late Friday meeting, in a state that is not Florida, I find out our Test Manager, who is a COR, is a Miami grad from the early 80s. Then our late arriving Cyber Chief, walking in with his Gator Polo and lanyard, now gets accosted by both of us...And you bring up CORs in this thread. So is August 31st already decided in our favor?

View attachment 296839

It is all going according to the Prophecy.

 

[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.

I bookmarked this one alongside the gato who said to me, "we ain't losing to Michigan State you loon".

Good times. Good times.

To be fair, the first item in that vault drawer is my own "no way aTm buys out cuckbo for $79MM"

 

[Calinative]

If I'm ESPN, that's a you problem [ACC] not a me problem.

Your corporate officer signed a contract document in good faith that he was empowered to do so, at least in principle.

I'll bet if you look at ACC Commissioner's job description and other key filings, somewhere in there says "signatory authority and Corporate Officer" of ACC. @Cane6 be aces and look that up for us.

Just because he didn't follow your internal process is on you, not me buckaroonie

Don't want trouble with your bank account? Don't let Jimmy P write checks next time dumb asses.

I guess that's a position ESPN could take right??

Right, its the ACCs problem. Not the schools in the ACCs problem or ESPNs problem. However the ACC only owns the media rights to be able to sell anything to ESPN because the schools have given the ACC the ability to do so. But the ACC can only act on the behalf of the schools if it is adhering to it's bylaws. The ACC can owe ESPN, but the Schools shouldn't - and without the schools the ACC is nothing so ESPN could win in court, but wouldn't get ****. The schools have zero dealings with ESPN. We granted our rights to the ACC to use in our interest - not against it. This imo is absolutely a means to getting out of the grant of rights. Especially since in the media agreement ESPN acknowledges that they do not get the media rights to future games if a team leaves the conference.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Right, its the ACCs problem. Not the schools in the ACCs problem or ESPNs problem. However the ACC only owns the media rights to be able to sell anything to ESPN because the schools have given the ACC the ability to do so. But the ACC can only act on the behalf of the schools if it is adhering to it's bylaws. The ACC can owe ESPN, but the Schools shouldn't - and without the schools the ACC is nothing so ESPN could win in court, but wouldn't get ****. The schools have zero dealings with ESPN. We granted our rights to the ACC to use in our interest - not against it. This imo is absolutely a means to getting out of the grant of rights. Especially since in the media agreement ESPN acknowledges that they do not get the media rights to future games if a team leaves the conference.

I take a slightly different look.

Jimmy P was authorized to write checks from ACC bank account.

He writes ESPN a check that ESPN believes is in good faith and in normal scope of business

ESPN cashes that check

ACC members get bent out of shape and say, "Jimmy wasn't supposed to write a check for that, he needed approval via our bylaws"

No court on planet is making ESPN give ACC their money back

See what I'm saying? Now, the above might be an wholly irrellevant to contract case law at it applies to this GOR tussle...but hopefully you get the point I'm making...

 

[Cane6]

I bookmarked this one alongside the gato who said to me, "we ain't losing to Michigan State you loon".

Good times. Good times.

To be fair, the first item in that vault drawer is my own "no way aTm buys out cuckbo for $79MM"

I’m ready to move past this exchange my brother

I used a janitor in that example to sensationalize things, we all know the Tesla janitor is smarter than Jim Phillips

 

[Empirical Cane]

For you lawyer dawgs...

Hear me out a minute...

Let's say parties have a contractual agreement with all manners of duties to perform.

The parties execute that contract, mostly and amicably, and since the beginning ignore or fail to execute one particular item, but no one brings it up.

Then after several years, somebody gets upset and decides to make a issue.


How do the courts look at this situation?

 

[Empirical Cane]

I’m ready to move past this exchange my brother

I used a janitor in that example to sensationalize things, we all know the Tesla janitor is smarter than Jim Phillips

We love you my man.

We are going to get through this together.

Keep it to one edible at a time. No more grabbing a handful. Those trips make you crazee meng.

 

[CaneFan79]

I take a slightly different look.

Jimmy P was authorized to write checks from ACC bank account.

He writes ESPN a check that ESPN believes is in good faith and in normal scope of business

ESPN cashes that check

ACC members get bent out of shape and say, "Jimmy wasn't supposed to write a check for that, he needed approval via our bylaws"

No court on planet is making ESPN give ACC their money back

See what I'm saying? Now, the above might be an wholly irrellevant to contract case law at it applies to this GOR tussle...but hopefully you get the point I'm making...

Jim Phillips and the ACC staff (mostly Swofford holdovers) to the ACC Presidents and ADs:

 

[Empirical Cane]

Jim Phillips and the ACC staff (mostly Swofford holdovers) to the ACC Presidents and ADs:

View attachment 296864

This is what I kinda think too.

There is some obscure, broadly and vaguely written bylaw that "allows" the ACC Commissioner to have taken the action with ESPN that Jimmy P did regardless of 2/3 vote or not...at least in the minds of ACC officials.