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

[JamesQuall]

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.

@DMoney By God, this is it! PoRst of the week! Nay, of the **** month. **** it! Call in @JD08 for an early poRst of the year contender. @fraggle doesn't have the juice to match @Empirical Cane's squeeze!

This is quite the feat. He started it off with a Cat Daddy, threw in a Deez Nutz joke in the middle, called on the Maudes to fix our gut health with some probiotics, and finished it with a beautiful flurry of spiritual journeys and cleansing our poRsting chakras.

 

[JD08]

@DMoney By God, this is it! PoRst of the week! Nay, of the **** month. **** it! Call in @JD08 for an early poRst of the year contender. @fraggle doesn't have the juice to match @Empirical Cane's squeeze!

This is quite the feat. He started it off with a Cat Daddy, threw in a Deez Nutz joke in the middle, called on the Maudes to fix our gut health with some probiotics, and finished it with a beautiful flurry of spiritual journeys and cleansing our poRsting chakras.

Bookmarked.

 

[Rickd]

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...

He was given check writing authority with specific conditions. Certain "checks" required prior member approval which he didn't get for an "unauthorized transaction" in August of 2021 ... an AMENDMENT and it is so described ... which was done outside of the parameters of the GOR that all members signed and is therefore non-binding. There is no valid option to extend beyond June 30, 2027 and the only way it can be done is with a new media agreement and new GOR.

 

[Empirical Cane]

He was given check writing authority with specific conditions. Certain "checks" required prior member approval which he didn't get for an "unauthorized transaction" in August of 2021 ... an AMENDMENT and it is so described ... which was done outside of the parameters of the GOR that all members signed and is therefore non-binding. There is no valid option to extend beyond June 30, 2027 and the only way it can be done is with a new media agreement and new GOR.

Friend....

"Unauthorized" ≠ "Non-binding"

Your teenager who takes your car for a joy ride and wrecks it. That was an "unauthorized" trip.

You still own the damage and insurance fall out with the other car he hit regardless.

That's the point I'm making. Doesn't make me right of course, but something smells fishy about the length of time it has taken to show "Jimmy P wasn't authorized to do this therefore the whole thing is invalid".

I dunno....

 

[Felonious Monk]

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.

If you're looking for adult supervision, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully decline. My track record of making good decisions is somewhat less than stellar. However, if you need someone to sit on a barstool regaling you with humorous stories of those bad decisions, I'm your guy and I work for beer.

 

[Rickd]

Friend....

"Unauthorized" ≠ "Non-binding"

Your teenager who takes your car for a joy ride and wrecks it. That was an "unauthorized" trip.

You still own the damage and insurance fall out with the other car he hit regardless.

That's the point I'm making. Doesn't make me right of course, but something smells fishy about the length of time it has taken to show "Jimmy P wasn't authorized to do this therefore the whole thing is invalid".

I dunno....

Hence the need for the law suits and a judge's ruling. It also might end up being that the option isn't an issue IF it is confirmed that the ESPN media agreement states "this agreement is in force only as long as school remains a member of the conference", and it is ruled that any school leaving leaves with FUTURE media rights in tact, the basis of the Clemson law suit.

 

[coffeecane]

Friend....

"Unauthorized" ≠ "Non-binding"

Your teenager who takes your car for a joy ride and wrecks it. That was an "unauthorized" trip.

You still own the damage and insurance fall out with the other car he hit regardless.

That's the point I'm making. Doesn't make me right of course, but something smells fishy about the length of time it has taken to show "Jimmy P wasn't authorized to do this therefore the whole thing is invalid".

I dunno....

To me here is the problem with your argument. Not an attorney, but, like you, I enter into many contracts for my company.

1 - I assume that the 2/3 vote was not taken to ratify the amendment to extend the option period to ESPN and give more time to decide if they want to extend past 2027.

2 - I also assume that ESPN has not yet exercised its option that was granted in said amendment

3- Now. You are probably right that even though Jim Phillips didn't have the unilateral right to sign an amendment without the 2/3 approval, that the contract would still be enforceable. In this case jim Phillips would be in a heap of **** and sued by someone for dereliction of duty

4- However, since it is NOW known, prior to espn's exercise of said option, that the one who signed the option did in fact NOT have the authority to sign said option, which is also a requirement of the Media rights contract, then ESPN can no longer legally exercise that option as they now know it would be in violation of their contract.

I do believe your point would stand had ESPN exercised its option prior to knowing Jim Phillips didn't have the authority to enter into the agreement and if they did enter into it, his *** would have been Sued to Sunday by those negatively impacted, such as anyone trying to leave the ACC.

 

[CaneinBroward]

To me here is the problem with your argue ment. Not an attorney, but, like you, I enter into many contracts for my company.

1 - I assume that the 2/3 vote was not taken to ratify the amendment to extend the option period to ESPN and give more time to decide if they want to extend past 2027.

2 - I also assume that ESPN has not yet exercised its option that was granted in said amendment

3- Now. You are probably right that even though Jim Phillips didn't have the unilateral right to sign an amendment without the 2/3 approval, that the contract would still be enforceable. In this case jim Phillips would be in a heap of **** and sued by someone for dereliction of duty

4- However, since it is NOW known, prior to espn's exercise of said option, that the one who signed the option did in fact NOT have the authority to sign said option, which is also a requirement of the Media rights contract, then ESPN can no longer legally exercise that option as they now know it would be in violation of their contract.

I do believe your point would stand had ESPN exercised its option prior to knowing Jim Phillips didn't have the authority to enter into the agreement and if they did enter into it, his *** would have been Sued to Sunday by those negatively impacted, such as anyone trying to leave the ACC.

Agreed with most of what you wrote. However, how would ESPN know the ACC's by-laws prior to the execution of the amendment?

 

[Calinative]

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...

But this isn't about past money/pay, it's about FUTURE pay. What court is also going to make the schools beholden to a 12 year future agreement they explicitly are supposed to approve but haven't?

 

[Calinative]

Agreed with most of what you wrote. However, how would ESPN know the ACC's by-laws prior to the execution of the amendment?

The ACC bylaws are public. Better question is how were the Schools supposed to know all the details of the ESPN Media Agreement when they were kept in super top secret files at the ACC headquarters....

 

[Rickd]

Agreed with most of what you wrote. However, how would ESPN know the ACC's by-laws prior to the execution of the amendment?

He is saying that AT THIS MOMENT everybody is aware that the amendment agreed to by Phillips in 2021 was done without member approval so that NOW .... ESPN could not attempt to execute the option to extend because it is now common knowledge that the option is not an approved amendment and therefore void. Therefore everything ... media agreement AND GOR both end on June 2, 2027 and any extension requires a new media agreement with payout charts etc., and a new GOR ... all requiring member approval.

 

[CaneinBroward]

He is saying that AT THIS MOMENT everybody is aware that the amendment agreed to by Phillips in 2021 was done without member approval so that NOW .... ESPN could not attempt to execute the option to extend because it is now common knowledge that the option is not an approved amendment and therefore void. Therefore everything ... media agreement AND GOR both end on June 2, 2027 and any extension requires a new media agreement with payout charts etc., and a new GOR ... all requiring member approval.

So what? The amendment was just changing the date ESPN had the opportunity to opt out of the agreement. Okay, let's say they rule the amendment is now void. Why would that nullify the original agreement AND GOR on 6/2/27?

It would just mean that ESPN missed their opportunity to opt out in 2021. I don't see how it eliminates the original agreement because an amendment gets thrown out, especially an amendment that has NO effect on what the ACC provides in the original agreement. Either ESPN can immediately choose to opt out OR they missed their opportunity to opt out and the agreement continues on until 2036.

Now, could FSU, Clemson, or any other school get out by stating the ACC broke its own by-laws and they should be able to get out of their agreement to be in the ACC? I could see that. That's a separate issue from the media agreement though.

 

[CaneinBroward]

But this isn't about past money/pay, it's about FUTURE pay. What court is also going to make the schools beholden to a 12 year future agreement they explicitly are supposed to approve but haven't?

It's not a 12 year future agreement. It's a change in the date for ESPN to opt out of the original agreement.

 

[coffeecane]

Agreed with most of what you wrote. However, how would ESPN know the ACC's by-laws prior to the execution of the amendment?

I am saying that they know the bylaws now. Since the option has not yet been executed and they now know the amendment was signed by an unauthorized signatory, they can't legally execute the option. Had they executed the option prior to knowing he was unauthorized it then ESPN would have been able to enforce it.

 

[coffeecane]

It's not a 12 year future agreement. It's a change in the date for ESPN to opt out of the original agreement.

I believe it is an option to extend into additional years. Not an option to opt out of the 2027-2036 years. They were never included in the agreement. The other thing is there doesn't appear to be any consideration granted to the ACC in the amendment letter. Just additional time to execute the option to extend. This also hurts ESPN case. If I'm ESPN I'm not executing the amendment unless it is proven that Phillips had authority to execute it. Just gonna be a legal mess for them.

 

[thesentinel]

ESPN isn’t someone at a car dealership or someone cashing a check. They have access to the entirety of the accs bylaws. They knew or should have known that Phillips didn’t have authority to grant such an extension unilaterally.

 

[thesentinel]

I'm an attorney and FSU's lawsuit is really a single issue case. All of the antitrust stuff isn't going anywhere. I doubt all the arguments about the ACC's ineptitude will either (even though it's extremely true that the ACC is corrupt and incompetent and was largely a vehicle to enrich the swofford crime family).

The entire issue boils down to that extension that phillips unilaterally gave for ESPN to renew the deal. If the court rules that he wasn't allowed to that, FSU is going to immediately break the contract and sign up with the B1G and tell the ACC to go **** themselves and sue for damages. When the ACC does, FSU will argue that their future media rights were 0 because the ACC has no contract in place. The ACC will try to negotiate a new deal but nobody is going to make an offer anywhere close to the current ESPN deal knowing full well that FSU/Clemson and *hopefully* us are about to bolt.

if the court rules that phillips is allowed to just unliterally extend the deadline, i suspect ESPN will renew the contract and then the price to leave jumps up into the hundreds of millions and everyone stuck in the ACC slowly gets bled to death by the wake and BC parasites until 2030 at the earliest.

I got the venue issue right and I think I’m going to be right on this also.

 

[CaneinBroward]

I believe it is an option to extend into additional years. Not an option to opt out of the 2027-2036 years. They were never included in the agreement. The other thing is there doesn't appear to be any consideration granted to the ACC in the amendment letter. Just additional time to execute the option to extend. This also hurts ESPN case. If I'm ESPN I'm not executing the amendment unless it is proven that Phillips had authority to execute it. Just gonna be a legal mess for them.

It is an option to get out of 2027-2036. The original agreement was 20 years. It gave ESPN an opportunity to opt out in 2021. The amendment pushed it back to 2025.

ACC, ESPN extend deal to 2036 that includes new ACC Network

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford says the league has extended its media deal with ESPN through the 2035-36 season, a deal that includes the launch of an ACC TV channel in three years

www.usatoday.com

ESPN-backed ACC Network launches in 2019

The ACC, in partnership with ESPN, is launching its own conference network by August 2019.

www.espn.com

 

[CaneinBroward]

ESPN isn’t someone at a car dealership or someone cashing a check. They have access to the entirety of the accs bylaws. They knew or should have known that Phillips didn’t have authority to grant such an extension unilaterally.

Okay, if that's the case, then they missed out on their opportunity to opt-out. Why would that nullify the entirety of the original contract? Wouldn't the court rule ESPN can either choose to opt-out immediately since they mistakenly accepted the amendment signed by Phillips OR if they knowingly signed an amendment Phillips did not have the authority to sign, they therefore missed their opportunity to opt out of the agreement and are locked into the agreement through 2036?

 

[TooColdToHold]

It is an option to get out of 2027-2036. The original agreement was 20 years. It gave ESPN an opportunity to opt out in 2021. The amendment pushed it back to 2025.

ACC, ESPN extend deal to 2036 that includes new ACC Network

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford says the league has extended its media deal with ESPN through the 2035-36 season, a deal that includes the launch of an ACC TV channel in three years

www.usatoday.com

ESPN-backed ACC Network launches in 2019

The ACC, in partnership with ESPN, is launching its own conference network by August 2019.

www.espn.com

The Noles are saying it’s the opposite. The option was for ESPN to opt in to extend it to 2036. If they don’t opt in then the contract expires in 2027.