https://www.wralsportsfan.com/board-moves-ahead-with-policy-that-could-stop-unc-nc-state-from-leaving-acc/

Any UNC System school and that includes UNC Chapel Hill and N.C. State University that wants to change athletic conferences will have to get approval from the system president and the board under a policy change approved by a board committee Wednesday.

The change must be approved by the full 24-member Board of Governors before it goes into effect. The University Governance committee approved the move Wednesday.

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

Upshot is that UNC will have a hard time leaving the conference and damaging the ACC, and by extension NC State. Although the article doesn't make a connection to UCLA/Cal, I'm guessing that we're the impetus for this change.

See, it wasn't all for nothing!

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

grrrrah said:

---

Upshot is that UNC will have a hard time leaving the conference and damaging the ACC, and by extension NC State. Although the article doesn't make a connection to UCLA/Cal, I'm guessing that we're the impetus for this change.

See, it wasn't all for nothing!

---

The effect of this is not that UNC can't leave. It's that UNC can't move to the SEC or Big Ten unless NCSU also goes.

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

---

They did that after the fact. UCLA had already made the commitment to the Big Ten.

Golden One said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

---

They did that after the fact. UCLA had already made the commitment to the Big Ten.

---

It still required UC regent approval. Presumably UNC or NC State would have a negotiated offer before they submitted it to the board for approval.

BearSD said:

---

grrrrah said:

---

Upshot is that UNC will have a hard time leaving the conference and damaging the ACC, and by extension NC State. Although the article doesn't make a connection to UCLA/Cal, I'm guessing that we're the impetus for this change.

See, it wasn't all for nothing!

---

The effect of this is not that UNC can't leave. It's that UNC can't move to the SEC or Big Ten unless NCSU also goes.

---

Not necessarily. It appears this just gives the board veto power. The UC regents had veto power over UCLA's move, but we did not use our leverage to try to get into the B1G, we used it to try to block UCLA. Our position made no financial sense.

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

---

Probably more accurate to say they voted not to block it. I'm not sure what it would have cost for UCLA to back out of the Big Ten contract, but at the time UCLA joined, the UCLA Chancellor had the legal authority to sign an agreement with the BT. The Regent always have the authority to end a contract and pay penalties, if any.

But as you state below the move would have been to work to include Cal, not block UCLA. That was a key miscalculation - especially considering that even if one is a non-revenue sports supporter, there is virtually no way to compete at the top level without a viable conference.

Not being proactive got Cal the worst of both worlds, low revenue and long travel.

I have no idea if getting to 4 corners to the ACC was ever possible, but that would have been seriously advantageous. Despite all the b12 propaganda out there, the ACC has a superior TV contract and superior markets. And if there is a legal way to break the ACC GOR, then there's a legal way to break the B12 GOR since they are basically identical.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

grrrrah said:

---

Upshot is that UNC will have a hard time leaving the conference and damaging the ACC, and by extension NC State. Although the article doesn't make a connection to UCLA/Cal, I'm guessing that we're the impetus for this change.

See, it wasn't all for nothing!

---

The effect of this is not that UNC can't leave. It's that UNC can't move to the SEC or Big Ten unless NCSU also goes.

---

Not necessarily. It appears this just gives the board veto power. The UC regents had veto power over UCLA's move, but we did not use our leverage to try to get into the B1G, we used it to try to block UCLA. Our position made no financial sense.

---

That's pretty much because we didn't have any leverage. Regents were never going to block the move and were never going to interject "if you want UCLA you're gonna have to take Cal too".

One thing I find interesting is that the NC Board didn't have any language in their constitution/charter that would give veto power over a potential move from UNC or NCState. In any case, I still don't think they would reject a move.

BearSD said:

---

grrrrah said:

---

Upshot is that UNC will have a hard time leaving the conference and damaging the ACC, and by extension NC State. Although the article doesn't make a connection to UCLA/Cal, I'm guessing that we're the impetus for this change.

See, it wasn't all for nothing!

---

The effect of this is not that UNC can't leave. It's that UNC can't move to the SEC or Big Ten unless NCSU also goes.

---

This is exactly right. No way the state allows one to move and leave the other behind. That said, they both don't necessarily have to go to the same P4 league.

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

---

Probably more accurate to say they voted not to block it. I'm not sure what it would have cost for UCLA to back out of the Big Ten contract, but at the time UCLA joined, the UCLA Chancellor had the legal authority to sign an agreement with the BT. The Regent always have the authority to end a contract and pay penalties, if any.

But as you state below the move would have been to work to include Cal, not block UCLA. That was a key miscalculation - especially considering that even if one is a non-revenue sports supporter, there is virtually no way to compete at the top level without a viable conference.

Not being proactive got Cal the worst of both worlds, low revenue and long travel.

I have no idea if getting to 4 corners to the ACC was ever possible, but that would have been seriously advantageous. Despite all the b12 propaganda out there, the ACC has a superior TV contract and superior markets. And if there is a legal way to break the ACC GOR, then there's a legal way to break the B12 GOR since they are basically identical.

---

I think if the ACC gets beyond this deal with FSU somehow. then the 4 corners schools will be a natural expansion. They are all AAU schools, while in the big 12, only Kansas is left who is an AAU school. Kansas would be a good addition as well, to bring the total to 20 plus ND. I expect then that the Big 12 gets the PAC 2 and perhaps some mountain west teams like Fresno, SDS, Boise and UNLV.

ColoradoBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

It's a pity UC Regents didn't have this foresight

---

The UC Regents did vote to approve UCLA's move to the B1G.

---

Probably more accurate to say they voted not to block it. I'm not sure what it would have cost for UCLA to back out of the Big Ten contract, but at the time UCLA joined, the UCLA Chancellor had the legal authority to sign an agreement with the BT. The Regent always have the authority to end a contract and pay penalties, if any.

But as you state below the move would have been to work to include Cal, not block UCLA. That was a key miscalculation - especially considering that even if one is a non-revenue sports supporter, there is virtually no way to compete at the top level without a viable conference.

Not being proactive got Cal the worst of both worlds, low revenue and long travel.

I have no idea if getting to 4 corners to the ACC was ever possible, but that would have been seriously advantageous. Despite all the b12 propaganda out there, the ACC has a superior TV contract and superior markets. And if there is a legal way to break the ACC GOR, then there's a legal way to break the B12 GOR since they are basically identical.

---

Speaking of travel, does anyone know if the travel arrangements to travel to the east coast will allow the games to be played the TWO DAYS AFTER Cal is planning on taking their flight (or more than one) to the east coast. Otherwise, our guys may not get enough sleep. And is that the normal arrangement with regard to flying to the east coast for a game? Tx.

This isn't true. FSU's lawsuit hinges entirely on the acc commissioner unilaterally granting espn a 9 year extension without consideration and the ACCs breach of fiduciary duty by failing to negotiate a deal that doesn't suck ass. It doesn't challenge the GOR as a concept and the actions of the ACC that make the GOR voidable aren't applicable to the big 12 GOR

accprisoner said:

---

This isn't true. FSU's lawsuit hinges entirely on the acc commissioner unilaterally granting espn a 9 year extension without consideration and the ACCs breach of fiduciary duty by failing to negotiate a deal that doesn't suck ass. It doesn't challenge the GOR as a concept and the actions of the ACC that make the GOR voidable aren't applicable to the big 12 GOR

---

I get that you guys want to be in the SEC, but that is a tough argument.

Isn't the ACC's deal $40 million a year per school? Since then the Big-12 got $30 million and then a year later the PAC-10 was not even given $20 million despite having more Top 20 teams than the ACC? (Or the B1G, SEC or B12 for that matter). The PAC-12 would still be a conference with the ACC's deal.

With people cutting the cord and ESPN and Fox Sports in financial straits, an argument can be made that locking in a long term deal was a pretty savvy decision. You certainly can't prove it was a bad decision at this point.

accprisoner said:

---

This isn't true. FSU's lawsuit hinges entirely on the acc commissioner unilaterally granting espn a 9 year extension without consideration and the ACCs breach of fiduciary duty by failing to negotiate a deal that doesn't suck ass. It doesn't challenge the GOR as a concept and the actions of the ACC that make the GOR voidable aren't applicable to the big 12 GOR

---

This is word salad. No honest judge would go along with it.

All this plus "on second thought I don't like the terms I agreed to" has never been a valid reason to excuse breach of contract. Even IF the ACC breached a fiduciary duty (spoiler: it didn't for all the reasons you cite and more) that still wouldn't void the GOR itself.

BearSD said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

This isn't true. FSU's lawsuit hinges entirely on the acc commissioner unilaterally granting espn a 9 year extension without consideration and the ACCs breach of fiduciary duty by failing to negotiate a deal that doesn't suck ass. It doesn't challenge the GOR as a concept and the actions of the ACC that make the GOR voidable aren't applicable to the big 12 GOR

---

This is word salad. No honest judge would go along with it.

---

There is no 'suck ass provision that makes a contract unenforceable. Can we get a GoFundMe to send accprisoner to an online law school?

accprisoner is actually a berkeley grad who is a paid lobbyist for the big 12

question for karen, when's the last time u went to a cal football game?

Delusional. The ACC gave espn a unilateral right to extend its media rights deal from 2027 to 2036. ESPN has yet to pick up that option. The acc obtained zero consideration from ESPN in exchange for that right. ESPN has yet to exercise the option yet the ACC gor with the member institutions goes to 2036 despite not having a media deal to back it up.

It's over for the ACC. Oh, and their North Carolina lawsuit is getting tossed. Brush up on Orbstat and find out what happens when you try to forum shop with an anticipatory dec action.


Even the delusional cal homer twist n hook knows the ACC is ****ed on the consideration problem. The court is going to rule that the GOR expires in 2027. FSU, Clemson and unc will pay 2 seasons of media rights plus the 120 exit fee to be out for $200m each.

^ karen is an angry lobbyist who hates her alma mater, she probably needs a yoga/meditation practice or something

but that don't change the fact that the acc gor don't got an escape clause for media rights negotiations...if she had been accepted (she wuzn't) into the haas biz school she would have a sharper comprehension of how contracts work

or the fact that nc board of regents have basically tied together north carolina & north carolina state together on a go forward basis with respects to conference affiliations

or the probability that florida state's football days are over for the foreseeable future just like washington starting in 2024...the sec & big 10 aren't gonna be recruiting 3-9 football programs

and no the acc lawsuit is not "getting tossed" (legal term for art history majors), there will be protracted litigation for years

the reality is that the big 12 is a loose amalgamation of geographically incompatible pieces of **** academic skools (zero admission standards) domiciled in redneck truck stop towns (with the exceptions of tempe & boulder) that NOBODY on planet earth wants to visit other than a lot lizard with cfm pumps & terminable stds traveling the big 12 footprint on a fall biz roadtrip of truck stops with her pimp

bears fans are traveling to dallas, pittsburgh, winston-salem & tallahassee (en route to miami) in 2024 on acc roadtrips with notre dame & big games in palo alto on future schedules

jason scheer will fit in well with the big 12 & it's compelling battles of must watch tv featuring 2.5 gpa dumb azzs with zero academic ambition playing each in football & basketball

acc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>big 12>>>>>>>mountain west

accprisoner said:

---

Delusional. The ACC gave espn a unilateral right to extend its media rights deal from 2027 to 2036. ESPN has yet to pick up that option. The acc obtained zero consideration from ESPN in exchange for that right. ESPN has yet to exercise the option yet the ACC gor with the member institutions goes to 2036 despite not having a media deal to back it up.

It's over for the ACC. Oh, and their North Carolina lawsuit is getting tossed. Brush up on Orbstat and find out what happens when you try to forum shop with an anticipatory dec action.


Even the delusional cal homer twist n hook knows the ACC is ****ed on the consideration problem. The court is going to rule that the GOR expires in 2027. FSU, Clemson and unc will pay 2 seasons of media rights plus the 120 exit fee to be out for $200m each.

---

The schools all signed the 20 year GORs extension in 2016 based on the ESPN contract which was in front of them and which included the creation of the ACC Network. Even if there is a provision whereby ESPN does not have to renew in 2027, then it was in the contract the schools saw before they signed away their GORs.

The bottom line is they signed away their GORs.

Moreover, your argument makes no sense. If the deal with ESPN was so bad for the ACC, why would ESPN not renew it in 2027? Furthermore, who do you think would be paying the money to the SEC for you to join them? ESPN. So ESPN is going to go out of its way to do all this for you, why? The goodwill Florida's governor has generated with Disney?

The lawsuits will fail, but once that is decided and now that we are members I do think the rest of the ACC would entertain a negotiated buy out. That is how Texas and Oklahoma left the B12. Texas gave up $100 million to leave 1 year early, $500 million to leave 12 years is a bargain.

All this talk of institutional money detracts from the purity of pay to play laundry display that is so endearing to all.

calumnus said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Delusional. The ACC gave espn a unilateral right to extend its media rights deal from 2027 to 2036. ESPN has yet to pick up that option. The acc obtained zero consideration from ESPN in exchange for that right. ESPN has yet to exercise the option yet the ACC gor with the member institutions goes to 2036 despite not having a media deal to back it up.

It's over for the ACC. Oh, and their North Carolina lawsuit is getting tossed. Brush up on Orbstat and find out what happens when you try to forum shop with an anticipatory dec action.


Even the delusional cal homer twist n hook knows the ACC is ****ed on the consideration problem. The court is going to rule that the GOR expires in 2027. FSU, Clemson and unc will pay 2 seasons of media rights plus the 120 exit fee to be out for $200m each.

---

The schools all signed the 20 year GORs extension in 2016 based on the ESPN contract which was in front of them and which included the creation of the ACC Network. Even if there is a provision whereby ESPN does not have to renew in 2027, then it was in the contract the schools saw before they signed away their GORs.

The bottom line is they signed away their GORs.

Moreover, your argument makes no sense. If the deal with ESPN was so bad for the ACC, why would ESPN not renew it in 2027? Furthermore, who do you think would be paying the money to the SEC for you to join them? ESPN. So ESPN is going to go out of its way to do all this for you, why? The goodwill Florida's governor has generated with Disney?

The lawsuits will fail, but once that is decided and now that we are members I do think the rest of the ACC would entertain a negotiated buy out. That is how Texas and Oklahoma left the B12. Texas gave up $100 million to leave 1 year early, $500 million to leave 12 years is a bargain.

---

From the biggest cal homer on the internet:

Mishandling the Unilateral ESPN extension.
This is a fair criticism, if the story is as FSU states. I do not think the ACC should allow ESPN to have an unilateral extension. However, I do not know exactly what the situation is. Separately, this would be a breach of the ESPN media deals, not necessarily the GOR.
Amending the 2016 ESPN Agreement without approval of 2/3rds of the schools approving it.
Again, this seems like a fair criticism, if true. That seems like a breach of the ACC Bylaws, not the GOR, however.
Extending "for no consideration" the ESPN option in August 2021.
This is a bit complicated. Under FSU's statement of facts, ESPN had a trigger date to do the unilateral extension. FSU claims the ACC pushed that back (which is bad for ACC/FSU because it gives ESPN more time to consider its options etc). FSU claims the ACC pushed that back and go "no consideration" (i.e. nothing in return).

This could all be true and could be potentially bad. However, it would relate not to the GOR but the ESPN Media deal. Perhaps this could be a way to undermine and get out of the ESPN deal. This would be good for FSU, because it could be re-negotiated for higher numbers.

If the court finds in favor of any one of those counts in FSU's favor, the appropriate remedy is the GOR's expiration being rolled back to 2027. FSU/clemson/unc will all leave immediately for the $200m in costs to leave 2 years early.


Doubt it. Run from it. The death of the acc arrives all the same

accprisoner said:

---

calumnus said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Delusional. The ACC gave espn a unilateral right to extend its media rights deal from 2027 to 2036. ESPN has yet to pick up that option. The acc obtained zero consideration from ESPN in exchange for that right. ESPN has yet to exercise the option yet the ACC gor with the member institutions goes to 2036 despite not having a media deal to back it up.

It's over for the ACC. Oh, and their North Carolina lawsuit is getting tossed. Brush up on Orbstat and find out what happens when you try to forum shop with an anticipatory dec action.


Even the delusional cal homer twist n hook knows the ACC is ****ed on the consideration problem. The court is going to rule that the GOR expires in 2027. FSU, Clemson and unc will pay 2 seasons of media rights plus the 120 exit fee to be out for $200m each.

---

The schools all signed the 20 year GORs extension in 2016 based on the ESPN contract which was in front of them and which included the creation of the ACC Network. Even if there is a provision whereby ESPN does not have to renew in 2027, then it was in the contract the schools saw before they signed away their GORs.

The bottom line is they signed away their GORs.

Moreover, your argument makes no sense. If the deal with ESPN was so bad for the ACC, why would ESPN not renew it in 2027? Furthermore, who do you think would be paying the money to the SEC for you to join them? ESPN. So ESPN is going to go out of its way to do all this for you, why? The goodwill Florida's governor has generated with Disney?

The lawsuits will fail, but once that is decided and now that we are members I do think the rest of the ACC would entertain a negotiated buy out. That is how Texas and Oklahoma left the B12. Texas gave up $100 million to leave 1 year early, $500 million to leave 12 years is a bargain.

---

From the biggest cal homer on the internet:

Mishandling the Unilateral ESPN extension.
This is a fair criticism, if the story is as FSU states. I do not think the ACC should allow ESPN to have an unilateral extension. However, I do not know exactly what the situation is. Separately, this would be a breach of the ESPN media deals, not necessarily the GOR.
Amending the 2016 ESPN Agreement without approval of 2/3rds of the schools approving it.
Again, this seems like a fair criticism, if true. That seems like a breach of the ACC Bylaws, not the GOR, however.
Extending "for no consideration" the ESPN option in August 2021.
This is a bit complicated. Under FSU's statement of facts, ESPN had a trigger date to do the unilateral extension. FSU claims the ACC pushed that back (which is bad for ACC/FSU because it gives ESPN more time to consider its options etc). FSU claims the ACC pushed that back and go "no consideration" (i.e. nothing in return).

This could all be true and could be potentially bad. However, it would relate not to the GOR but the ESPN Media deal. Perhaps this could be a way to undermine and get out of the ESPN deal. This would be good for FSU, because it could be re-negotiated for higher numbers.

If the court finds in favor of any one of those counts in FSU's favor, the appropriate remedy is the GOR's expiration being rolled back to 2027. FSU/clemson/unc will all leave immediately for the $200m in costs to leave 2 years early.


Doubt it. Run from it. The death of the acc arrives all the same

---

I'm not sure you actually read all of this. He says there could be an issue with the media deal being extended but that it wouldn't affect the GOR. If the GOR is still in place then the ACC still owns FSU's media rights. How do they get out of that?

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

---

You guys say this because you want it to happen, but I don't see how the contract says that. The GOR and the ESPN deal are two separate things.

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

---

You're completely full of *****

FSU expressly agreed to extend the GOR term to June 30, 2036 when its President John Thrasher signed the amendment on June 28, 2016. See Exhibit 7 to FAC.

Your claims that this extension is "unilateral" and "for no consideration" are absurd and patently false. Not only did FSU expressly agree to the amendment (which includes a consideration recital BTW) as noted above, ESPN is not getting the rights to those additional years for no additional money. They are still paying rights fees to the ACC. That's the consideration FSU agreed to.

WalterSobchak said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

---

You're completely full of *****

FSU expressly agreed to extend the GOR term to June 30, 2036 when its President John Thrasher signed the amendment on June 28, 2016. See Exhibit 7 to FAC.

Your claims that this extension is "unilateral" and "for no consideration" are absurd and patently false. Not only did FSU expressly agree to the amendment (which includes a consideration recital BTW) as noted above, ESPN is not getting the rights to those additional years for no additional money. They are still paying rights fees to the ACC. That's the consideration FSU agreed to.

---

Exactly. Moreover, the creation of the ACC Network by ESPN and it's resulting revenues was ADDITIONAL consideration.

calumnus said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

---

You're completely full of *****

FSU expressly agreed to extend the GOR term to June 30, 2036 when its President John Thrasher signed the amendment on June 28, 2016. See Exhibit 7 to FAC.

Your claims that this extension is "unilateral" and "for no consideration" are absurd and patently false. Not only did FSU expressly agree to the amendment (which includes a consideration recital BTW) as noted above, ESPN is not getting the rights to those additional years for no additional money. They are still paying rights fees to the ACC. That's the consideration FSU agreed to.

---

Exactly. Moreover, the creation of the ACC Network by ESPN and it's resulting revenues was ADDITIONAL consideration.

---

Yeah the FAC covers that too.

WalterSobchak said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

---

You're completely full of *****

FSU expressly agreed to extend the GOR term to June 30, 2036 when its President John Thrasher signed the amendment on June 28, 2016. See Exhibit 7 to FAC.

Your claims that this extension is "unilateral" and "for no consideration" are absurd and patently false. Not only did FSU expressly agree to the amendment (which includes a consideration recital BTW) as noted above, ESPN is not getting the rights to those additional years for no additional money. They are still paying rights fees to the ACC. That's the consideration FSU agreed to.

---

The FSU argument seems to come down to the following:

1. The ESPN extension deadline shouldn't have been moved without a full vote of the members (maybe so).

2. And this means the whole ACC Grant of Rights is canceled after that original deadline!

Except there is nothing to connect the one to the other except a big handwave and expecting people to get confused enough to believe them. That might work on Twitter but I'm not sure it will work as well in court.

The GOR gives the ACC the rights to FSU's (and all the member schools') media rights through 2036. Every school signed that extension. The ACC separately negotiated the ESPN deal that now applies to all schools. If the ESPN deal happened to go away, the ACC would still own all the media rights and the ability to negotiate a new deal on their behalf. Sure, FSU could try to end the ESPN deal in 2027 and force the conference to renegotiate or fold entirely. Seems to me they'd need the votes of the rest of the conference to do that, and given that the rest of the conference just voted to add three more members over their objections I'm not confident they'd have a lot of support.

sycasey said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

accprisoner said:

---

Because the remedy for the acc unilaterally (and in violation of its bylaws) granting an extension on the deadline for espn to extend the media rights deal is to roll back the deadline to its original and now expired date. That rollback places the media rights deal and GOR expiration back to 2027. Capping fsu/clemson/uncs damages back to 2-3 years instead of 12.

Frankly, it's in the entire accs favor for the rollback to be granted because then the ACC can renegotiate the media deal with espn while simultaneously fighting to keep fsu/clemson/unc bound by the GOR.

---

You're completely full of *****

FSU expressly agreed to extend the GOR term to June 30, 2036 when its President John Thrasher signed the amendment on June 28, 2016. See Exhibit 7 to FAC.

Your claims that this extension is "unilateral" and "for no consideration" are absurd and patently false. Not only did FSU expressly agree to the amendment (which includes a consideration recital BTW) as noted above, ESPN is not getting the rights to those additional years for no additional money. They are still paying rights fees to the ACC. That's the consideration FSU agreed to.

---

The FSU argument seems to come down to the following:

1. The ESPN extension deadline shouldn't have been moved without a full vote of the members (maybe so).

2. And this means the whole ACC Grant of Rights is canceled after that original deadline!

Except there is nothing to connect the one to the other except a big handwave and expecting people to get confused enough to believe them. That might work on Twitter but I'm not sure it will work as well in court.

The GOR gives the ACC the rights to FSU's (and all the member schools') media rights through 2036. Every school signed that extension. The ACC separately negotiated the ESPN deal that now applies to all schools. If the ESPN deal happened to go away, the ACC would still own all the media rights and the ability to negotiate a new deal on their behalf. Sure, FSU could try to end the ESPN deal in 2027 and force the conference to renegotiate or fold entirely. Seems to me they'd need the votes of the rest of the conference to do that, and given that the rest of the conference just voted to add three more members over their objections I'm not confident they'd have a lot of support.

---

True, except all the schools, including FSU, signed the GOR extension after reading and with full knowledge of the extension the ACC would sign with ESPN. They essentially all agreed to the contract with ESPN. It is just like the PAC-10 schools refusal to sign the GOR extension last year was a referendum on Kliavkoff's Apple streaming deal.

Exactly. There was a vote. The results were unanimous and are in writing with the FSU President's signature on it.

You guys are missing the big picture. If espn can't renew the media rights deal because the date is rolled back, they're forced to either renew at a higher rate or, absent a new media deal, the schools seeking to leave now only have to pay an exit fee since there's no media revenue to pay back.

accprisoner said:

---

You guys are missing the big picture. If espn can't renew the media rights deal because the date is rolled back, they're forced to either renew at a higher rate or, absent a new media deal, the schools seeking to leave now only have to pay an exit fee since there's no media revenue to pay back.

---

The ACC owns the media rights through 2036 whether or not they have a contract with ESPN...