“ I have no dog in the hunt” but the answer is FSU/Clemson. Why? Look at the underhanded sneaky way the ACC has operated ( like the unilateral ESPN extension and the venue shopping).
The ACC has the simplest argument, which without more is compelling. FSU/Clemson really have the burden of proof and the risk of non-persuasion. It is not impossible for them to "win", but so far I am unpersuaded.
FSU/Clemson!! As noted previously, the ACC breached their pledge to ALL members to strategize, fight and deliver VALUE for every institution (not just the bottom tier), Once upon a time respective revenues of the SEC/ACC were in similar ballparks - a critical metric to keep ACC elite teams competitive with SEC counterparts. Several fiduciary malfeasance examples however, have reflected an inbred Tobacco Road mindset that deprioritized aggressive escalation of football schools/operations/contracts, media visibility and revenue. They were comfortable REDISTRIBUTING lions share viewership revenue from FSU/Clemson to lesser programs while arrogantly labeling FSU’s pleas (to aggressively grow the pie) as a perpetual nuisance…And now, with prophecy fulfilled, FSU are the bad guys. Rich beyond comprehension.
To be fair, these cases aren’t likely to go to trial and probably never were meant to go that far. This is all about money. FSU wants more money annually: ACC has failed to secure adequate and competitive funds for their members. FSU is leaving and all of this courtroom stuff is posturing for the day when they announce that a settlement was reached at a reduced rate. The lawsuit is to eliminate factors. Can FSU push this so that ESPN doesn’t extend the contract? (I heard from some that they dropped it already but I can’t substantiate that) That is big because the half a billion to get out of the ACC was predicated on having that extension. Without it, the cost should come down below 100 million. Then it’s a simple negotiation from there and the ACC wins by staying intact while FSU wins by leaving for greener pastures.
@@saturdayswarriorbyuthe ACC had a fiduciary duty to its members, it failed miserably. No one signs a unilateral contract renewable yearly from 2027 to 2036 unless they’re trying to “hold their members hostage”. Facts: when FSU joined the ACC in 1991, the ACC had the highest payout (of any conference” to its members. Next year, the ACC will be 4th (with the new addition of Cal, Stanford and SMU. Less than 1/2 the Big Ten and the SEC.
@@tarheel7406 Yeah, and this is weird that a Duke and UNC guy are going to agree, but FSU just doesn't have a good legal position. People think that saying that out loud means you're anti-FSU or anti-Clemson. I'm just commenting on the legal position here.
I love the argument that “they signed a contract” is all that matters and there’s no such thing as breach of contract or fiduciary duty on the part of the ACC. There are legitimate concerns for both sides and it’s ridiculous to pretend there isn’t. Especially when it’s well known that the ACC and ESPN are desperate to avoid discovery in FL, which requires documents to be made public.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu The ACC has failed to maintain the league's competitiveness versus rival leagues... Essentially it's main obligation under the terms of membership. This was known previously, but the League's failure to promote and ensure their undefeated champion was allowed to compete in the playoff along with the new playoff deal have objectively shown the ACC Management has caused the league to become a second tier league... Signing an awful 20 year Media deal was a horrible decision and caused the death of the league. Be mad at Swoffard and Phillips...
@@saturdayswarriorbyuThis is where discovery could change everything. There have already been accusations of self dealing with lowered school payouts to get ESPN to lock in Swofford at Raycom and other family members benefiting as well. There is also the unilateral agreement with ESPN to give them an opt out with no consideration, which was never voted on and supposedly members were unaware of.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu the elephant in the room FSU/Clemson keep pounding the ACC with is the ACC keeps the contract under lock and key and limits who can even see it so without knowing what the contract says talking about it is speculation. What we do know is the ACC did sign a contract with Raycom that benefited ACC officials (and their family members) and hurt the ACC revenue which is a clear fiduciary duty issue. The contract is over a hundred of pages long and the ACC and ESPN have both filed motions to only allow sixteen pages being disclosed. Bottom line is even if ESPN prevails in it's motions to not have what it calls "trade secrets" disclosed much more of the contract will have to be disclosed; something both the ACC and ESPN don't want to happen.
The ACC rush to Court was without taking the vote of the ACC Member’s & the vote needed to be by 2/3 before filing a lawsuit against FSU. The ACC Violated their own bylaws when they rushed to court. The State of Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit Judge Cooper has ruled Florida State University is first to Court. Let’s talk about discovery; because, the State of Florida operates under the “Sunshine Law”. That means everything will be available to the public, so the actions by ESPN/ACC will be on full display for all to see. Holding University’s as hostages is not going to work. It is worth mentioning there is a growing possibility that the ACC will be nuked before June 30th 2024. A simple Majority is all that is needed: FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Louisville want out. Pitt & Georgia Tech maybe want out. The ACC said, a negotiated by back of GOR & Exit was possible. Instead, the ACC has chosen not to hold any negotiations. By the way extension only has an ACC Commissioner signature. ESPN as already told the ACC they will not extend their contract. At best the ACC Will exist thru to 2027, but the ACC could die in 2024. When UNC says they want out the ACC is in trouble.
If they all want out, why haven't they done it yet? Also, I don't see how those schools think they're going to get more money if/when the cinema implodes. BTW I'm asking in earnest.
Because I'm not trying to kill myself on this, I do recall that the NC court addressed the failure to take the vote. I believe that NC law allowed that oversight to be cured. Shoot me a message and I'll try to find the specific statute.
The nc judge is experienced, intelligent and clever. There was no way he was going to dispose of the acc filing. To any objective person, it is clear the acc pre-emptively filed to keep the case in nc. Nevermind that the acc purposely ignored their own legal obligations so they could file first. Then 4 or 5 weeks later they cure their legally flawed filing. You can't go back in time and cure this deficiency as this completely obviates the need to follow the required legal steps. The appropriate remedy was to dismiss. Instead this judge interpreted the law in favor of the acc. I may be wrong but from what I recollect, the judge said there was no case law on point. That case was going to stay there regardless.
This laywer is laughable and btw we're never going to get to a point where we actuality find out who would win . Also I'll add every contract ever drawn up are breakable it just takes the right motivated parties and the money to find the way out
No way in hell FSU paying 600 million. Florida St a public university so that means the tax payers would have to pay that. Plus once Discovery start ESPN will make ACC settle. Espn have said numerous of times they don't want this to go to Discovery and its definitely going to Discovery in Florida. Plus the state of Florida just took control of Disney World something that hasn't been done in 70 plus years. Disney don't want anymore issues with Florida I guarantee a settlement happen before the end of the year....
We are never going to get to a point where we find out who would win because the ACC beat FSU's crooked attempt to F the ACC out of what FSU OWES to Leave by filing 1st in NC before FSU could file in FL with their CORRUPT Handpicked Judge. So FSU has ALREADY LOST the court case by the mere fact the ACC filed a case. FSU will be FORCED to settle in a way that is favorable to the ACC. ACC does not want to KEEP FSU and knew they would lose FSU 9 years ago when ESPN and the ACC were drawing up this contract. They just didn't know exactly WHEN they would lose FSU. That said the POINT of the contract has little to do with FSU. The POINT was the SURVIVAL of the ACC after what they KNEW was the certain expansion of the SEC and B1G. ESPN wanted the ACC to SURVIVE and not the PAC or Big 12. They knew somebody was going to COLLAPSE. So the Contract did what it was supposed to do. If FSU had any HONOR and wasn't just a SCUMBAG institution it could have EXITED the ACC after 2 more season for a SONG and could have parted with HONOR. But not now. Pay up and get out. Go be Nebrask 2.0.
Duke guy loses credibility with the ad hominem, "FSU is broke". FSU's athletic revenue was $170m last year. Keep the lies out of this. Duke guy says FSU and Clemson's lawsuits are "nonsense" and "you signed a contract". What an incredibly superficial and lazy argument. Maybe address the specific claims made in the suits, and how they're attempting to exploit potentially poor language within the contracts (that espn and the acc signed - whoopsies). Contracts are not allowed to levy penalties. There is a reasonable argument that the acc is attempting to penalize schools who wish to leave. The gor was NOT for the purpose of the acc bundling its media rights to espn. The acc signed a new espn deal in 2010, and then amended it in 2012. Both of those were PRIOR to the gor being signed in 2013, ergo the gor was not a necessity for the acc to secure a tv deal. Did acc commissioner jim Phillips have the right to amend the espn deal in 2021 without a league vote? If not, does that mean the deadline for espn to exercise the 9yr option already expired? What consideration did the acc receive by extending the deadline? A contract cannot legally be a contract without consideration. There's a lot more to this - legally - than a simple case of buyer's remorse. Duke guy did a very poor job of explaining that to the viewers. Either it was intentional, or he's simply ignorant to many of the facts of the case. He did suggest people read/watch David McKenzie, after all. That guy is incredibly biased, refuses to discuss the stronger elements of FSU/Clemson's claims, and blocks EVERYBODY on Twitter who tries to engage in discussing the merits of the case that he ignores.
a) One starts with "you signed the contract". b) Fraud, nepo, etc. are weak claims that are difficult to proves, especially for sophisticated parties well represented by counsel. Best to just discount them at this stage.
@@trick7884 So confirmed that everything after the 2nd paragraph is a waste of time. Thanks. If you don't have the big picture down, the details don't matter.
This case isn't simply that schools signed the GoR contract. One of the issues is how the extension to 2036 with ESPN was given. The schools were never provided that information, and the ACC & ESPN don't want it disclosed. The South Carolina court has ordered the ESPN contact to be provided to Clemson in discovery, but not made public. Secondly, FSU alleges that the former commissioner of the ACC did not act in the best interest of the conference members when he sold some of the media rights to Raycom which was in financial disparity and his son and I believe his wife as well worked for Raycom. Also, ESPN has an option to extend their media rights to 2036. I believe that is in question because I think FSU was saying that the option was never disclosed. They also question that if ESPN has an option, is the ACC's claim of rights enforceable or invalid? They question whether you can have control over the conference members based on an option in the media contract with a third party, which is ESPN. Again, none of that was disclosed to the conference members at the time of the extension. They were told it was an extension, not an option to extend. The question is whether this is valid because what increases in revenue will the conference members receive. Because of the poorly handled contract with ESPN and the dealings with Raycom, FSU also claims the ACC did not perform its fiduciary responsibilities. This case has more complexities than simply asking if the language in the contact supports the ACC's position.
ALL BS. I was working for an ACC school in the Athletic Dept when the ACC inked the TV Deal and I still work in College Athletic in the same ACC town at a different school in a higher position. The contract went all the way to 2036 THEN and still does. You are talking about a LIE FSU is telling by MISREPRESENTING the Look-In Clause. The Commish doesn't have to talk to the Members during a Look-In if there has been NO CHANGE in Membership. These Look-Ins are every 5 years. Next Look-In is in 2 years. Which leads me to FSU's NEXT LIE by MISREPRESENTING the Look-In Cause AND the Composition Clause when it says the Contract Loses Money or ENDS in 2026. That COULD be true IF the ACC Members CHOSE to make 1 of 2 DUMB Choices. DUMB CHOICE #1 - Dissolve the ACC ACC Members COULD have made that choice and if 8 ACC Members had a REAL OFFER to move to the SEC and/or B1G they would have done that. But there are not 8 slots in the SEC or B1G. Therefore they did not make that DUMB CHOICE. DUMB CHOICE #2 - Do not Expand to maintain the Composition Clause. If the ACC drops below 15 Teams it Triggers the Composition Clause. But it can be ANY 15 Teams. And the ACC Expanded, so it can lose 3 teams and not Trigger the Composition Clause. And if it loses more than 3 teams the ACC can just EXPAND AGAIN and remain at 15 or more teams. And the ACC can certainly EXPAND again and ESPN WANTS the ACC to Expand again so it can continue to EXIST and proves ESPN with Content. We know this because ESPN gave the ACC an UNLIMITED PRO RATA CLAUSE. Meaning the ACC can add as many teams as it wants and ESPN will PAY EACH NEX SCHOOL a FULL SHARE. You LITERALLY know NOTHING that is TRUE about the ACC Contract. NOTHING.
Wow, the attorney said that FSU is broke! FSU's brand and TV viewership is one of the top programs in all of college football. The ACC and the remaining schools need FSU and Clemson. In a worst case scenario, FSU and Clemson pays whatever the penalty is to leave. ESPN would have little incentive to extend the ACC TV contract by February 2025 in what would be damn near an unwatchable football conference. Phillips would have a really hard time selling a media rights package of the remaining schools to any network outside of Raycom.
How do you have a buyout on future media rights that ESPN may not even exercise, which would end its contract with the ACC in 2027? The GoR and contract with ESPN needs to be provided to all parties in the lawsuits a d perhaps all the schools in the ACC. Basically, the schools were agreeing to a black box agreement the ACC made with ESPN relying only on what the ACC told them.
Instead of this guy who knows nothing about the suit or what is going on, you need to get on a more credible Attorney like Doug Rohan who has been following this case very very closely since the beginning AND was at the North Carolina hearing in person.
Sorry, but this is difficult to watch. You can’t just punt on the legal issues and the dates because you don’t know them out they aren’t convenient. FSU’s main problem with the grant of rights is that they were only good through 2021, but were extended without notification by the ACC through 2026 with a clause until 2036. FSU claims that in the state of Florida, it’s unlawful to enter into any agreement without the written consent of all the parties. Meaning that FSU was no longer legally held to the grant of rights after 2021.
Your guest lawyer is laughable. It’s clear that he hasn’t watched the hearings, read and of the documents, or have any creditable background to speak on the matter. The Mackenzie (Duke) attorney, he referenced in the show, has been kicked around utube and twitter for weeks for his clear ACC bias and false legal references. Rewatch your video and count how many times your guest said he has no legal experience on lawsuit topics, not up to date on the cases and tells how to try these cases with no legal history on trial law. Is his opinion held up, why did the ACC lose the stay in FL? Or the NC judge rule FSU has no fiduciary responsibility to the ACC?
Members don't have responsibility to the conference. That was pretty basic and a bad claim from The ACC. I don't think I ever said I had no trial law experience. You might want to listen again.
This Duke attorney is a joke. Biased beyond any point of reasonableness. Zero credibility as he’s not presenting both sides of the argument in good faith. He maintains the ACC has bad ratings. Well FSU has exceptional ratings (Top 6 nationally) and Clemson’s is not too far behind. This guy has spouted SEVERAL erroneous facts, so I’m moving on. If you’re looking for an attorney that understands the meaning of balanced objectivity AND knowledge, contact Doug Rohan. BTW, FSU is Very Highly valued by the Big 10 (and possibly the SEC). Just a jealous, biased Duke fan representative of a narrow minded loser conference!!
I agree 100% he and that Mckenzie clown are so blinded by their prejudices they can't think straight. BTW neither has any meaningful experience in contracts or commercial litigation, let alone complex commercial lit and contracts but they openly criticize very experienced and talented attorneys...smh
Note the 28 minute mark where he says: "I don't see any valid defense to this but that doesn't mean that some judge somewhere won't just come up with something crazy and completely void it." In other words, he doesn't really believe what he is saying. He's saying this to justify what he knows is nonsense and he knows this nonsense will eventually be exposed . So when the ACC does lose, he has an "out."
On a surface level, the GOR seems ironclad, and that all of the members essentially transferred the right to negotiate the media to the conference. That said, the overarching purpose of the agreements was to keep the Conference competitive with the other major conferences. The ACC has not fulfilled that with its business dealings. That does not mean that the Conference has to pay the same as the SEC and B1G, but it is a reasonable expectation of the members to expect the contract to keep the teams competitive. Thus a frustration of purpose argument could be made with regard to the agreements.
Great summary. We'll see if that argument holds up in court, but I certainly have no idea. It does seem hard to argue that the ACC hasn't done its job when they're making roughly the same add the Big 12 and what the Pac would've gotten on this last TV deal. Can you really argue that they haven't done their job just because you're not the best?
@@jeffreywhitlock4882 Glad you enjoyed it! Again, the problem The ACC has is it forgot the LeBron James rule - always be maximizing your contract value!
@@saturdayswarriorbyuthe thing is ACC been winning the last 10 years between Clemson and Florida State. The big 12 aint won no championship in like over 20 years since Texas won. So u feel like we shouldn't complain when we getting almost the same amount as the big 12. ACC fighting over Clemson and FSU because they make almost 40 percent revenue for the conference.
All FSU has to do to ‘win’ is to settle for less than the full ACC penalty (130 million) AND the GOR buy back (estimated 400 million). FSU’s lawsuit seeks a court judgement on whether the penalties are enforceable. The ACC on the other hand is out for blood and the actions after the initial filing of stripping FSU’s conference authority are all punitive. The ACC has proven time and time again that it is a bad business partner. While some may think FSU is the bad business partner for trying to leave and is leaving because of a bowl snub, a terribly narrow minded view of the situation and a further indication of why the ACC is a failing conference of good old boy Carolina homers that only look out for the business interests of North Carolina.
The problem is Clemson and FSU care about football the rest don’t and they will fall way behind if they don’t get out. This expert is wrong FSU has shown The Commissioner (Swaford ) hid bad deals
I'm still interested in what outcome FSU fans think will happen when they leave they ACC. It's not like winning championships is going to get any easier.
He acts like you traded money for long term security. What long term security do you have if ESPN was granted a unilateral out without permission in 2027? What security? I don’t know who wins the case, but I would argue that there is no situation where Clemson and FSU crawl back to the ACC. They may lose and have to borrow a huge painful sum of money to get their media rights back as worst case scenario, but they aren’t staying for another 12 years to pay the bills for the other schools. That is just a dream of fans from other schools
My point was a little different from that. The ACC got to avoid the realignment mess as a result of the GOR being extended until 2036. What The ACC didn't appreciate was how much money it gave up on (potentially, although I'm not sure how much more it could've earned) as a result of that. The ACC did get security and continues to have security likely until 2036. It's just that the market changed and the schools flubbed predicting it.
Fiduciary responsibility in NC I thought was important due to damages to the conference. Florida should be able to hear a case in their state where games are played and citizens of Florida will have to pay the 1/2 billion dollars.
I don’t think I heard the guest argue against either the Florida State or Clemson case. The Clemson case is that if they were voted out of the ACC, the ACC does not retain their meteorites. The guest had waived that as invalid, but I am not sure why. Happy to hear his reaction here. Further fsu is not claiming that they don’t like the deal anymore. They are claiming that the deal was new, was negotiated and extended without their say.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu From Doug Rohan and Rohan law: FSU/ACC litigation: interesting point to clarify. @theACC is claiming FSU was aware of the amount of the withdrawal penalty since 2016. And that the amount has not changed since then. That is FALSE! The contract dictated a PERCENTAGE - 3.5x the annual budget. But the annual budget has ballooned during that time. Which FSU has little control over. The ACC budget could be artificially increased by the conference so that the penalty increases (and continues to increase). The amount of $130-140m is double or triple the “amount” it was in 2016. I have to go back and see exactly what those numbers were, but $34m is sticking in my mind.
The acc failed to all acc school on provided records to all schools on TV deals the refusing to over record on ESPN deal this all schools In the acc show sue the acc for wrong doing a felony charges against the acc
FSU competes against (and is surrounded by) SEC schools. We’ve won THREE (3) national championships and have played in 2 others. When there is a $40M-$50M gap in media funds to FSU that is unsustainable for the brand/school. Most ACC schools not named FSU/Clemson may be fine with that ACC = BIG 12 payout talking point, but in reality the ACC is fighting against FSU retaining our right to remain a Nat Champ caliber school. That is unacceptable. Try to understand that perspective.
That's really well written (lol the duke guy could learn from this) and captures the big picture. Despite fsu (and clemson) carrying the acc for decades, it's not enough for them..."YoU signed A cOnTrAcT." The landscape has changed so much that remaining in this conference would quickly lead to FSU 's and clemson's slide into irrelevance. The tobacco road mafia could care less.
This sounds like a valid reason to for FSU and Clemson to want out, but not to break the GOR. I'm not saying FSU can't make the case for it, I'm just saying this isn't it. Also, FSU fans are always saying how their brand is so strong that they get so many views even when they stink. So, you can't have that and say your brand is suffering.
@saturdayswarriorbyu remaining in the ACC while the SEC & B1G literally laps you, every year, until 2036, will devastate every athletic department in the ACC. If administrators, board members and state politicians for FSU, Clemson, UNC - and perhaps a few others - are not rattling the cages to get out of the ACC GoRs, then they are failing their fiduciary responsibility for the schools they represent. It's that big a deal. So, I get the urgency
I was disappointed there was no mention of the FACT that you had a lawyer talking about how contract law applied to a contract he had never read. The ACC contract is over a hundred pages long and kept under lock and key in a room the ACC limits access to. Both the ACC and ESPN have made motions to the court to limit how much of the contract will ever be disclosed. Bottom line is there are too many talking heads commenting about a contract they have never even seen less yet read.
I read the GOR. I have said previously I don't know what the ESPN contract says and admit I haven't read that. But I have read the GOR. It was made public in response to The ACC's filing.
😂😂Man I wish this clown was working for the ACC right now…this case would’ve been over as soon as he attempted to open his mouth lol “Listen your honor, Never mind the ACC breaching it’s fiduciary responsibilities, never mind the ACC failing to maintain a competitive edge per the agreements of the contract, never mind the ACC failing to represent, support, or even acknowledge its members during the actual football season (as opposed to the SEC, the B1G, the PAC, & the XII), never mind the ACC having damning evidence of criminal misdealings…the ACC should still win becasue I’m a Duke fan & we need FSU’s money to survive”😂😂😂
This won't be a technical legal outcome. It will be, like most actions, a financial outcome. And right now, the big players in the ACC want to "lose" this to FSU. That's huge. Not the technical issues. Watch and see.
How do you define “win”? The court battles are really to set the exit fee. FSU is leaving no matter, which when it happens - and it will - marks the beginning of end of the ACC.
I would say that your guest is basically correct on the legal issues. The fraud, nepo, etc. claims are weak and hard to prove. Public policy arguments are the strongest. Some of the non-legal claimed are a bit silly.
The claims are definitely not weak thats why ESPN lawyers are leading the charge in the NC Case. But didn't even show up to the Florida Case hmm I wonder why. Thats because them lil 18 pages they showed in NC ain't gonna fly in Florida at all. Plus ESPN doesn't want this to go to discovery at all they have said this numerous of times. But in Florida it will go to discovery and in Florida they wanna see almost everything. Espn will make ACC settle the case then. If they want eson to extend there media deal until 2036. Thats why they didn't renew it this past February because when FSU and Clemson leave. They can extend ACC for as cheap as possible then, they not dumb..
The lawyer has to do more research. Mckenzie graduated from Duke with a degree in theology. He went to a fourth tier nc law school. His analysis completely misses the LEGAL ISSUES....the litigation Isa contracts dispute....smh
To the extent tiers matter, and they don't, I graduated from a Tier 2 law school. Tiers are irrelevant and relied upon by people who don't know anything about law. Sorry, not sorry.
@@gustavovz8431 In 15 plus years of practicing law, I've seen terrible lawyers from top law schools and great lawyers from not so great law schools. You just don't know what you're talking about.
@@DukeFBCoverage right, there are many great tier 2 schools, no doubt. Doesn't change the overall point. There are good lawyers regardless. But a 4th tier? Lol. And I'm sure a prospective law student would pick a third or fourth tier school if they were offered a spot in a tier one.
I am surprised that FSU is appealing the denial of their motion to dismiss on the basis of so-called "sovereign immunity", as it is the weakest argument that FSU made. I suppose that they felt they had no choice since the judge laughed that argument out of court, by noting that the denial was "FINAL". As a matter of legal strategy, I believe that an advocate should lead and highlight his strongest argument, not his weakest.
FSU is the rest of the conference’s”Huckleberry” and if it makes it to discovery which I don’t think the ACC will let it get that far , the ACC may pay FSU to leave! 😂 To much nepotism and back room backhanded deals that are not in the conference’s best interest.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu it won’t be half a billion , just know this is America and we’re under a capitalist society so if there a better market for FSU / Clemson there going to get in there and all contracts can be broken just how much
That's clear, but FSU can't afford what they'd have to pay, which is why there's litigation - which in theory should get them to a more manageable number. It will be interesting to see what happens.
This is a circus show at best! Definitely do not use this lawyer lmfao! The ACC is dying no matter what happens. ESPN would be TAMU extending Jimbo fisher stupid to renew the extended contract with the ACC. FSU and clemson pushed the dominoes. If Miami or UNC decide to challenge the ACC. Its a done deal.
Dude think you need to go back and review your law degree! FSU & CU are gone! You tobacco rod boys have been underwritten by us too long. Time to cut the leash!
I love how the ACC legal team does everything right, but FSU is in the wrong for everything lmao. No one wants to get someone from FSU's side just the ACC. Odd
Frankly, that's why they are called the tobacco road mafia. Everything is North carolina-centric so nothing else matters to them. They're pissed their 2 cash cows have the temerity to leave their conference b
@@saturdayswarriorbyuYes thats exactly why FSU keeping they suit going. ACC already tried to get ESPN to extend the deal this past February and ESPN declined. Plus FSU know now that ESPN don't want this to go to discovery at all. Thats why ESPN lawyers was leading the charge in NC but didn't even show to the Florida Case at all. They left ACC hanging out in the cold. That right there just lets u know once Discovery start ESPN will force the ACC to settle the case and Florida State knows this...
@@saturdayswarriorbyu U keep deleting my comments thats some punk ass shit just because u had a dumb ass on here that don't know shit about the case. U not gonna grow ur channel having mfers getting on here telling lies....
That's a good point and I had been sloppy with the 2027 talk which is when the current deal expires. I don't think everyone gets out for free if ESPN doesn't renew as the GOR is in existence until 2036. But a dissolution is much more likely then. Good point!
@@DukeFBCoverage The GOR is only tied to the current ESPN deal. If/when ESPN ends the contract, the GOR dies with it. Schools would have to sign a new GOR with a new contract to another television partner.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu I laughing cause people believe that the ACC would actually want this in court. They don’t want discovery, which is why they are fighting like hell to keep this shit sealed 😹😹😹😹
Yes I understand Florida State sign the contract but here's the ESPN broke that contract rule by saying they would not give Florida State the money that they were worth we were told Florida state was supposed to get 50 million dollars and ESPN said no no no no no no no we're only going to give you 15 million that's pathetic.? @saturdayswarriorbyu
Listen listen listen listen listen listen listen listen listen guys we would never been in this predicament or situation with FSU suing the ACC which is the Atlantic Coast conference we would never been in this situation if they would have just done the right thing and put us in the college football playoff like they should they should have just college football playoff in which is Florida State state because they went undefeated.? @saturdayswarriorbyu
Which side do you think has the more compelling case - the ACC or FSU/Clemson?
“ I have no dog in the hunt” but the answer is FSU/Clemson. Why? Look at the underhanded sneaky way the ACC has operated ( like the unilateral ESPN extension and the venue shopping).
FSU / Clemson
The ACC has the simplest argument, which without more is compelling. FSU/Clemson really have the burden of proof and the risk of non-persuasion. It is not impossible for them to "win", but so far I am unpersuaded.
FSU/Clemson!! As noted previously, the ACC breached their pledge to ALL members to strategize, fight and deliver VALUE for every institution (not just the bottom tier),
Once upon a time respective revenues of the SEC/ACC were in similar ballparks - a critical metric to keep ACC elite teams competitive with SEC counterparts. Several fiduciary malfeasance examples however, have reflected an inbred Tobacco Road mindset that deprioritized aggressive escalation of football schools/operations/contracts, media visibility and revenue.
They were comfortable REDISTRIBUTING lions share viewership revenue from FSU/Clemson to lesser programs while arrogantly labeling FSU’s pleas (to aggressively grow the pie) as a perpetual nuisance…And now, with prophecy fulfilled, FSU are the bad guys. Rich beyond comprehension.
To be fair, these cases aren’t likely to go to trial and probably never were meant to go that far. This is all about money. FSU wants more money annually: ACC has failed to secure adequate and competitive funds for their members. FSU is leaving and all of this courtroom stuff is posturing for the day when they announce that a settlement was reached at a reduced rate. The lawsuit is to eliminate factors. Can FSU push this so that ESPN doesn’t extend the contract? (I heard from some that they dropped it already but I can’t substantiate that) That is big because the half a billion to get out of the ACC was predicated on having that extension. Without it, the cost should come down below 100 million. Then it’s a simple negotiation from there and the ACC wins by staying intact while FSU wins by leaving for greener pastures.
This dispute is not about if a contract was signed. It is about exactly what it says and what is enforceable. FSU asked those questions specifically.
FSU also went scorched earth with vs. ACC claims.
Where did the ACC breach the contract?
@@saturdayswarriorbyuhuh? The comment didn't use the word "breach", so why are you asking about it?
@@saturdayswarriorbyuthe ACC had a fiduciary duty to its members, it failed miserably. No one signs a unilateral contract renewable yearly from 2027 to 2036 unless they’re trying to “hold their members hostage”. Facts: when FSU joined the ACC in 1991, the ACC had the highest payout (of any conference” to its members. Next year, the ACC will be 4th (with the new addition of Cal, Stanford and SMU. Less than 1/2 the Big Ten and the SEC.
@@tarheel7406 Yeah, and this is weird that a Duke and UNC guy are going to agree, but FSU just doesn't have a good legal position. People think that saying that out loud means you're anti-FSU or anti-Clemson. I'm just commenting on the legal position here.
Somebody is salty about FSU.
You're not kdding, I'm laughing at some of these responses and how inaccurate they are. He must work pro bono.
@@douglaszickefoose921 A different video he was saying our brand isn't as big as FSU fans think. A duke fan who's 0-20 all time VS FSU. Comical
@fface5727 that's funny , from every re alignment video I've seen FSU and NC are the top 2 brands that are full members of the acc
@@fface5727 Sir, I have never, never, played a game against FSU. I challenge you to prove the contrary to be true and demand strict proof thereof!
My law partner is actually an FSU grad. The firm meetings are getting a little tense now.
I love the argument that “they signed a contract” is all that matters and there’s no such thing as breach of contract or fiduciary duty on the part of the ACC. There are legitimate concerns for both sides and it’s ridiculous to pretend there isn’t. Especially when it’s well known that the ACC and ESPN are desperate to avoid discovery in FL, which requires documents to be made public.
Fair. So, what is the breach of contract, that their TV deal is pretty much the same as the Big 12 and what the Pac would've gotten?
@@saturdayswarriorbyu The ACC has failed to maintain the league's competitiveness versus rival leagues... Essentially it's main obligation under the terms of membership. This was known previously, but the League's failure to promote and ensure their undefeated champion was allowed to compete in the playoff along with the new playoff deal have objectively shown the ACC Management has caused the league to become a second tier league... Signing an awful 20 year Media deal was a horrible decision and caused the death of the league. Be mad at Swoffard and Phillips...
@@saturdayswarriorbyuThis is where discovery could change everything. There have already been accusations of self dealing with lowered school payouts to get ESPN to lock in Swofford at Raycom and other family members benefiting as well. There is also the unilateral agreement with ESPN to give them an opt out with no consideration, which was never voted on and supposedly members were unaware of.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu the elephant in the room FSU/Clemson keep pounding the ACC with is the ACC keeps the contract under lock and key and limits who can even see it so without knowing what the contract says talking about it is speculation. What we do know is the ACC did sign a contract with Raycom that benefited ACC officials (and their family members) and hurt the ACC revenue which is a clear fiduciary duty issue. The contract is over a hundred of pages long and the ACC and ESPN have both filed motions to only allow sixteen pages being disclosed. Bottom line is even if ESPN prevails in it's motions to not have what it calls "trade secrets" disclosed much more of the contract will have to be disclosed; something both the ACC and ESPN don't want to happen.
It is not that simple by signing a contract. ACC was fsu’s fiduciary and they failed due to making the conference non competitive
Never use this lawyer! He has no idea what's going on....lol
I think I got a tortious interference claim! :)
The ACC rush to Court was without taking the vote of the ACC Member’s & the vote needed to be by 2/3 before filing a lawsuit against FSU. The ACC Violated their own bylaws when they rushed to court. The State of Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit Judge Cooper has ruled Florida State University is first to Court. Let’s talk about discovery; because, the State of Florida operates under the “Sunshine Law”. That means everything will be available to the public, so the actions by ESPN/ACC will be on full display for all to see. Holding University’s as hostages is not going to work. It is worth mentioning there is a growing possibility that the ACC will be nuked before June 30th 2024. A simple Majority is all that is needed: FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami, and Louisville want out. Pitt & Georgia Tech maybe want out. The ACC said, a negotiated by back of GOR & Exit was possible. Instead, the ACC has chosen not to hold any negotiations. By the way extension only has an ACC Commissioner signature. ESPN as already told the ACC they will not extend their contract. At best the ACC Will exist thru to 2027, but the ACC could die in 2024. When UNC says they want out the ACC is in trouble.
If they all want out, why haven't they done it yet? Also, I don't see how those schools think they're going to get more money if/when the cinema implodes. BTW I'm asking in earnest.
The ACC started this crap when they raided the Big East. Karma is a beotch
Because I'm not trying to kill myself on this, I do recall that the NC court addressed the failure to take the vote. I believe that NC law allowed that oversight to be cured. Shoot me a message and I'll try to find the specific statute.
The Florida judge said the ACC’s rush to court filing was Forum Shopping and ruled FSU first to court.
The nc judge is experienced, intelligent and clever. There was no way he was going to dispose of the acc filing. To any objective person, it is clear the acc pre-emptively filed to keep the case in nc. Nevermind that the acc purposely ignored their own legal obligations so they could file first. Then 4 or 5 weeks later they cure their legally flawed filing. You can't go back in time and cure this deficiency as this completely obviates the need to follow the required legal steps. The appropriate remedy was to dismiss. Instead this judge interpreted the law in favor of the acc. I may be wrong but from what I recollect, the judge said there was no case law on point. That case was going to stay there regardless.
This laywer is laughable and btw we're never going to get to a point where we actuality find out who would win . Also I'll add every contract ever drawn up are breakable it just takes the right motivated parties and the money to find the way out
If you have to buy your way out, then the contract is enforceable.
No way in hell FSU paying 600 million. Florida St a public university so that means the tax payers would have to pay that. Plus once Discovery start ESPN will make ACC settle. Espn have said numerous of times they don't want this to go to Discovery and its definitely going to Discovery in Florida. Plus the state of Florida just took control of Disney World something that hasn't been done in 70 plus years. Disney don't want anymore issues with Florida I guarantee a settlement happen before the end of the year....
@@mr.imsoflorida9022 Claims on an FSU message board about discovery aren't likely reliable.
We are never going to get to a point where we find out who would win because the ACC beat FSU's crooked attempt to F the ACC out of what FSU OWES to Leave by filing 1st in NC before FSU could file in FL with their CORRUPT Handpicked Judge.
So FSU has ALREADY LOST the court case by the mere fact the ACC filed a case.
FSU will be FORCED to settle in a way that is favorable to the ACC.
ACC does not want to KEEP FSU and knew they would lose FSU 9 years ago when ESPN and the ACC were drawing up this contract. They just didn't know exactly WHEN they would lose FSU.
That said the POINT of the contract has little to do with FSU.
The POINT was the SURVIVAL of the ACC after what they KNEW was the certain expansion of the SEC and B1G.
ESPN wanted the ACC to SURVIVE and not the PAC or Big 12. They knew somebody was going to COLLAPSE. So the Contract did what it was supposed to do.
If FSU had any HONOR and wasn't just a SCUMBAG institution it could have EXITED the ACC after 2 more season for a SONG and could have parted with HONOR.
But not now. Pay up and get out. Go be Nebrask 2.0.
Duke guy loses credibility with the ad hominem, "FSU is broke". FSU's athletic revenue was $170m last year. Keep the lies out of this.
Duke guy says FSU and Clemson's lawsuits are "nonsense" and "you signed a contract". What an incredibly superficial and lazy argument. Maybe address the specific claims made in the suits, and how they're attempting to exploit potentially poor language within the contracts (that espn and the acc signed - whoopsies).
Contracts are not allowed to levy penalties. There is a reasonable argument that the acc is attempting to penalize schools who wish to leave.
The gor was NOT for the purpose of the acc bundling its media rights to espn. The acc signed a new espn deal in 2010, and then amended it in 2012. Both of those were PRIOR to the gor being signed in 2013, ergo the gor was not a necessity for the acc to secure a tv deal.
Did acc commissioner jim Phillips have the right to amend the espn deal in 2021 without a league vote? If not, does that mean the deadline for espn to exercise the 9yr option already expired? What consideration did the acc receive by extending the deadline? A contract cannot legally be a contract without consideration.
There's a lot more to this - legally - than a simple case of buyer's remorse. Duke guy did a very poor job of explaining that to the viewers. Either it was intentional, or he's simply ignorant to many of the facts of the case. He did suggest people read/watch David McKenzie, after all. That guy is incredibly biased, refuses to discuss the stronger elements of FSU/Clemson's claims, and blocks EVERYBODY on Twitter who tries to engage in discussing the merits of the case that he ignores.
a) One starts with "you signed the contract".
b) Fraud, nepo, etc. are weak claims that are difficult to proves, especially for sophisticated parties well represented by counsel. Best to just discount them at this stage.
@@tarheel7406 not sure if you're replying to something specific I said?
@@trick7884 Didn't get past the 2nd paragraph. Don't treat pleadings as gospel truth.
@@tarheel7406 OK, so confirmed you're just wasting my time. Toodles
@@trick7884 So confirmed that everything after the 2nd paragraph is a waste of time. Thanks.
If you don't have the big picture down, the details don't matter.
This case isn't simply that schools signed the GoR contract. One of the issues is how the extension to 2036 with ESPN was given. The schools were never provided that information, and the ACC & ESPN don't want it disclosed. The South Carolina court has ordered the ESPN contact to be provided to Clemson in discovery, but not made public.
Secondly, FSU alleges that the former commissioner of the ACC did not act in the best interest of the conference members when he sold some of the media rights to Raycom which was in financial disparity and his son and I believe his wife as well worked for Raycom.
Also, ESPN has an option to extend their media rights to 2036. I believe that is in question because I think FSU was saying that the option was never disclosed. They also question that if ESPN has an option, is the ACC's claim of rights enforceable or invalid? They question whether you can have control over the conference members based on an option in the media contract with a third party, which is ESPN. Again, none of that was disclosed to the conference members at the time of the extension. They were told it was an extension, not an option to extend. The question is whether this is valid because what increases in revenue will the conference members receive.
Because of the poorly handled contract with ESPN and the dealings with Raycom, FSU also claims the ACC did not perform its fiduciary responsibilities.
This case has more complexities than simply asking if the language in the contact supports the ACC's position.
Thanks for the additional details and insights. With so much complexity, makes me question those who think it'll all be wrapped up by the end of June.
ALL BS. I was working for an ACC school in the Athletic Dept when the ACC inked the TV Deal and I still work in College Athletic in the same ACC town at a different school in a higher position.
The contract went all the way to 2036 THEN and still does.
You are talking about a LIE FSU is telling by MISREPRESENTING the Look-In Clause.
The Commish doesn't have to talk to the Members during a Look-In if there has been NO CHANGE in Membership.
These Look-Ins are every 5 years.
Next Look-In is in 2 years.
Which leads me to FSU's NEXT LIE by MISREPRESENTING the Look-In Cause AND the Composition Clause when it says the Contract Loses Money or ENDS in 2026.
That COULD be true IF the ACC Members CHOSE to make 1 of 2 DUMB Choices.
DUMB CHOICE #1 - Dissolve the ACC
ACC Members COULD have made that choice and if 8 ACC Members had a REAL OFFER to move to the SEC and/or B1G they would have done that. But there are not 8 slots in the SEC or B1G. Therefore they did not make that DUMB CHOICE.
DUMB CHOICE #2 - Do not Expand to maintain the Composition Clause.
If the ACC drops below 15 Teams it Triggers the Composition Clause. But it can be ANY 15 Teams. And the ACC Expanded, so it can lose 3 teams and not Trigger the Composition Clause. And if it loses more than 3 teams the ACC can just EXPAND AGAIN and remain at 15 or more teams.
And the ACC can certainly EXPAND again and ESPN WANTS the ACC to Expand again so it can continue to EXIST and proves ESPN with Content. We know this because ESPN gave the ACC an UNLIMITED PRO RATA CLAUSE. Meaning the ACC can add as many teams as it wants and ESPN will PAY EACH NEX SCHOOL a FULL SHARE.
You LITERALLY know NOTHING that is TRUE about the ACC Contract. NOTHING.
FSU had their worst 4 year stretch ever and still had better ratings during that span then the entire ACC. Joke of a conference
I believe they were still top 10 in the nation for viewership during that time also
If ESPN doesn't extend the deal beyond 2027, there's a strong case to be made that GoRs to 2036 is n/a
Wow, the attorney said that FSU is broke! FSU's brand and TV viewership is one of the top programs in all of college football. The ACC and the remaining schools need FSU and Clemson. In a worst case scenario, FSU and Clemson pays whatever the penalty is to leave. ESPN would have little incentive to extend the ACC TV contract by February 2025 in what would be damn near an unwatchable football conference. Phillips would have a really hard time selling a media rights package of the remaining schools to any network outside of Raycom.
They why is FSU trying to F the ACC in Court to get out of paying what it OWES to leave?
Sound like FSU is BROKE. Since it cannot pay what it owes.
I’m going to come back to this podcast in a few months
You will be missed.
How do you have a buyout on future media rights that ESPN may not even exercise, which would end its contract with the ACC in 2027?
The GoR and contract with ESPN needs to be provided to all parties in the lawsuits a d perhaps all the schools in the ACC.
Basically, the schools were agreeing to a black box agreement the ACC made with ESPN relying only on what the ACC told them.
Instead of this guy who knows nothing about the suit or what is going on, you need to get on a more credible Attorney like Doug Rohan who has been following this case very very closely since the beginning AND was at the North Carolina hearing in person.
Doug Rohan is all over my TH-cam feed, and he's good. But I appreciate Ben bringing his own take too.
Ben is hopelessly biased. You’re damaging your own show’s credibility. I believe You even know some of his responses were uninformed and preposterous.
Sorry, but this is difficult to watch. You can’t just punt on the legal issues and the dates because you don’t know them out they aren’t convenient. FSU’s main problem with the grant of rights is that they were only good through 2021, but were extended without notification by the ACC through 2026 with a clause until 2036. FSU claims that in the state of Florida, it’s unlawful to enter into any agreement without the written consent of all the parties. Meaning that FSU was no longer legally held to the grant of rights after 2021.
Interesting, thanks for the additional context. But if so, why did they wait so long to sue?
Your guest lawyer is laughable. It’s clear that he hasn’t watched the hearings, read and of the documents, or have any creditable background to speak on the matter. The Mackenzie (Duke) attorney, he referenced in the show, has been kicked around utube and twitter for weeks for his clear ACC bias and false legal references. Rewatch your video and count how many times your guest said he has no legal experience on lawsuit topics, not up to date on the cases and tells how to try these cases with no legal history on trial law. Is his opinion held up, why did the ACC lose the stay in FL? Or the NC judge rule FSU has no fiduciary responsibility to the ACC?
Next time I'll have to have both sides represented and do it debate style.
Members don't have responsibility to the conference. That was pretty basic and a bad claim from The ACC. I don't think I ever said I had no trial law experience. You might want to listen again.
@@DukeFBCoverage ok. Relevant trial experience
This Duke attorney is a joke. Biased beyond any point of reasonableness. Zero credibility as he’s not presenting both sides of the argument in good faith.
He maintains the ACC has bad ratings. Well FSU has exceptional ratings (Top 6 nationally) and Clemson’s is not too far behind.
This guy has spouted SEVERAL erroneous facts, so I’m moving on.
If you’re looking for an attorney that understands the meaning of balanced objectivity AND knowledge, contact Doug Rohan.
BTW, FSU is Very Highly valued by the Big 10 (and possibly the SEC).
Just a jealous, biased Duke fan representative of a narrow minded loser conference!!
I agree 100% he and that Mckenzie clown are so blinded by their prejudices they can't think straight. BTW neither has any meaningful experience in contracts or commercial litigation, let alone complex commercial lit and contracts but they openly criticize very experienced and talented attorneys...smh
Doug Rohan is everywhere on TH-cam, it's good to get another perspective.
Note the 28 minute mark where he says: "I don't see any valid defense to
this but that doesn't mean that some judge somewhere won't just come up with something crazy and completely void it." In other words, he doesn't really believe what he is saying. He's saying this to justify what he knows is nonsense and he knows this nonsense will eventually be exposed . So when the ACC does lose, he has an "out."
On a surface level, the GOR seems ironclad, and that all of the members essentially transferred the right to negotiate the media to the conference. That said, the overarching purpose of the agreements was to keep the Conference competitive with the other major conferences. The ACC has not fulfilled that with its business dealings. That does not mean that the Conference has to pay the same as the SEC and B1G, but it is a reasonable expectation of the members to expect the contract to keep the teams competitive. Thus a frustration of purpose argument could be made with regard to the agreements.
Great summary. We'll see if that argument holds up in court, but I certainly have no idea. It does seem hard to argue that the ACC hasn't done its job when they're making roughly the same add the Big 12 and what the Pac would've gotten on this last TV deal. Can you really argue that they haven't done their job just because you're not the best?
@@saturdayswarriorbyu true indeed. Lawsuits are unpredictable, you never know, good video.
@@jeffreywhitlock4882 Glad you enjoyed it! Again, the problem The ACC has is it forgot the LeBron James rule - always be maximizing your contract value!
@@DukeFBCoverage most definitely!!
@@saturdayswarriorbyuthe thing is ACC been winning the last 10 years between Clemson and Florida State. The big 12 aint won no championship in like over 20 years since Texas won. So u feel like we shouldn't complain when we getting almost the same amount as the big 12. ACC fighting over Clemson and FSU because they make almost 40 percent revenue for the conference.
All FSU has to do to ‘win’ is to settle for less than the full ACC penalty (130 million) AND the GOR buy back (estimated 400 million). FSU’s lawsuit seeks a court judgement on whether the penalties are enforceable. The ACC on the other hand is out for blood and the actions after the initial filing of stripping FSU’s conference authority are all punitive. The ACC has proven time and time again that it is a bad business partner. While some may think FSU is the bad business partner for trying to leave and is leaving because of a bowl snub, a terribly narrow minded view of the situation and a further indication of why the ACC is a failing conference of good old boy Carolina homers that only look out for the business interests of North Carolina.
The problem is Clemson and FSU care about football the rest don’t and they will fall way behind if they don’t get out. This expert is wrong FSU has shown The Commissioner (Swaford ) hid bad deals
I'm still interested in what outcome FSU fans think will happen when they leave they ACC. It's not like winning championships is going to get any easier.
He acts like you traded money for long term security. What long term security do you have if ESPN was granted a unilateral out without permission in 2027? What security?
I don’t know who wins the case, but I would argue that there is no situation where Clemson and FSU crawl back to the ACC. They may lose and have to borrow a huge painful sum of money to get their media rights back as worst case scenario, but they aren’t staying for another 12 years to pay the bills for the other schools. That is just a dream of fans from other schools
Yeah, FSU had burned it's bridges.
My point was a little different from that. The ACC got to avoid the realignment mess as a result of the GOR being extended until 2036. What The ACC didn't appreciate was how much money it gave up on (potentially, although I'm not sure how much more it could've earned) as a result of that. The ACC did get security and continues to have security likely until 2036. It's just that the market changed and the schools flubbed predicting it.
Anyway, thanks for watching!!!
So has the ACC.
@@DukeFBCoverage thank you for clarifying
The Blues Brothers reference wins you the internet today
FSU and Clemson.. because the fiscal irresponsible decision the ACC made by signing that terrible contract for all its Members.
How terrible is it when it's making roughly the same as the Big 12 and what the Pac would've gotten?
When was the last time big 12 and pac 12 won anything especially a championship
Ignorant. The deal was praised at the time.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu The current ACC is worth far more than the new BIG12.
ACC 2% more then the Big XII despite recent National Championships by Clemson and none by current Big XII teams.
FSU has way better ratings than Clemson. And FSU has the same amount of natties with half the time of being a program.
How many since 2000? One?
Zero understanding of the actual complaints brought against the ACC.
Fiduciary responsibility in NC I thought was important due to damages to the conference. Florida should be able to hear a case in their state where games are played and citizens of Florida will have to pay the 1/2 billion dollars.
Interesting point.
Florida can hear the case via TV or Internet in a Court where FSU didn't handpick a Judge so it can SCREW the 14 other ACC schools. CROOKS.
I don’t think I heard the guest argue against either the Florida State or Clemson case. The Clemson case is that if they were voted out of the ACC, the ACC does not retain their meteorites. The guest had waived that as invalid, but I am not sure why. Happy to hear his reaction here. Further fsu is not claiming that they don’t like the deal anymore. They are claiming that the deal was new, was negotiated and extended without their say.
Great follow ups. I don't have the answers.
@@saturdayswarriorbyuif you dnt have answers that means your argument is invalid
@@saturdayswarriorbyu
From Doug Rohan and Rohan law:
FSU/ACC litigation: interesting point to clarify. @theACC is claiming FSU was aware of the amount of the withdrawal penalty since 2016. And that the amount has not changed since then. That is FALSE! The contract dictated a PERCENTAGE - 3.5x the annual budget. But the annual budget has ballooned during that time. Which FSU has little control over. The ACC budget could be artificially increased by the conference so that the penalty increases (and continues to increase). The amount of $130-140m is double or triple the “amount” it was in 2016. I have to go back and see exactly what those numbers were, but $34m is sticking in my mind.
The acc failed to all acc school on provided records to all schools on TV deals the refusing to over record on ESPN deal this all schools In the acc show sue the acc for wrong doing a felony charges against the acc
FSU competes against (and is surrounded by) SEC schools. We’ve won THREE (3) national championships and have played in 2 others. When there is a $40M-$50M gap in media funds to FSU that is unsustainable for the brand/school.
Most ACC schools not named FSU/Clemson may be fine with that ACC = BIG 12 payout talking point, but in reality the ACC is fighting against FSU retaining our right to remain a Nat Champ caliber school. That is unacceptable. Try to understand that perspective.
That's really well written (lol the duke guy could learn from this) and captures the big picture. Despite fsu (and clemson) carrying the acc for decades, it's not enough for them..."YoU signed A cOnTrAcT." The landscape has changed so much that remaining in this conference would quickly lead to FSU 's and clemson's slide into irrelevance. The tobacco road mafia could care less.
Well, that cuts both ways. Those NATTYs were a result of being in the softer ACC (so say Coach Bowden).
This sounds like a valid reason to for FSU and Clemson to want out, but not to break the GOR. I'm not saying FSU can't make the case for it, I'm just saying this isn't it. Also, FSU fans are always saying how their brand is so strong that they get so many views even when they stink. So, you can't have that and say your brand is suffering.
@@saturdayswarriorbyuthose two statements are not mutually exclusive. And they are both true.
@saturdayswarriorbyu remaining in the ACC while the SEC & B1G literally laps you, every year, until 2036, will devastate every athletic department in the ACC. If administrators, board members and state politicians for FSU, Clemson, UNC - and perhaps a few others - are not rattling the cages to get out of the ACC GoRs, then they are failing their fiduciary responsibility for the schools they represent. It's that big a deal. So, I get the urgency
FSU Clemson etc are gone. The ACC is no more
More biased not equipped ..duke heading to SEc bball Football elsewhere ...this guy is so behind the curve ...
I was disappointed there was no mention of the FACT that you had a lawyer talking about how contract law applied to a contract he had never read. The ACC contract is over a hundred pages long and kept under lock and key in a room the ACC limits access to. Both the ACC and ESPN have made motions to the court to limit how much of the contract will ever be disclosed. Bottom line is there are too many talking heads commenting about a contract they have never even seen less yet read.
I read the GOR. I have said previously I don't know what the ESPN contract says and admit I haven't read that. But I have read the GOR. It was made public in response to The ACC's filing.
😂😂Man I wish this clown was working for the ACC right now…this case would’ve been over as soon as he attempted to open his mouth lol
“Listen your honor, Never mind the ACC breaching it’s fiduciary responsibilities, never mind the ACC failing to maintain a competitive edge per the agreements of the contract, never mind the ACC failing to represent, support, or even acknowledge its members during the actual football season (as opposed to the SEC, the B1G, the PAC, & the XII), never mind the ACC having damning evidence of criminal misdealings…the ACC should still win becasue I’m a Duke fan & we need FSU’s money to survive”😂😂😂
This won't be a technical legal outcome. It will be, like most actions, a financial outcome. And right now, the big players in the ACC want to "lose" this to FSU. That's huge. Not the technical issues. Watch and see.
How do you define “win”? The court battles are really to set the exit fee. FSU is leaving no matter, which when it happens - and it will - marks the beginning of end of the ACC.
How to say, you know nothing of the merits of the case, without saying you know nothing of the merits of the case
lmao... this attorney has no idea what is going on.
I would say that your guest is basically correct on the legal issues. The fraud, nepo, etc. claims are weak and hard to prove. Public policy arguments are the strongest. Some of the non-legal claimed are a bit silly.
The claims are definitely not weak thats why ESPN lawyers are leading the charge in the NC Case. But didn't even show up to the Florida Case hmm I wonder why. Thats because them lil 18 pages they showed in NC ain't gonna fly in Florida at all. Plus ESPN doesn't want this to go to discovery at all they have said this numerous of times. But in Florida it will go to discovery and in Florida they wanna see almost everything. Espn will make ACC settle the case then. If they want eson to extend there media deal until 2036. Thats why they didn't renew it this past February because when FSU and Clemson leave. They can extend ACC for as cheap as possible then, they not dumb..
Thank you!
@@mr.imsoflorida9022 The vs. ACC claims are weak. The dec judgment questions are the most relevant.
13:59
The lawyer has to do more research. Mckenzie graduated from Duke with a degree in theology. He went to a fourth tier nc law school. His analysis completely misses the LEGAL ISSUES....the litigation Isa contracts dispute....smh
Yeah that dude don't know what he's talking. I see all other kinds of attorneys with bigger experience has more knowledge and common sense then david
To the extent tiers matter, and they don't, I graduated from a Tier 2 law school. Tiers are irrelevant and relied upon by people who don't know anything about law. Sorry, not sorry.
@@DukeFBCoverage sure. Keep telling yourself that. It matters. On many levels especially bottom of rung law schools.
@@gustavovz8431 In 15 plus years of practicing law, I've seen terrible lawyers from top law schools and great lawyers from not so great law schools. You just don't know what you're talking about.
@@DukeFBCoverage right, there are many great tier 2 schools, no doubt. Doesn't change the overall point. There are good lawyers regardless. But a 4th tier? Lol. And I'm sure a prospective law student would pick a third or fourth tier school if they were offered a spot in a tier one.
He said bad facts made for bad law right.
There is nothing unclear in Pickens county. peace out dueces 😢
I am surprised that FSU is appealing the denial of their motion to dismiss on the basis of so-called "sovereign immunity", as it is the weakest argument that FSU made. I suppose that they felt they had no choice since the judge laughed that argument out of court, by noting that the denial was "FINAL". As a matter of legal strategy, I believe that an advocate should lead and highlight his strongest argument, not his weakest.
No one watching believes this hack JD
Money is material?
According to Madonna it is.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu She was a material girl. Haha
The acc needs 7 acc schools to shut done the acc it's already there and more in the acc are the acc sueing them for antitrust law
So why haven't they left already if it's that easy?
FSU is the rest of the conference’s”Huckleberry” and if it makes it to discovery which I don’t think the ACC will let it get that far , the ACC may pay FSU to leave! 😂 To much nepotism and back room backhanded deals that are not in the conference’s best interest.
Yeah, there's no way FSU can remain in the conference regardless of the outcome. FSU saw to that.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu Which is why I put FSU landing in the BIG12 at ~10%
Whether FSU pays $0 to $500 o bet they leave
They're gone. The question is when and how much do they have to pay.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu it won’t be half a billion , just know this is America and we’re under a capitalist society so if there a better market for FSU / Clemson there going to get in there and all contracts can be broken just how much
That's clear, but FSU can't afford what they'd have to pay, which is why there's litigation - which in theory should get them to a more manageable number. It will be interesting to see what happens.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu FSU can get it done
There a corrupt charges the acc
Hot garbage takes. 😂
This is a circus show at best! Definitely do not use this lawyer lmfao! The ACC is dying no matter what happens. ESPN would be TAMU extending Jimbo fisher stupid to renew the extended contract with the ACC. FSU and clemson pushed the dominoes. If Miami or UNC decide to challenge the ACC. Its a done deal.
Who doesn't love the circus?
@@saturdayswarriorbyu doesn't help when you have a 'source' who knows almost nothing about the situation and sounds very biased to me 😂😂🤣
The acc is a is mafia
😂
Dude think you need to go back and review your law degree! FSU & CU are gone! You tobacco rod boys have been underwritten by us too long. Time to cut the leash!
So you can underwrite Purdue and Rutgers?
I love how the ACC legal team does everything right, but FSU is in the wrong for everything lmao. No one wants to get someone from FSU's side just the ACC. Odd
All I've seen is pro- FSU or realignment stuff. I've even had a non lawyer FSU guest and got his take on the whole thing.
Frankly, that's why they are called the tobacco road mafia. Everything is North carolina-centric so nothing else matters to them. They're pissed their 2 cash cows have the temerity to leave their conference b
Dad'sand chad's hahaha this guy . The fighting dukes and there crapy tv ratings
ACC has til February 2025 to make a deal. If not, ESPN will end their deal with the ACC and everyone gets out for free. ACC better settle soon
Then what incentive does FSU have to continue the suit? Just to make it less palatable for ESPN to pick up the deal?
@@saturdayswarriorbyuYes thats exactly why FSU keeping they suit going. ACC already tried to get ESPN to extend the deal this past February and ESPN declined. Plus FSU know now that ESPN don't want this to go to discovery at all. Thats why ESPN lawyers was leading the charge in NC but didn't even show to the Florida Case at all. They left ACC hanging out in the cold. That right there just lets u know once Discovery start ESPN will force the ACC to settle the case and Florida State knows this...
@@saturdayswarriorbyu U keep deleting my comments thats some punk ass shit just because u had a dumb ass on here that don't know shit about the case. U not gonna grow ur channel having mfers getting on here telling lies....
That's a good point and I had been sloppy with the 2027 talk which is when the current deal expires. I don't think everyone gets out for free if ESPN doesn't renew as the GOR is in existence until 2036. But a dissolution is much more likely then. Good point!
@@DukeFBCoverage The GOR is only tied to the current ESPN deal. If/when ESPN ends the contract, the GOR dies with it. Schools would have to sign a new GOR with a new contract to another television partner.
What a clown show.
Shit take.
You spelled it wrong. You mean Kalani Sitake.
😂😂😂😂😂
I don't think that argument will hold up on court.
@@saturdayswarriorbyu I laughing cause people believe that the ACC would actually want this in court. They don’t want discovery, which is why they are fighting like hell to keep this shit sealed 😹😹😹😹
Booo that would be terrible.
What would be?
Yes I understand Florida State sign the contract but here's the ESPN broke that contract rule by saying they would not give Florida State the money that they were worth we were told Florida state was supposed to get 50 million dollars and ESPN said no no no no no no no we're only going to give you 15 million that's pathetic.? @saturdayswarriorbyu
Right, and that's what they'll have to prove in court.
Listen listen listen listen listen listen listen listen listen guys we would never been in this predicament or situation with FSU suing the ACC which is the Atlantic Coast conference we would never been in this situation if they would have just done the right thing and put us in the college football playoff like they should they should have just college football playoff in which is Florida State state because they went undefeated.? @saturdayswarriorbyu
I also think FSU got shafted by not getting into the playoff, but how can the sue the ACC for a storage organization's actions?