forums

FSU LIVE BOT Meeting - Livestream link

Hoyacane1620 said:
The multi media rights agreement is kept in the League office. When getting access, the FSU attorneys are saying they are not allowed access in private. No photographs are allowed to be taken. Anyone getting access to it are heavily monitored.
Click to expand...


This right here...

This should tell you everything you need to know about how bad ESPN and the ACC are.
 
Advertisement
Jedi Master Cane said:
Let me explain something to some of you cretins ....

This is the ONE time you should be rooting for FSU to win at something. If they set the precedent, we are all free.
Click to expand...


Not true. It will be the first step to freedom.

We should just join the lawsuit and cut out the middleman steps on the ladder.
 
Rickd said:
Greenberg Traurig has done an excellent job in preparing a very compelling case against the ACC to challenge the fundamental legitimacy of the GOR and it's SEVERE WITHDRAWAL PENALTY. "If found to be unenforceable it is not something that would be reduced to a lesser amount ... it would be eliminated ... zero" (comment from David Ashberg attorney for Greenberg Traurig). Miami needs to join the action.
Click to expand...



100.

1000.

I'll make this very simple.

Every UM alum, every UM booster, every UM ticket holder needs to contact

Julio Frenkenstein
Dan Radakovich
Rudy Fernandez
Joe Echevarria
The Mas brothers
And every other Trustee you know

To demand that they join on the lawsuit immediately.

"Letting someone else do the dirty work" is the biggest ***** legal argument that can possibly be made.

We need to be on the front line of contributing to the legal strategy and arguments. We need to be free at the EXACT SAME TIME that this case is won. Not "later" with our "subsequent legal filings" because we "let F$U do all the heavy lifting".

We need an aggressive legal strategy here, not a ***** legal strategy.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Not true. It will be the first step to freedom.

We should just join the lawsuit and cut out the middleman steps on the ladder.
Click to expand...

It's completely true , assuming we are talking about the same thing.

I'm not talking about the process of today's meeting or the initial steps being taken, I'm talking about the if/when they do formally break free....the precedent set would be all that's needed for Miami and Clemson to break free.

As for joining...I would be strategic about it. First wait and see if their argument actually has legs before we start giving money away to lawyers. If they gain some traction then absolutely you join the fray.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's all good, you're doing the lord's work here.

I've said this before, but you have two "levels" of legal analysis that a lot of people tend to do on here.

First, you have the Northern Virginia brain-dead analysis where someone says "hey, the GOR is an assignment, and it uses all the right words, and it looks like everyone signed it, therefore it must be valid."

Then you have the more thoughtful, deeper, and PUBLIC-POLICY oriented analysis which looks to thew bigger picture and bigger issues, which is what you are tracking.

As I have ALWAYS maintained, there are several structural and multi-agreement flaws with the GOR:

1. We ALL KNOW that the financial penalty of the GOR has ALWAYS been a disguised super-penalty for leaving the conference, generally. It has NEVER been a true "well, here is the impact to ESPN and/or the ACC to make them whole JUST FOR THE MEDIA RIGHTS piece". So at its core, the GOR has always been a fraudelent document intended to do fraudulent things. Otherwise, US legal precedent and contract law cases have made it clear that you CANNOT use a second document to impose an ADDITIONAL penalty for exit that is already contemplated in a "constitution/by-laws" document.

2. The GOR has ALWAYS been fatally-flawed when it comes to the rationale and calculation of "damages". It is brutally vague. It woulda/shoulda/coulda been the PERFECT PLACE to use liquidated damages, which are particularly helpful when "damages" are otherwise difficult to quantify and calculate. In and of itself, it would be permissible to have some kind of WELL-DEFINED liquidated damages related to exiting a media rights contract early. Setting aside my next point for now (in that the TV contract itself should already cover such damages anyhow), the reality is that imposing a MASSIVE Willy Wonka ("you get NOTHING") or Michael Corleone ("Senator, you can have my answer now, my offer is this, nothing, not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you put up personally") penalty is not something that courts can or like to impose, regardless of what the contract says. On the other hand, I've rarely seen a court NOT impose agreed-upon liquidated damages.

3. The GOR has ALWAYS been unnecessary in light of having TV contracts to cover all of the relevant agreements anyhow. Media rights agreements have existed LONG before GORs were invented. Somehow...SOMEHOW...the conferences figured out a way to negotiate and sign on behalf of the member schools WITHOUT the invention of the GOR. Simply stated, for its relatively short duration, the GOR has ALWAYS been a sledgehammer that both the conferences and networks use to SCARE members into staying. There is no legal need to grant rights to a conference, so that the conference can sell the rights to a network. It's stupid. We don't have thousands of shareholders members of the conference that would make separate signatory pages problematic. YOU JUST ******* PUT RIGHTS LANGUAGE INTO THE TV CONTRACT and then have BOTH the conference AND the separate members sign. See how easy that was? ******* ponderous, man. ******* ponderous.

4. Finally, the GOR is functioning IN THIS SITUATION as a covenant-not-to-compete. Sure, Northern Virginia is going to tell you about all the "assignment" contracts he drafts and all the "enforceability" memos he writes. **** all that ****. The reality is very simple. If you sign a 20 year agreement, even though in all other regards there are documents that allow you to exit and common sense ways to allow you to compute and pay damages...NOPE...we are going to use the GOR as a covenant-not-to-compete. You have NO MEDIA RIGHTS to transfer to another conference. AND we are not going to pay you. So you're double-****ed, and all under the FRAUDULENT guise of "hey, we needed a rights agreement to come to your schools and stadiums to film ****". This is a covenant-not-to-compete with a 20-year (max) timeframe and a 25,000 mile distance (circumference of the earth).

And, really, that's what the analysis should have ALWAYS focused on, and then you find the legal language to describe the grounds for non-enforcement. It's just that simple. The ACC-ESPN Mafia are telling us that we can't do **** for the next 13 years, we have NO MEDIA RIGHTS to sell, and we will get NO MONEY from anyone, all because we OTHERWISE want to exert the simple right to leave the conference.

**** all that.

I hope Miami joins F$U as a co-litigant.
Click to expand...
1703266027160.gif
 
Advertisement
Jedi Master Cane said:
It's completely true , assuming we are talking about the same thing.

I'm not talking about the process of today's meeting or the initial steps being taken, I'm talking about the if/when they do formally break free....the precedent set would be all that's needed for Miami and Clemson to break free.

As for joining...I would be strategic about it. First wait and see if their argument actually has legs before we start giving money away to lawyers. If they gain some traction then absolutely you join the fray.
Click to expand...


But every year that passes...

 
RedSquare said:
LOL.

Several schools, including UM, Duke, and UNC have had their top lawyers in NY look at this for months. Guys at Latham and some at Skadden. And now we want to believe that some Tallahassee yokel lawyer with a degree from FSU is the guy that finally cracked the case??

Call me skeptical.

But go ahead ….
Click to expand...


Tell me you don't know who Greenberg, Traurig are...
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
But every year that passes...

Click to expand...


Here's the one thing I can guarantee you....win or lose this entire legal process is going to be lengthy. It's good that those inbred hicks are starting the process right away, but this is going to be complicated especially since ESPN/Disney are involved.

The fact these hearings are all taking place in the State of Florida gives them/us/everyone the best chance of actually winning since the state politicians have already declared war on Disney.

For now, just sit back and watch. This is going to make the wait for a portal QB seem instantaneous so whatever word in the English language reflects patience on steroids.....exercise that.
 
Advertisement
RedSquare said:
LOL.

Several schools, including UM, Duke, and UNC have had their top lawyers in NY look at this for months. Guys at Latham and some at Skadden. And now we want to believe that some Tallahassee yokel lawyer with a degree from FSU is the guy that finally cracked the case??

Call me skeptical.

But go ahead ….
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what happened. It's not "cracking the case," it's coming up with a good enough argument to start a negotiation.
 
Jedi Master Cane said:
Here's the one thing I can guarantee you....win or lose this entire legal process is going to be lengthy. It's good that those inbred hicks are starting the process right away, but this is going to be complicated especially since ESPN/Disney are involved.

The fact these hearings are all taking place in the State of Florida gives them/us/everyone the best chance of actually winning since the state politicians have already declared war on Disney.

For now, just sit back and watch. This is going to make the wait for a portal QB seem instantaneous so whatever word in the English language reflects patience on steroids.....exercise that.
Click to expand...


I actually think the lawsuit can go very fast.

1. Yes, there will be some initial delay as they argue venue.
2. Once the thing gets going, it's about the LANGUAGE of the contract. No need for lengthy discovery.
3. It's just a challenge on ENFORCEABILITY. No "fault" or "damages" to determine.
 
Brains said:
Yes, that's what happened. It's not "cracking the case," it's coming up with a good enough argument to start a negotiation.
Click to expand...


You don't have to "crack the case".

You just need the stones to FILE the case.

I've been (accurately) describing the grounds for challenging the GOR for months on end.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top