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

[Empirical Cane]

Does Shalala still have any influence in Big 10 circles?

 

[dycane]

I mean...if they pay us the full amount, I'm not sure we would win on "breach". There's an alternate argument to be made.

I'd also add that they are damaging the SEC and every other conference that they carry.

End the GOR in 2027. ESPN knew what they were getting. They can't "demand" that we add 9 years to our GOR, when the ACC gives us NOTHING in return for our exchange of 9 more years of servitude.

You should, for once, sit this one out. Give yourself a breather, dude, and stop pretending you’re a real lawyer. You don’t have to feign knowledge of everything under the sun.

 

[camber_2374]

First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.

I'm starting to think he writes so many posts to make it harder to go back and see how often he is wrong.

 

[dycane]

I'm starting to think he writes so many posts to make it harder to go back and see how often he is wrong.

He’s like a malfunctioning bootleg Chat GPT

 

[Burricane]

First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.

No the first rule of holes is to go hard and fast when you’re in one

 

[PhenomCane]

One of the publicly stated reasons that most of the ACC ADs wanted the GOR was to ensure the ACC would stay intact. Consideration doesn't have to mean monetary. Peace of mind can count as consideration, and given that multiple ADs and the ACC Commish said that the GOR would ensure that teams don't leave, I don't think "lack of consideration" would be a winning argument. Courts tend to avoid looking at "lack of consideration" in freely negotiated contracts, especially when you are dealing with "sophisticated parties" like a TV network and a P5 football conference. This isn't a case of some little old lady in a one stop-light town getting duped by a big city lawyer. Courts tend to allow sophisticated parties to agree to whatever terms they want as long as it's legal, even if the agreement is obviously dumb and short-sighted. And the fact that no ACC team ever said a word about lack of consideration from 2016-2021ish and tried to get out of the GOR until now (only after the SEC and B1G had big jumps in revenue) means the "lack of consideration" argument isn't going to fly. Everyone was happy until the other conferences signed massive new contracts.

Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.

 

[Rickd]

Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.

True ... but NONE of the media deals & GOR's have a term anywhere NEAR what the ACC agreed to what the ACC did IN 2016 .... how do you agree to a deal in 2016 that extends to 2036??? TWENTY YEARS? The NEW ACC media deal BEGINS IN 2024 and is for a TEN year term!!!!!!!! The ACC should have a media deal and GOR that ends in 2026 by customary media term practices. It isn't the GOR that is the objection .... it is the unnecessary extension from the original term end of 2026 to 2036. The ACC got totally screwed over by ESPN.

 

[Tony4Canes]

And ACC ADs and Presidents worried about someone else pulling a Maryland

 

[TheOriginalCane]

First rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

You have been literally wrong about 100% of everything on this thread and now you are failing the first week of 1L Contracts. Pathetic.

I've been right about everything for over 600 pages. Indisputable.

Compared to your "we won't go anywhere until the mid-2030s" nonsense.

Each contract is required to stand or fall on its own merits, including sufficiency of consideration. You cannot use a separate agreement between different parties as consideration for a completely different contract. And you cannot simply type the words "for good and valuable consideration" and assume them to be true and sufficient.

That's the real problem here, you keep making ignorant and baseless assumptions. Like when you crowed about the assignment being "IRREVOCABLE" (your emphasis, not mine). Nobody ever argued for the revocation of the assignment, but you strutted around like you had proven something.

The EXTENSION of the GOR was baseless, unnecessary, consideration-free, and constitutes a duplication of other contractual factors and clauses (such as a conference-exiting penalty fee) that are incorporated in separate documents (such as the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract).

There are already sufficient ALTERNATIVE methods that allow ESPN to recalculate its payout obligation if teams enter or exit the ACC (UNDER THE TV CONTRACT ISTELF, NOT THE GOR), and ESPN has adequate recourse (via the composition clause) to protect itself in the event that ANY (or several) ACC schools exit the conference. Therefore, there is no contractual reason or necessity for a 9-year extension on the original GOR, and to the extent that the ACC schools agreed to it, it is still an impermissible duplication of the exit fee.

You can sit here and argue that all of the schools are "sophisticated" and "bargained for this", but the reality is that contractual clauses and requirements are struck down as unenforceable all the time, no matter who negotiated them or why. You cannot possibly argue that EVERY PARTY that ever wins an "unenforceable contractual language" case is a raving moron who was not represented by legal counsel. Courts strike down contractual language every day, this is not some Bizarro World where every contract is viewed as perfection simply because the contracting parties were "sophisticated" and "negotiated" and were "represented by counsel".

No matter how you choose to view this - either the ACC wanting to "protect itself" against other schools leaving (which it had already done under its Constitution) or ESPN wanting to "protect itself" against losing the best ACC teams (which it had already done through multiple clauses in the TV contract), the GOR "penalty" is unnecessary and duplicative, and it expires in three years. The "extension" isn't worth the one piece of paper it's written on.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

You should, for once, sit this one out. Give yourself a breather, dude, and stop pretending you’re a real lawyer. You don’t have to feign knowledge of everything under the sun.

No thanks. I'm right on this one, and I know what I'm talking about, regardless of whether you and three other dopes want to admit it.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Every power conference has a GOR now. It's standard operating procedure to have one that lasts the length of the TV deal. The SEC, B1G, and Big 12 have GOR's that last the length of their current TV deals.

This is where you are out of your depth.

It is one thing to create a GOR for the purposes of granting the rights necessary to negotiate a TV deal on behalf of 15 different parties.

It is a completely separate issue to create a financial penalty in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars for exiting the conference, a penalty that DUPLICATES separate financial penalties that are covered elsewhere.

I don't care if you want to make the exit fee $1 BEEEEELION dollars. Do it. But you can't create a penalty in the governing document of the conference, and then create a DUPLICATE penalty in another document.

And you can't enforce DUPLICATE financial damages (ostensibly on the part of ESPN) when they are not even going to perform the services that they contracted for. ESPN has adequate remedies under the TV contract, and the ACC has adequate remedies under its Constitution, to be compensated for the loss of a withdrawing member. I don't give a **** how traumatic the loss of ****hole Maryland was, you cannot create duplicate contractual penalties out of fear and loathing.

That fact that most of the ACC presidents and ADs eight years ago were gaping pussies has nothing to do with contract law.

Simply stated...the "penalty"...of losing $35 million per year for 12 years simply for leaving the conference...is not enforceable. There ARE damages...in a far smaller amount...but you can't create a dozen different contracts with a dozen separate penalties that are all designed to do EXACTLY what the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract ALREADY DO.

No matter how much a guy who writes "enforceability opinions" for "contractual assignments" tries to tell you that the GOR is "IRREVOCABLE" and ironclad. It's not. Neither the original agreement (which only has 3 years remaining) nor the consideration-free extension of 9 years.

The original GOR always...ALWAYS...should have had a liquidated damages clause, for this very reason. I realize that by the time this is litigated, there will be even less time remaining on the original GOR term, which is why the strongest and quickest winning argument is simply to attack the extension, without having to address the complex (but still valid) arguments surrounding the entire GOR itself.

Nobody said that you should NEVER do a GOR. But relying on vague, duplicative, and nuclear damages in a GOR...yeah, that's the issue, and that's the problem.

Liquidated damages clauses. Almost unbeatable. Thank me later.

 

[dycane]

I've been right about everything for over 600 pages. Indisputable.

Compared to your "we won't go anywhere until the mid-2030s" nonsense.

Each contract is required to stand or fall on its own merits, including sufficiency of consideration. You cannot use a separate agreement between different parties as consideration for a completely different contract. And you cannot simply type the words "for good and valuable consideration" and assume them to be true and sufficient.

That's the real problem here, you keep making ignorant and baseless assumptions. Like when you crowed about the assignment being "IRREVOCABLE" (your emphasis, not mine). Nobody ever argued for the revocation of the assignment, but you strutted around like you had proven something.

The EXTENSION of the GOR was baseless, unnecessary, consideration-free, and constitutes a duplication of other contractual factors and clauses (such as a conference-exiting penalty fee) that are incorporated in separate documents (such as the ACC Constitution and the ESPN television contract).

There are already sufficient ALTERNATIVE methods that allow ESPN to recalculate its payout obligation if teams enter or exit the ACC (UNDER THE TV CONTRACT ISTELF, NOT THE GOR), and ESPN has adequate recourse (via the composition clause) to protect itself in the event that ANY (or several) ACC schools exit the conference. Therefore, there is no contractual reason or necessity for a 9-year extension on the original GOR, and to the extent that the ACC schools agreed to it, it is still an impermissible duplication of the exit fee.

You can sit here and argue that all of the schools are "sophisticated" and "bargained for this", but the reality is that contractual clauses and requirements are struck down as unenforceable all the time, no matter who negotiated them or why. You cannot possibly argue that EVERY PARTY that ever wins an "unenforceable contractual language" case is a raving moron who was not represented by legal counsel. Courts strike down contractual language every day, this is not some Bizarro World where every contract is viewed as perfection simply because the contracting parties were "sophisticated" and "negotiated" and were "represented by counsel".

No matter how you choose to view this - either the ACC wanting to "protect itself" against other schools leaving (which it had already done under its Constitution) or ESPN wanting to "protect itself" against losing the best ACC teams (which it had already done through multiple clauses in the TV contract), the GOR "penalty" is unnecessary and duplicative, and it expires in three years. The "extension" isn't worth the one piece of paper it's written on.

This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.

Sure. Because I'm right. Unlike you.

I'm just waiting for you to tell us about all the caselaw that UPHOLDS multiple different contractual penalties for the same action. Please, oh wise one, tell us about all the jurisdictions that have ALLOWED multiple punitive penalties for choosing to exit an association, when there are already adequate remedies under OTHER documents.

I'll hang up now and listen to your answer.

 

[407cane]

looks like there's a ****ing contest in here


/ don't care just wants us to join the BIG so I can go to all the away games up here

 

[Negro-Wan Kanobi]

Lol this thread

 

[Tru C]

ACC still together. Would love for Clemson to fall off the map this year and Miami ascend. It would make all the conversation about conference realignment more interesting

 

[MPCane17]

@TheOriginalCane you hearing anything about this BOT meeting on Friday at FSU? One of their insiders who’s been talking about realignment similar to you says the GOR and exit fee has been worked out and they will leave

 

[TheOriginalCane]

@TheOriginalCane you hearing anything about this BOT meeting on Friday at FSU? One of their insiders who’s been talking about realignment similar to you says the GOR and exit fee has been worked out and they will leave

I've been hearing that F$U wants to leave rather quickly. I don't know if that means that the "GOR" piece has been "worked out", but I'd imagine there are a couple of strategies. If so, then you would expect a similar meeting on behalf of AT LEAST one other school.

I do know that I will be somewhere on Friday with the chance to ask relevant questions of someone at UM. So it COULD be an interesting discussion, we'll just have to monitor the next couple of days worth of BOT meetings at various schools.

I will point out what I've said all along. After the "easiest" way out of the GOR (killing the ACC), the next easiest way would be for ESPN to flip a school's ACC "rights" to become ESPN "rights". And that (plus the obvious F$U lust for the SEC) make up my hypothesis that the SEC will be the first to move, and may end up taking F$U and Clemson as the only 2 schools. I know it's popular to talk about UNC too, but we would have to figure out "Team #4".

And also because ESPN now believes that Stanford-Cal are "adequate" replacements for F$U-Clemson, plus the mathematical fact that ESPN only has to pay a 70% share to the ACC for Stanford-Cal...which helps to offset the amount that ESPN will pay MORE to the SEC for on behalf of F$U-Clemson (you didn't think they were taking half-shares to join the SEC, did you?).

So ESPN can potentially get THREE MORE SUB-OPTIMAL SCHOOLS in the ACC...AND AND AND get F$U-Clemson into the SEC...for a very affordable pricetag that allows them to get one more "net" ACC school at a "3-for-the-price-of-2" cost, while adding two of the absolute best non-SEC southeastern schools to the SEC.

******* genius. I'll address the Big 10 side of the picture in a separate post.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

This is the type of stuff I would expect to see in a response brief before the 11th Cir. You are in a league of your own. Lucid, brilliant analysis.

Look, you can delete your "Sleepy Joe" avatar, and you will still be the same porster who porsts hacky political bull****, which you've been warned against doing multiple times.

We all know that "11th Circuit" is code language for people like you. First, you haven't quite explained why a state contractual squabble would be in federal court, let alone federal appeals court, but more importantly, why you have determined that a contractual dispute would have an inherently "liberal" viewpoint? It's just...pathetic...for you to go to the political well for an issue having nothing to do with politics.

But, hey, who am I to take away the CONSTANT political/ideological digs from someone like you, who doesn't have any other ammo to use?

 

[MPCane17]

I've been hearing that F$U wants to leave rather quickly. I don't know if that means that the "GOR" piece has been "worked out", but I'd imagine there are a couple of strategies. If so, then you would expect a similar meeting on behalf of AT LEAST one other school.

I do know that I will be somewhere on Friday with the chance to ask relevant questions of someone at UM. So it COULD be an interesting discussion, we'll just have to monitor the next couple of days worth of BOT meetings at various schools.

I will point out what I've said all along. After the "easiest" way out of the GOR (killing the ACC), the next easiest way would be for ESPN to flip a school's ACC "rights" to become ESPN "rights". And that (plus the obvious F$U lust for the SEC) make up my hypothesis that the SEC will be the first to move, and may end up taking F$U and Clemson as the only 2 schools. I know it's popular to talk about UNC too, but we would have to figure out "Team #4".

And also because ESPN now believes that Stanford-Cal are "adequate" replacements for F$U-Clemson, plus the mathematical fact that ESPN only has to pay a 70% share to the ACC for Stanford-Cal...which helps to offset the amount that ESPN will pay MORE to the SEC for on behalf of F$U-Clemson (you didn't think they were taking half-shares to join the SEC, did you?).

So ESPN can potentially get THREE MORE SUB-OPTIMAL SCHOOLS in the ACC...AND AND AND get F$U-Clemson into the SEC...for a very affordable pricetag that allows them to get one more "net" ACC school at a "3-for-the-price-of-2" cost, while adding two of the absolute best non-SEC southeastern schools to the SEC.

******* genius. I'll address the Big 10 side of the picture in a separate post.

Appreciate the insight. Sounds like we will be stuck in the acc solo for a few years until we can move? Did I get that right? Still BIG bound at some point?

Gotta think recruiting will be tough without any announcement on our part for a while