|
Replies: 99
| visibility 11201
|
Game Changer [1751]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
CU (and FSU) has a weak case
13
6
13
6
Mar 20, 2024, 6:12 PM
|
|
CU lawyer: "Your honor, after eight years, my client has decided to claim this GOR contract is invalid".
Judge: "Can somebody play that Kamala Harris gif".
Where I come from, a contract is a contract. Go tell your mortgage company you've decided to walk away from your mortgage because, well, just because Larry's interest rate is lower.
|
|
|
|
 |
Tiger Titan [47599]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35358
Joined: 2003
|
I agree 100%.
4
13
13
Mar 20, 2024, 6:15 PM
|
|
We signed a contract, and we should honor it - no matter how much we regret it or how the landscape in college athletics has changed.
This is a great example of why you don’t sign a 15-20 year contract locking yourself into something you aren’t prepared to live with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
25
25
Mar 20, 2024, 6:19 PM
|
|
The base of Clemson's lawsuit is the idea that the ACC would no longer control their media rights after they leave the conference. They admit the ACC controls the rights to games played while in the ACC, but not games that may occur if Clemson joins another conference.
The basis for the claim is the ACC has not kept its part of the deal to look after the best interest of it's members (hence, signing the latest CFP payout). Clemson has a right to self-preservation. A contract has two sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1445]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
2
3
Mar 20, 2024, 6:42 PM
|
|
Frankly Clemson is wrong about that. When you sign a grant of rights you have signed them over to the other party so they control them even if you're not in the conference.
The problem with the other part of your argument is is that the court is going to take the market value of all these properties into consideration. If the ACC's is product is simply not as valuable is the SEC's or Big Ten's, which it is not, you're not going to be able to make a reasonable argument in court that they didn't look after Clemson's best interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redshirt [98]
TigerPulse: 100%
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31680]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 18198
Joined: 2008
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
6
6
Mar 20, 2024, 8:06 PM
[ in reply to this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ... ] |
|
You are spot on. That is the essence of the suit. Which I believe has more merit than the FSU case, btw. Don't bother explaining that to JK. She's clearly in a tizzy about the prospect of Clemson prevailing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1797]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
6
6
Mar 21, 2024, 12:30 AM
|
|
Hey now don’t insult us women by pawning jk off on us!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33089]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15038
Joined: 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [594]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
Mar 21, 2024, 10:06 AM
[ in reply to this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ... ] |
|
The ACC can release the Clemson media rights but only at a fee that is hundreds of millions and not affordable.
The claim that the ACC has not kept their part of the deal is weak considering Clemson has agreed to the ACC deal for years and been cashing those GOR checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
Mar 22, 2024, 11:57 AM
|
|
Estoppel!
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [146714]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 34886
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [99913]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 29727
Joined: 2005
|
He had nowhere to go...
4
Mar 21, 2024, 4:01 PM
|
|
but up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [47599]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35358
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [28284]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: It seems that you arent understanding.
Mar 21, 2024, 8:25 PM
|
|
Anyone seen this contract? I have not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ...
Mar 22, 2024, 7:55 PM
[ in reply to this is not hard to understand, but you seem to refuse ... ] |
|
No, they are trying to get out to get more money...everything was great till SEC and BIG got a larger contract amount per school! Any judge stupid enough to miss that should be sitting on the bench in central park...judges don't like to make stupid decisions against established precedents...when the appeals court tosses them he, she, or it becomes a fool...let's let college football destroy established contract and patent law...."when did you know or when should you have known". FSU has no evidence of anything except greed on their part! That will hold up in court!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1606]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Another great example is the CU athletic administration and Board Of Trustees
8
8
Mar 20, 2024, 6:21 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
giving a mediocre basketball coach an extension and a raise after "over performing" in the NIT tournament. Here's to a lesson learned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7296]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 20, 2024, 6:38 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
yeah you don't care because when it comes to basketball it doesn't matter. As long as we can benefit from saying, "we play in a strong conference." That way our weak basketball coach can backdoor his way into the tourney, and swindle Clemson out of more money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1437]
TigerPulse: 87%
29
|
The contract was drawn & signed...
1
Mar 20, 2024, 7:52 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
in a controlled setting or "landscape" that no longer exists. Conditions and variables have shifted dramatically; to remain steadfast is beyond hazardous, it's certain death. An athletics program's voluntary commission of suicide is to turn a blind eye to these unforeseen exigent circumstances—
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21080]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 12771
Joined: 2018
|
Re: The contract was drawn & signed...
Mar 20, 2024, 7:54 PM
|
|
If only contract law worked that way…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1445]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: The contract was drawn & signed...
1
1
Mar 20, 2024, 8:03 PM
|
|
Yeah, the amount of fan fiction people are creating in regards to this issue is astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: The contract was drawn & signed...
Mar 21, 2024, 10:31 PM
|
|
Ain't it great that the court of common web nuts have us having a great case just like the injuns and the folks at Clemson were so stupid (just like the posters) that we did not look them over and have our lawyers do the same! What did president Clements say after it was done! Gets deeper...injuns claim their president had NM o right to sign it! No wonder their Buffalo left!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2196]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: I agree 100%.
1
Mar 20, 2024, 8:07 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
That’s my view for athlete’s as well. A team took a chance on them, and the player was content and excited at receiving a 5-year contract. Fast forward 2-3 years, and the ones that happened to excel in the sport demand new contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22909]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Re: I agree 100%.
2
Mar 20, 2024, 8:25 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
You would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [335]
TigerPulse: 61%
15
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 20, 2024, 8:56 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
Maybe Clements should resign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5684]
TigerPulse: 96%
39
|
That last sentence describes Brownell's tenure here perfectly***
3
Mar 20, 2024, 10:34 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1797]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
Re: I agree 100%.
2
Mar 20, 2024, 10:36 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
Sort of like not letting an average, at best, hang around for 14 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5442]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: I agree 100%.
2
Mar 20, 2024, 11:08 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
You are right about not signing 20 year contracts or contracts that reference other contracts that you have never been allowed to see
But you are dead wrong on honoring the contract if it’s bad or if the party is unfairly enforcing it
I mean this fiduciary crap is nonsense. All Clemson is asking for is a court to determine whether the contract granted Clemson’s media rights until 2036 or just so long as Clemson chooses to remain part of the conference. Common law courts have generally ruled against any provisions that prohibit one party from suing another. (lawyers are lawyers)
Also, there is the issue that the ACC amended the media rights contract with ESPN after the delayed launch of the ACC network without getting the approval of the member institutions in a blatant violation of the conference’s constitution and bylaws. If the media rights
Finally, there is Swofford’s gifting his son the regional media rights and the complete breach of his fiduciary responsibility to negotiate the best deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 22, 2024, 12:01 PM
|
|
You should get facts straight before putting anything on 'paper'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2419]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 22, 2024, 12:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: I agree 100%. ] |
|
I think the ACC will absolutely settle because they cant risk the Clemson case being ruled in Clemson's favor. If Clemson wins the case, then all teams can leave instantly with no penalty.
The Clemson case almost forces the ACC to settle because if there is any chance the ACC could lose, they instantly lose everything.. Pac 12 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8063]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: I agree 100%.
1
Mar 21, 2024, 2:56 AM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
Legal contracts are not suicide pacts - or better - Suicide pacts are not legal contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1209]
TigerPulse: 89%
27
|
What Ive found is to always take the opposite of what you say,
Mar 21, 2024, 10:01 AM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
and that’s what happens.
You’re never right. About anything.
Keep swinging and missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11860]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 21, 2024, 10:33 AM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
Hard to believe you are that clueless. Every Conditions of Contract that I have ever provided to a client states that if there is a problem with the project that it must go to arbitration. In other words we can't sue each other in court, but will be arbitrated by a arbitration center (usually a lawyer that specializes in arbitration). Every client signs it! So what happens when something goes wrong? Yep, they have their lawyer file a lawsuit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: I agree 100%.
2
Mar 21, 2024, 4:16 PM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
Why that's just crazy... you borrowed thousands to go to college...lazy.switched to HR from premed and now can't make a good living much less pay off that college...uncle Joe to the rescue...we will forgive you with someone else's money...just vote 4 me...a deal is Not always a deal when you wish upon a star!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: I agree 100%.
Mar 22, 2024, 11:54 AM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
We were ti c kled to death until the SEC and BIG got better deals...we only got a whataburger Jr and they got a triple...that ain't fair!
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7194]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
A contract is a contract except when one party defaults...
Mar 23, 2024, 8:31 AM
[ in reply to I agree 100%. ] |
|
duh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [9074]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
4
Mar 20, 2024, 6:16 PM
|
|
And you has a weak grasp of the English language, which exposes your understanding of contract law
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64768]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 41713
Joined: 2004
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
7
7
Mar 20, 2024, 6:24 PM
|
|
And you has a weak grasp of the English language
I literally laughed out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14461]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
The only thing weak is your Gamecock
3
Mar 20, 2024, 6:17 PM
|
|
sports history expert for Ladycock Basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1797]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 6:21 PM
|
|
So when they get out of it bet you and jk will go into mourning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7296]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 6:40 PM
|
|
yeah, they wont be able to tout that we play in a strong basketball conference (which isn't true anymore) and they can use it as an excuse as to why Brad underperformed......again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9575]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
3
Mar 20, 2024, 6:21 PM
|
|
🤓🤡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2926]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
1
Mar 20, 2024, 6:23 PM
|
|
I know, right? Imagine if a pro athlete signed a contract and realized he wasn't being paid market value and refused to honor said contract. Good thing that would never happen.
I have only read the parts of the suit that have been posted, but I think their strategy and position are solid.
As I understand, they have phrased it so they are asking for clarification and stating their position and interpretation. They are asking for confirmation on their position and requiring the ACC to validate or prove otherwise.
They haven’t stated they are leaving, even though that is clearly the intent.
I think it was well done and they were smart enough to file first so they dictate the venue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7583]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
1
Mar 20, 2024, 6:24 PM
|
|
Just a couple scared coots - terrified that your financial advantage will be gone soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12558]
TigerPulse: 96%
47
Posts: 12926
Joined: 2005
|
Question...Why do you see lawyers with bigger houses and nicer cars than you?
2
Mar 20, 2024, 6:24 PM
|
|
Answer...Unlike you, they understand that contracts are meant to be broken or renegotiated. Just the way it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1445]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: Question...Why do you see lawyers with bigger houses and nicer cars than you?
1
Mar 20, 2024, 6:56 PM
|
|
The problem with that is, the ACC is also hired those same types of lawyers too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [721]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Question...Why do you see lawyers with bigger houses and nicer cars than you?
1
Mar 21, 2024, 7:44 AM
|
|
That's why this strategy by FSU, Clemson, and most likely, soon to be, UNC or Miami, is the best course of action, rather than all signing on to one lawsuit. Hit the ACC from as many sides as possible, requiring them to have upwards of 6-8 different legal teams for said lawsuits, and bleed them dry. Death by a thousand cuts until it becomes untenable and they have to settle for far less than they'd like. That is the goal of these lawsuits. If we win and get out for next to nothing, that's just the cherry on top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21080]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 12771
Joined: 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5226]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
NOPE......***
1
Mar 20, 2024, 7:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8301]
TigerPulse: 96%
43
|
Thanks for your input, coot.***
Mar 20, 2024, 7:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17045]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 16938
Joined: 2004
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
All contracts are negotiable. ALL.
Most contracts have holes in it.
Many this one does too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1445]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 8:05 PM
|
|
The problem is, they aren't negotiable in the way you think they are.
Of course, there is also the issue is that one side can simply refuse to negotiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2196]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
2
Mar 20, 2024, 8:04 PM
|
|
I think a more accurate example would be that you bought a home with an HOA. That HOA then makes decisions that adversely impact the home owners.
You see the subdivision down the street that is thriving under their HOA. Without any additional effort, those home owners are receiving constant upgrades in their service and facilities.
You want your HOA to model itself after them, but they say no, we can’t. We signed a 25 year contract to overpay for sub standard landscaping and maintenance. You have to suck it up, and if you try to get out we will fine you more than you 10 years worth of mortgage payments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [38]
TigerPulse: 97%
4
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
1
Mar 20, 2024, 8:22 PM
|
|
FSU has some parts of their case appearing weak, even through my FSU tinted glasses. The strong areas of their case is through Swofford's "self dealing", the ESPN unilateral option to extend past 2027 and the GoRs signed was misrepresented to it's members as a necessary part of the ESPN deal.
These 3 areas I believe are very strong, the Swofford self dealing goes beyond just Chad in which nobody knew until recently. The statue of limitations don't apply with this new evidence.
Clemson chose a different area of attack, but it's fine, if FSU wins and Clemson loses, then use the FSU case as precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 4:24 PM
|
|
You better read that statute of limitations again...you might have missed a word or two...like, "when did you know or when should you have known .FSU and Clemson signed on multiple times and were happy until some other conference got more money...do really think a JUDGE is stupid enough not to see through that...don't forget estoppel!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [721]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 8:09 PM
|
|
Were the conference members informed that that TV contract ended in 2027, unless extended by 2022 to take the contract to 2036? Or were they led to believe the tv contract went until 2036 and that’s why they needed to grant their rights until that time? We know Phillips unilaterally extended the deadline to 2025 without the knowledge, or vote of the members. Seems that might be a little fraudulent, as the ACC really didn’t want that nugget being released to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2330]
TigerPulse: 95%
32
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 11:03 AM
|
|
Were the conference members informed that that TV contract ended in 2027, unless extended by 2022 to take the contract to 2036? Or were they led to believe the tv contract went until 2036 and that’s why they needed to grant their rights until that time? We know Phillips unilaterally extended the deadline to 2025 without the knowledge, or vote of the members. Seems that might be a little fraudulent, as the ACC really didn’t want that nugget being released to the public.
Wait. I admit I haven't been following this drama closely but that is the first time I heard anything about 2027. Not saying you are wrong but that seems like it would be a rather large hang up that in 2022 would have mattered a ton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 12:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case ] |
|
The statute of limitations always apply...Swafford and Ray c om is moot...when did you know or when should have known...due diligence is not signing something twice, enjoying its fruits for 8 years and then backing out for all this new evidence ( MO money to SEC and BIG) your neighbors Cadillac h as nothing to do with your cadillac!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5971]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
"Have" a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 8:28 PM
|
|
....excuse me if I doubt you logic or legal acumen considering your grammer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: "Have" a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 12:12 PM
|
|
Bet you don't like his grandpa either!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1689]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 9:17 PM
|
|
Poor analogy because you can refinance your mortgage if you get a better offer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1751]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
No, you cannot refinance unless your contract allows it
1
Mar 20, 2024, 9:52 PM
|
|
Most mortgage contracts do allow refinancing, but the possibility is agreed upon by both parties from the get go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7966]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15898
Joined: 2001
|
A refinance is just paying off the original. Even if your
Mar 20, 2024, 11:00 PM
|
|
loan is not conventional and prohibits for a certain time period, you can always walk across the street and get a loan to pay the original off. This assumes you qualify based on credit, ratios,LTV, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1522]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Nobody renegotiates mortages
Mar 21, 2024, 9:34 AM
[ in reply to No, you cannot refinance unless your contract allows it ] |
|
The contract gets replaced with a new mortgage, but only so far as you pay off the old mortgage in full. It does not get renegotiated...the contract stands until the terms of the first contract are satisfied. At least that is the way the half dozen mortgages I have had in my life. Never once did I renegotiate a standing mortgage to get better terms.
The same goes for Pro Athletes which has also been mentioned....they have clauses that enable renegotiation. This is how pro teams can restructure contracts to get under the salary caps and vice-versa for players whose value goes up. They have been legally designed for renegotiation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7966]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 15898
Joined: 2001
|
you are combining mortgage and note which are 2 separate agreements
1
Mar 22, 2024, 10:07 AM
|
|
but most people do so no biggie. The note contains repayment terms/details and you absolutely can ask to renegotiate. Terms can be altered via a modification. You should always ask about doing this if say rates drop and you are looking to refinance. Check rates from the competition, then call the servicer of your current mortgage loan and ask if they could modify and match. Cost less for a modification than refinancing with a new loan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [39238]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 22473
Joined: 2003
|
Thanks Perry Mason***
2
Mar 20, 2024, 10:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1568]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 20, 2024, 10:18 PM
|
|
To carry on the mortgage analogy. It would be like if you entered a 30 year mortgage, and now after 6 years want to sell your home and profit 200k in equity. The bank however is upset that they are not getting interest for the next 24 years claims that technically they own your home and so any equity you might have will go directly to them even if the equity is more than any interest you would have owed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5442]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
That has got to be the worst analogy ever
2
Mar 20, 2024, 10:49 PM
|
|
Where are you from? People walk away from mortgages all the time when their house is underwater
Sure, banks would love to have first born Children and all future earnings as collateral (and they’ve tried to slide that in), but the law says that’s not equitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1751]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
So you're suggesting CU abandon their football pgm???
1
Mar 20, 2024, 11:00 PM
|
|
Hello Mr. Stankey, this is Graham. Umm... Graham Neff, I'm the AD at Clemson. We abandoned football, but we'd like to join your conference... (click). Hello, Mr.Stankey?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5442]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: So you're suggesting CU abandon their football pgm???
2
Mar 20, 2024, 11:14 PM
|
|
What are you talking about?
Drinking on Wednesday is a bad idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1522]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: So you're suggesting CU abandon their football pgm???
Mar 21, 2024, 3:04 PM
[ in reply to So you're suggesting CU abandon their football pgm??? ] |
|
Spot on. Walk away from a mortgage also means to give up ownership of said house entirely. Nope, we're dumping football to become a pickleball powerhouse...see yah ACC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22909]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1556]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: That has got to be the worst analogy ever
Mar 22, 2024, 12:15 PM
[ in reply to That has got to be the worst analogy ever ] |
|
If CCC is bankrupted it's because we've spent too much money! Have you paid your IPTAY $10?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17366]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 11164
Joined: 2007
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
3
Mar 20, 2024, 11:03 PM
|
|
What? People refinance mortgages every day. Would you like to pick an example that doesn’t directly contradict your assertion. A better example would be the class action lawsuits successfully filed against lenders for over charging interest on mortgage payoffs who insisted that they had a contract that entitled them to these charges (hint - they didn’t). I’ll never understand the urge to submit so readily to authority. “Surely a lawyer looked at this so it must be ironclad.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [599]
TigerPulse: 97%
20
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 8:14 AM
|
|
Well, I had an attorney friend who won hundreds of cases against the credit card companies on behalf of consumers. The credit card companies sell the debt that consumers incur pretty rapidly. They do this because there is some law that makes carrying more than some threshold of debt is problematic. In the process, the paper trail gets lost. He said the cases went the same every time. It would go something like:
CC Attorney: Your Honor, John Doe owes my client one million dollars.
My friend: Objection - heresay.
And at that point the CC Attorney could not prove the debt.
Judge: Case dismissed.
He was convinced that he could do the same for mortgages that had been sold.
He told me, that when prospective clients came to him, he would tell them he almost certainly could help from a legal perspective, but from a moral perspective that was on them - they know they owe the money and promised to pay it back.
Long story, but this is the situation that the magnificent 7 find themselves in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1209]
TigerPulse: 89%
27
|
Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model.
Mar 21, 2024, 10:00 AM
|
|
There WILL be a settlement and reduced exit fee. Just a matter of when.
The ACC is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13710]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 14850
Joined: 2010
|
Re: Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model.
3
Mar 21, 2024, 10:05 AM
|
|
Yep. I believe ultimately Clemson and FSU will pay an exit fee like Maryland did before us but the GOR will be struck down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model.
Mar 22, 2024, 12:16 PM
|
|
You inhaled again, Bill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [552]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model.
1
Mar 21, 2024, 10:15 AM
[ in reply to Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model. ] |
|
Yeah I think the most important thing to watch for is what the Courts say about the giant ACC exit fee, if it is deemed unreasonable and can be negotiated down to say, under say 80 million, I think 3-5 schools are instantly gone from the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1522]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model.
Mar 21, 2024, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to Wrong. The ACC is a failed business model. ] |
|
I think the exit fee is the crack in the contract. Judges throughout egregious contract exit fees all the time. I think an exit fee is designed to do no harm. That is the ACC will experience harm if Clemson leaves so there needs to be a fee, but the fee cannot be so high as to be punitive in nature so as to purposely inflict undue harm on Clemson...or any other school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1723]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 3:27 PM
|
|
No. But you have a right to change your interest rate through refinance (escape clause). Not a good example used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Legend [146714]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 34886
Joined: 2010
|
That's not how contracts work...
4
Mar 21, 2024, 3:58 PM
|
|
Both sides are obligated to fulfill their obligations. FSU and Clemson don't want out just because something better came along. If the ACC had kept pace financially with the SEC and B1G, we wouldn't be having these conversations. Who was contractually responsible for the media rights deal and working in the best interest of the members? Do we feel the member's best interests are being met? That was the ACC's contractual responsibility, correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1301]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: That's not how contracts work...
1
Mar 21, 2024, 4:34 PM
|
|
Yeah...WF is going to put 80k butts in what stadium...they have trouble...have you ever seen Bryant Denny empty or the swamp with no gators...aggies put 100k in the stadium losing with Dumbo Fisnet losing...half of the time ACC can't pan the camera to show empty seats...If you think those schools which are the ACC deserve as much money you are crazy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [80995]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 37438
Joined: 2003
|
LOL, terrible example, you CAN refinance your mortgage and walk away from
1
Mar 21, 2024, 4:05 PM
|
|
that original contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1915]
TigerPulse: 83%
31
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 4:25 PM
|
|
I think they both lose in court. Both schools signed this thing for way too many years. That's on them. The deal wS bad, but they both took it. Sounds like buyers remorse. They might get a lower exit fee, but it's still gonna be huge. Tbe president of each school that signed the deal, should be terminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 8:28 PM
|
|
It's not just that they signed the agreement for too many years, it's that the took the money without protest for too many years after signing it. Equitable principles forbid Clemson from contesting the very thing it has benefitted from. FSU too. Oh, BTW, the statute has run too. Both cases are totally ridiculous and destined for dismissal or summary judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3654]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 6:59 PM
|
|
I find in fascinating how all these Tigernet attorneys have read the GOR “contract” and all the other associated documents (and amendments) to determine how strong a case we might have. I’m not foolish enough to say we will win in court but here is the thing - we don’t have to.
The ACC stands to lose a heck of a lot more in a loss, so much so that they aren’t willing to take the risk of losing and will settle. You could argue that Clemson, FSU, UNC , and anyone else don’t lose anything real - they simply remain in the same situation they are in now. In the meantime, the conference benefactor (espn) will see that at least 3 of the most valuable properties are likely to leave and starts to question (well not starts, the fact they didn’t extend during the original “look in” period when things were better than now provides evidence they had questions already) whether it makes sense to be as financially invested for the next 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [677]
TigerPulse: 90%
21
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 8:16 PM
|
|
The complete and honest fact is we should have never signed that agreement. We had a chance to say NO (North Carolina runs “our” conference). But yet we signed the deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 21, 2024, 8:20 PM
|
|
This is why Clemson's case is so terrible:
1. Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the “Rights”) necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and (b) agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution during the Term that are expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 includes, without limitation, (A) the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the ESPN Agreement; (B) subject to paragraph 7 hereof, the right to authorize access to such Member Institution’s facilities for the purposes set forth in and pursuant to the ESPN Agreement; (C) the right of the Conference or its designee to create and to own a copyright of the audiovisual work of the ESPN Games (as defined in the ESPN Agreement) of or involving such Member Institution (the “Works”) with such rights being, at least, coextensive with 17 U.S.C, 411(c); and (D) the present assignment of the entire right, title and interest in the Works that are created under the ESPN Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall not include any rights of a particular Member Institution to sports as to which the Conference and such Member Institution have agreed, as of the date of such Member Institution’s execution of this Agreement or a joinder thereto, that such Member Institution will not participate as a member of the Conference. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall remain subject to the right to produce and distribute, by means of specified media, those events of such Member Institution during the Term which are reserved to the Conference and the Member Institution under the ESPN Agreement and which may be exercised as permitted by the ESPN Agreement and in accordance with Conference policy. Each Member Institution will cause any affiliated entity which has previously been granted any interest in the Rights, to grant such interest to the Conference to the extent necessary to allow the Member Institution to fully perform all of its obligations under this Agreement and provide the Conference with the Rights contemplated hereby.
2. Copyright Assignment and License. The Conference and each of the Member Institutions acknowledge that the Conference owns or will own the copyrights to the Works. Each Member Institution hereby grants to the Conference or its designee the right to create a copyright Work and, for the entire duration of the applicable event, the copyright in such Works, The Conference shall have the right to seek relief under 17 U.S.C. 411(c) for any interference with the Conference’s federal copyright ownership interest in the Works created and/or Works to be created under the ESPN Agreement. Each Member Institution agrees to cooperate with the Conference in any such action, but at the Conference’s sole expense. The rights assigned in the Works include, but are not limited to, all rights under the United States and/or foreign copyright laws; all reproduction, performance, display, distribution, and other intellectual property rights; the right to modify, distort, or alter the Works and future Works; and all so-called moral rights, To the extent moral rights may not be assigned, each Member Institution hereby waives the benefit or protection of same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1751]
TigerPulse: 57%
31
|
Don't confuse us with the facts. TNet hates facts.
Mar 21, 2024, 8:24 PM
|
|
Many TNet'ers don't get out much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2642]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
You can't have an illegal contract
Mar 22, 2024, 10:23 AM
|
|
I read in Florida there are limits on damages that can be in a contract, and the ACC fee to leave is beyond the legal limit. I think this is among FSU's complaints.
Also, why is the GOR rights agreement secret and no copies allowed outside of ACC HQ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2330]
TigerPulse: 95%
32
|
Re: You can't have an illegal contract
Mar 22, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
It apparently isn't secret at all. 404 just posted the secret document...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [970]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: You can't have an illegal contract
Mar 23, 2024, 12:54 PM
[ in reply to You can't have an illegal contract ] |
|
GOR is public. The ACC/ESPN Media Rights contract is not public and references in the lawsuit are redacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [504]
TigerPulse: 94%
19
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 12:18 PM
|
|
Take a hike coot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [11088]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 13561
Joined: 2003
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 12:24 PM
|
|
I don't think you understand what is being argued in the case. Clemson is saying if they pay the exit fee that the ACC has no rights to their media after that according to the ACC conference bylaws. With that being said if the contract contains an illegal clause it could be deemed as void. I've seen this happen a couple times in my lifetime. So those of you saying we don't have an argument how about at least find out what we are arguing before you spew your factless nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1723]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
1
Mar 22, 2024, 12:45 PM
|
|
Your analogy is flawed on multiple levels. The GOR contract representing media rights signed by members of the conference is nothing like a personal home mortgage. A mortgage is an agreement between you and a financial institution to provide the capital required for purchasing a property. The terms dictates how much you will repay the institution and over what period of time. You can pay off the agreement early, usually without penalty by obtaining a new mortgage or via other means.
The GOR that Clemson and other members of the ACC signed allowed the ACC to negotiate on their behalf a media agreement with third party providers; ESPN in this case for a certain sum of money per year over a specified time frame. There are legal avenues which can be pursued to break the GOR or invalidate sections of the GOR, which is what Clemson appears to be pursuing. Their lawsuit does not ask for permission to leave the conference, it simply asks a court to determine whether or not Clemson ultimately owns the rights to their own events and that upon exiting the conference the ACC would no longer be entitled to any of the money generated, and second, that the exit fee is unreasonable to the point of forcing a school to remain a member because of the exorbitant amount.
This is based on the actual wording of the lawsuit Clemson filed in Pickens County - not based off of what members of this board have speculated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3719]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 23, 2024, 10:11 AM
|
|
Maybe Syracuse could sue the ACC in NY State for over valuing the ESPN contract in light of what the SEC is being paid and imposing excessive fines for exiting the conference. There is a precedent in NY that just because both sides meet the terms of a contract it doesn't mean you weren't defrauded.
Although I doubt Syracuse would have a desirable landing spot outside the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [98675]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 97937
Joined: 2009
|
Re: CU (and FSU) has a weak case
Mar 22, 2024, 1:20 PM
|
|
CU lawyer: "Your honor, after eight years, my client has decided to claim this GOR contract is invalid due to failure to competently' execute fiduciary obligations".
Judge: 'Yeah, the ACC screwed the only money makers in the conference'
Where I come from when you give the bank an open door to peaceful foreclosure they jump at the chance because banks want a downpayment and understand that land is the one thing China isn't making cheap.
Your logic works on naive people whose IQ is below 100.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7194]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Contracts are broken all the time
Mar 23, 2024, 9:10 AM
|
|
usually by negotiation, which will happen here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 99
| visibility 11201
|
|
|
50
