Yeah what would i know about the internal dealings of the acc.
accprisoner said:
Yeah what would i know about the internal dealings of the acc.
accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
This reminds me of Rodger's while mic'd up against the Giants this week on Hard Knocks.GMP said:accprisoner said:
Yeah what would i know about the internal dealings of the acc.
LOL. And how the hell would I know who you are and what you know (and why would I believe you).
ACC won't lose in litigation, otherwise litigation would have already started.accprisoner said:
Theyre not going to pay full price. ACC cant risk losing in litigation.
If they force fsu to litigate and lose, they get nothing and the conference implodes entirely within 1 season.
Far better to just take 200m+ in guaranteed cash and coast until 2036.
Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
accprisoner said:
Stay mad, idiot.
accprisoner said:
Theyre not going to pay full price. ACC cant risk losing in litigation.
If they force fsu to litigate and lose, they get nothing and the conference implodes entirely within 1 season.
Far better to just take 200m+ in guaranteed cash and coast until 2036.
The ACC paid out $39M on average in 2022 (including CFP/Tourney). Big Ten's deal is the richest, starting in 2024 they'll paid $62.5M in media only, so let's round up generously to $75M/school all in. With the new additions and the discounts they are providing (along with growing ACCNet carriage fee revenues) let's conservatively assume those offset the loss from splitting the ACCNet and postseason pie and net travel cots. The incentive based winning pool will probably kick things higher but there's no guarantees. So let's say $40M/yr vs $75M year. A $35M/year difference max. Over 6 years that differential is $210M. And probably less since the ACC incentive pool will boost Clem and FSU over those years and I'm potentially overstating Big Ten postseason units.philly1121 said:Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
And you're correct, as the other poster mentioned - FSU and Clemson kamikaze the conference in 2029/30. 2033 is the absolute limit of their participation in the ACC. Once the B1G window opens up - then its game on again.
Like I've written before - both those schools see themselves as losing $300-500 million over the next 6 years. To spend $200 million to get out of the GoR is nothing to them.
But - at least we have 6 years to figure things out.
philly1121 said:Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
And you're correct, as the other poster mentioned - FSU and Clemson kamikaze the conference in 2029/30. 2033 is the absolute limit of their participation in the ACC. Once the B1G window opens up - then its game on again.
Like I've written before - both those schools see themselves as losing $300-500 million over the next 6 years. To spend $200 million to get out of the GoR is nothing to them.
But - at least we have 6 years to figure things out.
Oh no doubt - it's less. But the price to buy themselves out is high, as much or more than the difference in $ they'd receive. And with the exception of FSU and the Florida market, I don't see how Clemson and UNC should assume they'd be in Day 1 as a full member, with the precedent of Oregon and UW coming in at half. Clemson football is better over Oregon, but don't know their fanbase size/market. UNC is a great brand at hoops but doesn't move the needle at ALL in football. Oregon and UW have been in the CFB playoffs.philly1121 said:
I guess I'm saying that whatever boost they will be getting in ACC revenue, it still wouldn't compare to what they would be getting in the B1G. if they were to go to the B1G - rest assured they wouldn't settle for anything less than full share. probably with the SEC as well.
The mentality of FSU, Clemson and UNC is that they're losing money. One's pocketbook is a great rationalizer.
Econ141 said:philly1121 said:Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
And you're correct, as the other poster mentioned - FSU and Clemson kamikaze the conference in 2029/30. 2033 is the absolute limit of their participation in the ACC. Once the B1G window opens up - then its game on again.
Like I've written before - both those schools see themselves as losing $300-500 million over the next 6 years. To spend $200 million to get out of the GoR is nothing to them.
But - at least we have 6 years to figure things out.
For the life of me I can't figure out what there is to figure out. If Rutgers got into B1G with worse performance than us, there is no way they (Fox) are going to change their mind even if we showed promise in the next few years. Heck - Stanford has been extremely successful outside of these last 3-4!years and they were left out.
Let's say SEC and B1G got to 24 teams. We would never get invited to SEC so that leaves 6 teams for the B1G. Let's say FSU and UNC are two of those 6. Stanford is a 3rd. Who are the final 2 schools that Cal would be competing with? We need a performance target - what is it? We have all the other factors - academics and media market.
golden sloth said:Econ141 said:philly1121 said:Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
And you're correct, as the other poster mentioned - FSU and Clemson kamikaze the conference in 2029/30. 2033 is the absolute limit of their participation in the ACC. Once the B1G window opens up - then its game on again.
Like I've written before - both those schools see themselves as losing $300-500 million over the next 6 years. To spend $200 million to get out of the GoR is nothing to them.
But - at least we have 6 years to figure things out.
For the life of me I can't figure out what there is to figure out. If Rutgers got into B1G with worse performance than us, there is no way they (Fox) are going to change their mind even if we showed promise in the next few years. Heck - Stanford has been extremely successful outside of these last 3-4!years and they were left out.
Let's say SEC and B1G got to 24 teams. We would never get invited to SEC so that leaves 6 teams for the B1G. Let's say FSU and UNC are two of those 6. Stanford is a 3rd. Who are the final 2 schools that Cal would be competing with? We need a performance target - what is it? We have all the other factors - academics and media market.
Below is my speculation at the B1G's preferences:
Tier 1:
Notre Dame
Florida State
UNC
Clemson (though they may prefer the SEC)
Tier 2:
Miami
Tier 3:
Cal
Stanford
Virginia
Georgia tech
Pitt
Syracuse
Duke
Boston College
Utah
Tier 4:
Louisville
NC state
Wake forest
Arizona
Kansas
Some texas second tier schools
Those numbers are in the right ballpark. If those schools leave the ACC before June 2036, they will negotiate a buyout of their own media rights for however many years remain on the ACC's GOR at that time. Texas and Oklahoma negotiated a buyout of the last year on the Big 12 GOR -- reportedly each is paying $50 million to leave one year early. Supposedly the Big 12 and ACC media rights have roughly equal value, so $50 million per year for each school that leaves the ACC early would be a good benchmark for that negotiation.berserkeley said:
The GOR means that FSU and Clemson would have to sacrifice their B1G or SEC media earnings, not what they would have made staying in the ACC. You guys are using the ACC's media payout to guesstimate what they would owe, but that's the wrong number. If the B1G media deal is worth $50M over 14 years, then they'd have to pay $700M on the GOR alone.
dimitrig said:golden sloth said:Econ141 said:philly1121 said:Well, this staves off elimination for several years.accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
And you're correct, as the other poster mentioned - FSU and Clemson kamikaze the conference in 2029/30. 2033 is the absolute limit of their participation in the ACC. Once the B1G window opens up - then its game on again.
Like I've written before - both those schools see themselves as losing $300-500 million over the next 6 years. To spend $200 million to get out of the GoR is nothing to them.
But - at least we have 6 years to figure things out.
For the life of me I can't figure out what there is to figure out. If Rutgers got into B1G with worse performance than us, there is no way they (Fox) are going to change their mind even if we showed promise in the next few years. Heck - Stanford has been extremely successful outside of these last 3-4!years and they were left out.
Let's say SEC and B1G got to 24 teams. We would never get invited to SEC so that leaves 6 teams for the B1G. Let's say FSU and UNC are two of those 6. Stanford is a 3rd. Who are the final 2 schools that Cal would be competing with? We need a performance target - what is it? We have all the other factors - academics and media market.
Below is my speculation at the B1G's preferences:
Tier 1:
Notre Dame
Florida State
UNC
Clemson (though they may prefer the SEC)
Tier 2:
Miami
Tier 3:
Cal
Stanford
Virginia
Georgia tech
Pitt
Syracuse
Duke
Boston College
Utah
Tier 4:
Louisville
NC state
Wake forest
Arizona
Kansas
Some texas second tier schools
Virginia Tech would have to be in there
UW and Oregon came in at less than full share because of the circumstances. The B1G had all the leverage. Not so much for 2029/30. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and to a lesser extent UNC are the "best of the rest". The next deal for the B1G, depending on how the next few years shakes out in terms of the CFP - could be massive. So to for the SEC.sosheezy said:Oh no doubt - it's less. But the price to buy themselves out is high, as much or more than the difference in $ they'd receive. And with the exception of FSU and the Florida market, I don't see how Clemson and UNC should assume they'd be in Day 1 as a full member, with the precedent of Oregon and UW coming in at half. Clemson football is better over Oregon, but don't know their fanbase size/market. UNC is a great brand at hoops but doesn't move the needle at ALL in football. Oregon and UW have been in the CFB playoffs.philly1121 said:
I guess I'm saying that whatever boost they will be getting in ACC revenue, it still wouldn't compare to what they would be getting in the B1G. if they were to go to the B1G - rest assured they wouldn't settle for anything less than full share. probably with the SEC as well.
The mentality of FSU, Clemson and UNC is that they're losing money. One's pocketbook is a great rationalizer.
Nah, as you say I think this probably lasts until the B1G contract is up.philly1121 said:UW and Oregon came in at less than full share because of the circumstances. The B1G had all the leverage. Not so much for 2029/30. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and to a lesser extent UNC are the "best of the rest". The next deal for the B1G, depending on how the next few years shakes out in terms of the CFP - could be massive. So to for the SEC.sosheezy said:Oh no doubt - it's less. But the price to buy themselves out is high, as much or more than the difference in $ they'd receive. And with the exception of FSU and the Florida market, I don't see how Clemson and UNC should assume they'd be in Day 1 as a full member, with the precedent of Oregon and UW coming in at half. Clemson football is better over Oregon, but don't know their fanbase size/market. UNC is a great brand at hoops but doesn't move the needle at ALL in football. Oregon and UW have been in the CFB playoffs.philly1121 said:
I guess I'm saying that whatever boost they will be getting in ACC revenue, it still wouldn't compare to what they would be getting in the B1G. if they were to go to the B1G - rest assured they wouldn't settle for anything less than full share. probably with the SEC as well.
The mentality of FSU, Clemson and UNC is that they're losing money. One's pocketbook is a great rationalizer.
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
I'll go out on a limb and say, yes, the ACC GOR will last to June 2036, even if FSU and a couple of others get an SEC or Big Ten invite and buy their way out of the ACC. I don't think ND will be leaving; they wanted this expansion so that the ACC will survive an FSU departure and ND can keep its indy/ACC arrangement.philly1121 said:
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
Interesting that FSU has lawyers "looking into it." What firm(s) did FSU retain? Might send an FOIA request. Curious because I worked at Skadden practicing antitrust and sports law a lifetime ago (e.g., worked on the Grizzlies relocation to Memphis and other NBA/NHL matters).philly1121 said:UW and Oregon came in at less than full share because of the circumstances. The B1G had all the leverage. Not so much for 2029/30. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and to a lesser extent UNC are the "best of the rest". The next deal for the B1G, depending on how the next few years shakes out in terms of the CFP - could be massive. So to for the SEC.sosheezy said:Oh no doubt - it's less. But the price to buy themselves out is high, as much or more than the difference in $ they'd receive. And with the exception of FSU and the Florida market, I don't see how Clemson and UNC should assume they'd be in Day 1 as a full member, with the precedent of Oregon and UW coming in at half. Clemson football is better over Oregon, but don't know their fanbase size/market. UNC is a great brand at hoops but doesn't move the needle at ALL in football. Oregon and UW have been in the CFB playoffs.philly1121 said:
I guess I'm saying that whatever boost they will be getting in ACC revenue, it still wouldn't compare to what they would be getting in the B1G. if they were to go to the B1G - rest assured they wouldn't settle for anything less than full share. probably with the SEC as well.
The mentality of FSU, Clemson and UNC is that they're losing money. One's pocketbook is a great rationalizer.
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
FSU wants to raise capital to fund a buyout of the ACC GOR.DaveLibbey said:Interesting that FSU has lawyers "looking into it." What firm(s) did FSU retain? Might send an FOIA request. Curious because I worked at Skadden practicing antitrust and sports law a lifetime ago (e.g., worked on the Grizzlies relocation to Memphis and other NBA/NHL matters).philly1121 said:sosheezy said:
Quote:
Florida State University is working with JPMorgan Chase to explore how the school's athletic department could raise capital from institutional funds, such as private equity, according to multiple people familiar with the plans.
PE giant Sixth Street is in advanced talks to lead a possible investment, said the people, who were granted anonymity because the specifics are private. Institutional money has poured into professional sports in recent years, from the NBA and global soccer to F1 and golf, but this would break new ground by entering the multibillion-dollar world of college athletic departments.
The school is considering a structure similar to many of those pro sports investments, where commercial rights are rolled into a new company, the private equity fund invests in that entity, and then recoups its money via future media/sponsorship revenue. That's how Silver Lake structured its investment into the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team, and how CVC organized its $2.2 billion Spanish soccer deal with LaLiga.
As I understand the above article, the loan, errr "investment", to pay for the buyout would be secured by FSU's future athletic department revenue. The bankers or PE guys would get a percentage of future FSU athletic revenue in exchange for giving FSU a lump sum payment up front, as in the La Liga example mentioned in that article.Big Dog said:
FSU Athletics is part of the non-profit Uni and their lawyers will bill them thousands only to tell them that they can't do what the I-bankers propose. at best, they can obtain an unsecured loan to pay for the buyout. But what bank is gonna offer hundreds of millions unsecured??
From Tomahawk Nation:DaveLibbey said:Interesting that FSU has lawyers "looking into it." What firm(s) did FSU retain? Might send an FOIA request. Curious because I worked at Skadden practicing antitrust and sports law a lifetime ago (e.g., worked on the Grizzlies relocation to Memphis and other NBA/NHL matters).philly1121 said:UW and Oregon came in at less than full share because of the circumstances. The B1G had all the leverage. Not so much for 2029/30. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and to a lesser extent UNC are the "best of the rest". The next deal for the B1G, depending on how the next few years shakes out in terms of the CFP - could be massive. So to for the SEC.sosheezy said:Oh no doubt - it's less. But the price to buy themselves out is high, as much or more than the difference in $ they'd receive. And with the exception of FSU and the Florida market, I don't see how Clemson and UNC should assume they'd be in Day 1 as a full member, with the precedent of Oregon and UW coming in at half. Clemson football is better over Oregon, but don't know their fanbase size/market. UNC is a great brand at hoops but doesn't move the needle at ALL in football. Oregon and UW have been in the CFB playoffs.philly1121 said:
I guess I'm saying that whatever boost they will be getting in ACC revenue, it still wouldn't compare to what they would be getting in the B1G. if they were to go to the B1G - rest assured they wouldn't settle for anything less than full share. probably with the SEC as well.
The mentality of FSU, Clemson and UNC is that they're losing money. One's pocketbook is a great rationalizer.
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
I'll rephrase my statement and say, FSU has their legal team looking into it.Quote:
In an interview with ESPN earlier Wednesday, Florida State athletic director Michael Alford said, "We have a great understanding of what opportunities there are in that document. How that document could hold us back, but also what the opportunities are. So this is going to be a discussion. We'll keep getting legal advice. Our legal team has a good understanding of that document."
by law, a non-profit cannot have investors. In broad strokes, the state of Florida, i.e., taxpayers, essentially own the University and all of its assets, including the GOR from its college football teams. (The Athletics Dept is a Department of the University.). The attorneys can set up all the shell corps they want, but cannot move the asset called the GOR from its current nonprofit corp to a for profit corp without compensation to the State taxpayers at FMV, as approved by the Florida Secretary of State. And once the for-profit pays the non-profit for the asset transfer at FMV (funds to the State taxpayers, not the University), there is little money left available in the for-profit to buy out the GOR from the ACC.BearSD said:As I understand the above article, the loan, errr "investment", to pay for the buyout would be secured by FSU's future athletic department revenue. The bankers or PE guys would get a percentage of future FSU athletic revenue in exchange for giving FSU a lump sum payment up front, as in the La Liga example mentioned in that article.Big Dog said:
FSU Athletics is part of the non-profit Uni and their lawyers will bill them thousands only to tell them that they can't do what the I-bankers propose. at best, they can obtain an unsecured loan to pay for the buyout. But what bank is gonna offer hundreds of millions unsecured??
BearSD said:I'll go out on a limb and say, yes, the ACC GOR will last to June 2036, even if FSU and a couple of others get an SEC or Big Ten invite and buy their way out of the ACC. I don't think ND will be leaving; they wanted this expansion so that the ACC will survive an FSU departure and ND can keep its indy/ACC arrangement.philly1121 said:
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
Even if 4 teams left the ACC before 2036, it would still be a far better place for Cal and Stanford than any AAC/MWC mishmash.
Also, the ACC can expand further before 2036 if the opportunity arises. The Big 12 GOR expires in June 2031.
Interesting, but less likely given that any school leaving the ACC before June 2036 would have to buy its way out. In 2031, Big 12 teams will be able to leave the Big 12 for the ACC (or anywhere else) at a much lower cost than ACC teams could leave the ACC.golden sloth said:BearSD said:I'll go out on a limb and say, yes, the ACC GOR will last to June 2036, even if FSU and a couple of others get an SEC or Big Ten invite and buy their way out of the ACC. I don't think ND will be leaving; they wanted this expansion so that the ACC will survive an FSU departure and ND can keep its indy/ACC arrangement.philly1121 said:
In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.
Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
Even if 4 teams left the ACC before 2036, it would still be a far better place for Cal and Stanford than any AAC/MWC mishmash.
Also, the ACC can expand further before 2036 if the opportunity arises. The Big 12 GOR expires in June 2031.
I think there is an interesting question embedded with this comment. If the best of the ACC is poached, what if the remaining best of the Big-XII and ACC chose leave and form a new conference. What would that look like and entail? Basically, you take the top 8 or 9 remaining programs and forge a new conference out of it.
You can break the schools into regional subdivisions to ease travel and still have a national footprint.
Cal Chancellor Carol T. Christ says no sports will be cut "at least on my horizon." Christ will retire at the end of June 2024.https://t.co/VFu2Du4zrM
— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) September 1, 2023
Econ141 said:Cal Chancellor Carol T. Christ says no sports will be cut "at least on my horizon." Christ will retire at the end of June 2024.https://t.co/VFu2Du4zrM
— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) September 1, 2023
Hmmm
Econ141 said:Cal Chancellor Carol T. Christ says no sports will be cut "at least on my horizon." Christ will retire at the end of June 2024.https://t.co/VFu2Du4zrM
— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) September 1, 2023
Hmmm
Rats. I thought they meant years old.smh said:new to me too, found on the net..KenBurnski said:
Lfg????
> Looking For Group
> ..The most common definition of LFG is "looking for group." Many people on the internet use the acronym to multiplayer online game (mmo), look to team up in online multiplayer games. For example, if you're in the middle of playing a massively multiplayer online game (MMO) a player near you might type "LFG level 60+" to indicate that they would like to team up with other players that are at least level 60. However, this term has since spread to people who are looking for non-gaming groups.
https://www.howtogeek.com/771505/what-does-lfg-mean-and-how-do-you-use-it/