ADVERTISEMENT

FSU to the B1G



Judge Cooper on issue of venue: other members in litigation involve other states. We don't know those will merge together. There are multiple witnesses in every state. This priority concern does not favor NC. The location of electronic documents or emails is irrelevant. Not saying FSU is right on its allegations, or the merits of the case, just ruling that the Motion to Stay should be denied. This was "classic anticipatory litigation" which leads to a conclusion of forum shopping. Only conclusion, and reason it is condemned, is because the party engaging in such KNOWS that they had a better place to try their case. That is why they filed the way they did. #FSUvACC
 
I can’t remember where I saw the comment today but it stated that judges often suggest mediation when one side has extremely unrealistic expectations. The hope being that the mediator can clue the unrealistic side into understanding that they stand to lose badly.

Any lawyers here have thoughts on this?

@FSUTribe76

That’s an interesting take but without knowing the judge I wouldn’t assume it has anything to do with his belief of the strengths of the case on one side or the other. Most judges are big believers in any form of alternative dispute resolution, especially mediation. And in Federal court, mediation is literally a requirement in every civil case. The first thing either party does in a federal civil case after all the preliminary pleadings and mandatory notices like corporate disclosure forms are filed is to get together for the case conference and not only decide dates of each step but the name of the jointly agreed upon mediator.
 
That’s an interesting take but without knowing the judge I wouldn’t assume it has anything to do with his belief of the strengths of the case on one side or the other. Most judges are big believers in any form of alternative dispute resolution, especially mediation. And in Federal court, mediation is literally a requirement in every civil case. The first thing either party does in a federal civil case after all the preliminary pleadings and mandatory notices like corporate disclosure forms are filed is to get together for the case conference and not only decide dates of each step but the name of the jointly agreed upon mediator.
It’s become a very common practice in Florida as well. I’ve been involved in two mediations involving HOA’s. The courts are simply too backlogged and getting to court would take years.
One of my children got a divorce settled through a mandatory mediation as well.
 
Another ACC fan account





That was what we all thought until we found out about the ESPN unilateral option for 2027-2036. Now that figure is more speculative. Without a media partner, we don't know what the value of the GoR is for the last 10 years. I will agree that the number is not zero. I will agree ESPN could exercise the option and make it $572M. But the reality of the situation is that the true value is somewhere between those two figures. If ESPN declines the option, who will pick it up? AppleTV? Peacock? And at what price? Surely not the current price.
 
It’s probably going to drag on for a while. The ACC commissioner and Wake Forest aren’t going to give up their gravy train without a fight
It might go quicker if we can get but one more school to drop anchor and sue. If that happens, game over. IMHO a lot of this depends on ESPN. They hate the ACC, despite its value. So if they can figure out a way to gut them and have the best teams land in an arrangement with BIG, SEC and BIG12 where they still get the benefit of a lot of viewers, they will stab ACC in back on GOR and contract. The contract not signed between ESPN and ACC after 27 and another big team leaving could cause them to flip!
 
It’s gonna be tough giving up re runs of BC women’s field hockey but I think we’ll survive.
 



Here is the unsigned 2013 GoR that is publicly available on the internet. This is the initial GoR through 2027. An extension was secured by @theACC from all member institutions in 2016. Nothing changed other than the "good through" date to 2036.

Of note, @FloridaState was the last to sign and did so several days AFTER the other members schools (read into that what you wish; I believe it was hesitancy to comply). Nevertheless it was executed. Having this issue come up today (thanks, @DidTheACCDie) it is my first time looking at thris since the @ClemsonUniv lawsuit was filed.

I AM CHANGING MY MIND! I now agree (partially) with Clemson's interpretation. The ACC GoR is based entirely on the ACC's deal with ESPN and cannot exist as a valid, binding agreement without ESPN's media rights agreement. The entire first paragraph of the GoR mentions ESPN nine (9) times and makes no mention of any other potential media partners. The GoR was made at the request of ESPN, for the benefit of ESPN, and in conjunction with ESPN.

Paragraph seven mentions access to campus facilities FOR ESPN, not for "any ACC affiliated media partners". Any agreement designed to contemplate an existence beyond any ESPN media deal would/should have said after EVERY mention of ESPN, "or any other media partner with whom the ACC signs a material media rights agreement at the conclusion of the ESPN Agreement." But the GoR did not say that. The GoR, conclusively, requires the existence of an ESPN Agreement for it to exist.

I apologize to those I maligned or suggested otherwise. Of note...I am not a judge. My opinion on this matter carries no weight. But a simple reading of the plain meaning of the GoR confirms (to me) that if
@espn exercises it's option before February 2025 for the years 2027-2036, the GoR has value as alleged by FSU totaling $542M.

In the event ESPN does not exercise it's option to extend the ACC Media Rights Deal, the GoR ceases to have any value and is unenforceable. I disagree with Clemson that the member has the right to withdraw and sever the GoR. This event is contemplated in the contract by saying "regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the conference during the entirety of the Term…”

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ericram
I thought the three new schools were not full members until the first of July 2024 so why were they invited to attend or participate in any meeting - particularly about a “legal matter”? And why is the ACC not forthcoming about the meeting minutes to either the TBT or FSU?
 
I thought the three new schools were not full members until the first of July 2024 so why were they invited to attend or participate in any meeting - particularly about a “legal matter”? And why is the ACC not forthcoming about the meeting minutes to either the TBT or FSU?


The part of the article discussing the 18 teams vs 17 teams and later the part about the "being shared in a new folder [titled “ACC Board of Directors (14 members)]" was a lot convoluted. But agree, extending invites and including the 3 not yet members is an interesting move.

It's just laughable how the ACC is grasping. Just feels desperate, and clearly Clemson and FSU are done with the losing relationship, the remaining schools are in a very interesting limbo. I wonder if Stanford is rethinking this move. Cal/SMU are getting the best upgrade they could get.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT