|
Replies: 85
| visibility 8774
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Elite [5213]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 2:19 PM
|
|
Nope.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [47445]
TigerPulse: 77%
58
Posts: 35314
Joined: 2003
|
It does stink. It's desperation because we signed a bad deal
1
9
9
Mar 26, 2024, 2:19 PM
|
|
and now we are realizing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1777]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
Re: It does stink. It's desperation because we signed a bad deal
7
7
Mar 26, 2024, 5:05 PM
|
|
Same people were involved in signing that deal as giving your crush bb extensions so in that light ….. YOU are correct!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
1
Mar 26, 2024, 2:21 PM
|
|
I've never understood how Clemson or FSU has a case at all. They've been cashing checks for years from their GOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1299]
TigerPulse: 74%
27
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 28, 2024, 9:28 AM
|
|
Thats why estoppel and the statute of limitations are going to decide this and decide it early...Clemson asked for a judicial ruling on exactly what the GOR and the payout will be! We signed the deal which looked great at the time, then when the SEC & BIG got their deal ours looked not so good...but that's many years after setting up the ACC network cashing lots of checks...changing your deal cause someone else got a better one ain't gonna float lest you have a bad judge...even one of those does not want his whole ruling kicked out in appeal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27692]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
The object is not to win in court.
35
35
Mar 26, 2024, 2:22 PM
|
|
The object is to win in the negotiations outside of court. Get the buyout down to a reasonable amount.
ESPN and ACC do not want discovery to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9573]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
7
7
Mar 26, 2024, 2:25 PM
|
|
Exactly....the clowns in this thread think Clemson and FSU strategy was to waltz into court and win the lawsuit easy peasy in a few minutes
They are attempting to draw the ACC into negotiations regarding the GOR among other things to manage the exit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14439]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
I only see one clown and it happens to be Joke Clueless.
5
5
Mar 26, 2024, 2:40 PM
|
|
If our basketball team was as consistent playing up to their level as he is consistent with being a clown, we would have made numerous Sweet Sixteen appearances over the past 14 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [782]
TigerPulse: 89%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 5:03 PM
|
|
Who said ESPN was? Don’t forget about FOX. I refuse to believe they don’t want a south east pod. The talent is here, the NC’s are won here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5213]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Nailed it Bret....
6
6
Mar 26, 2024, 2:42 PM
[ in reply to The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
Silly ppl refuse to see that. Clemson's case is a trial balloon. Much more to come.
Laughable ppl think we are stuck until 2036
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
1
1
Mar 26, 2024, 2:43 PM
[ in reply to The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
That's not going to happen either. The ACC has absolutely no reason to settle at all. It's literally the death knell of the conference. It makes absolutely no sense for them to settle their negotiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
7
7
Mar 26, 2024, 2:51 PM
|
|
I'd argue quite the opposite. A few material questions need to be answered in regard to the media deal and the GOR. First, were the member schools lead to believe that the TV deal ran through 2036, and not that it, in fact, only runs through 2027, and needed to be extended by ESPN to 2036. If it was the former, then that would constitute fraud. Secondly, did Jim Phillips have the authority to unilaterally extend the ESPN deadline for extension from 2022 to 2025? We know he did not present it to the ACC members, and did it on his own, so if he didn't have that authority, that would again be fraud at worst, and an abdication of the ACC's fiduciary duties at the least. ACC and ESPN clearly don't want discovery, and keep using the guise of "Trade Secrets" as their reason. If this goes to discovery, you might see a quick settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
1
Mar 26, 2024, 3:05 PM
|
|
You can argue all you want but that's not going to change the facts. The contract has a look in clause and that was known when the contract was signed. It was reported by the media that there was a look in clause. As far as whether the commissioner has authority, he's obviously been granted authority to negotiate with the network. As to what he did or didn't tell the conference, I'd say you're placing way too much Credence in what Florida State claims in their lawsuit. Florida State's Board of Trustees has misunderstood the television contract going back all the way to 2012, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
2
Mar 26, 2024, 3:15 PM
|
|
A "look in" clause and an extension are two different things. A "look in" clause is to see if there is a chance to renegotiate the deal for more money, the extension is where ESPN can unilaterally end the contract. No one was aware that they contract could be unilaterally killed by ESPN. I think you're putting far too much credence in your belief that the ACC acted in good faith, when all indications were that John Swofford's first goal was to take care of his family, and his second goal, was to leave a legacy of a conference network, regardless of the tactics to achieve it and the financial situation it left the members in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 7:59 PM
|
|
I'm not putting any credence in that at all. I'm saying that Florida St's interpretation of both the contract and the events is not accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1299]
TigerPulse: 74%
27
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 28, 2024, 9:31 AM
[ in reply to Re: The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
Look at the time line...Swofford and his son were a side bar...ESPN farmed out the 3rd & 4th tier rights to Raycom...they would not waste the power and time to show them...nobody much wanted to watch anyway...better look at the time line on this one...they are unconnected!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1401]
TigerPulse: 87%
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: Then why the "trade secrets" maneuver?****
Mar 27, 2024, 11:26 AM
|
|
There can be a variety of reasons for that. ESPN may simply not want to give away some of their leverage for contract negotiations with other conferences. You can't just make the assumption that because they want to keep parts of the contract private for trade secrets, that this automatically means they're just trying to hide the fact that they did something unethical/illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 2:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
|
|
That's not going to happen either. The ACC has absolutely no reason to settle at all. It's literally the death knell of the conference. It makes absolutely no sense for them to settle their negotiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 3:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Since you continue to point to things that aren't being litigated in court, would you like to have a discussion on bird law as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 6:20 PM
|
|
Would you shut the #### up about your Byrd law? You look stupid here and on Reddit. If that’s your only contribution to a discussion, just shut the #### up. You are obviously a Florida redneck who cannot read!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 6:54 PM
|
|
What are you talking about? I don’t post on reddit. You come on here posting garbage and get called out on it. Your arguments are ####, and I’ve picked apart each one. Your rebuttal is “look at this article from the Orlando sentinel”. You’re reading comprehension is as #### as your arguments if you got that I’m from Florida, with the screen name TXTiger08. I’m sorry your precious ACC will be decimated in short order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5925]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 8:17 PM
|
|
I’ll bet he’s not ACC. I’ll bet he pulls for a team in the state capital. Who else could post that sort of idiocy and be so passionate about it? Clemson leaving the ACC is his worst nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 9:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
TXTiger, you are incredibly stupid. You didn't got to Clemson. You are a #####. You can't read. You are busted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
1
Mar 26, 2024, 9:49 PM
|
|
I didn’t “got” to Clemson? Actually, I graduated in ‘08. Worked for Dabo as a recruiting intern my senior year too. I can read fine, and articulate thoughts, and critically think, all of which seem to be areas in which you struggle. Feel free to sit this one out little boy while the grown folks talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5213]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 3:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
They will. There comes a time when it becomes untenable and you get the best deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 8:00 PM
|
|
No they won't they're not going to get any deal they're going to literally cease to exist. You're just saying that because you want to convince yourself to Clemson's going to get out of the conference. I'm just telling you, when you look at the way the actual law works it just doesn't go in the favor of Clemson and Florida state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [3060]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 27, 2024, 12:24 PM
|
|
you probably should have told both FSU and Clemson before they spent millions on a team of lawyers who unilaterally decided that yes they do have a chance. Ill bet those law firms would love to have an expert like you telling them what they cant do. Any lawsuit is a game of chance and big money and powerful people have analyzed the situation and feel they have a decent chance of winning. To just blatantly proclaim they have no chance is foolish in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [58028]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 11738
Joined: 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 3:28 PM
[ in reply to The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
So take a spanking in the courtroom, the court of public opinion yet that will somehow strengthen your bargaining position? Wow, thats some high falutin' lawyering...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 4:49 PM
|
|
Who’s taking a beating in the court of public opinion? Everybody taking an objective look says the ACC looks shady as ####. The GOR has also gone from “ironclad” to “they’ll get out, but for how much?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1665]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 7:20 PM
[ in reply to The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
Exactly, I mean look at this sham case by Latitia James on DJT. It went from 454M to 170M in 6 weeks. A few more weeks and it will be down to a couple grand. He will hold suit and she will be disbarred and the circuit court will eventually owe him money. Meanwhile, he sold public trading rights to Truth Social for over 3B and made 1B on the stock market in one day. This is about the long game and when people realize that the ESPN and ACC have more to hide than this mysterious GOR in which the members don't even have a certified copy it is all but over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 9:38 PM
|
|
Tons to hide. Kind of like ####### bird law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
Mar 26, 2024, 9:59 PM
|
|
Yes, tons to hide. That’s generally the reason people don’t want things to go to discovery. You know, things get “discovered” and released to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1299]
TigerPulse: 74%
27
|
Re: The object is not to win in court.
1
Mar 28, 2024, 10:02 AM
[ in reply to The object is not to win in court. ] |
|
We made a deal, so did your injun friends and were happy as hogs in slop until the SEC and the BIG got better deals some years later...have the savages offered to pay the money back that they got when the couldn't beat Wofford...heck no...they just want more money cause they are special! We payed lots of playoff money to the ACC when we were winning Natties and championships and FSWTC was not even going to bowls...FSWTC was not a founding member of the ACC and only came on board when nobody else wanted them and nobody else may want them again soon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
4
Mar 26, 2024, 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Do yourself a favor, and check out that clown's twitter feed. He's essentially gone full Baghdad Bob in defense of the ACC. You also need to consider the source, it's a couple of Nancy State guys, so, much like the dookie, they are fearful of what will happen if Clemson and FSU succeed, so they will crap all over the lawsuits, at every chance they can get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 2:49 PM
|
|
Seems like an honest clown who actually knows what he is talking about. Sorry that the truth hurts so much. SORRY FSU SIGNED THE #### GRANT OF RIGHTS! Whoops
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
4
Mar 26, 2024, 3:00 PM
|
|
So, I take it you actually haven't paid attention to what the lawsuits are arguing. I'll help you out there a little, and, no need to thank me. No one is saying they didn't sign the GOR. In Clemson's case, they're arguing that language in the GOR and the ESPN deal, says that once Clemson is free and clear of the ACC, they own their rights, not the ACC. They're also arguing that the ACC's exit penalty is unenforceable because it's punitive, rather than an amount to make the conference whole after the exits.
FSU's case, is that the GOR and ESPN deal are void because they weren't negotiated in good faith, and there was backroom dealing to enrich ACC officials, violating their fiduciary duties. So yes, while Clemson and FSU signed the GOR, were they lied to and told that the TV deal went until 2036, when it actually ends in 2027? That would be fraud. Was Jim Phillip's granted the authority to unilaterally extend the extension deadline to 2025, from 2022? If not, that would once again be fraud.
As I said before, the Baghdad Bob clown is hoping this doesn't work so that Duke is not left in purgatory. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:04 PM
|
|
Have you actually read anything to support your conclusions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 3:07 PM
|
|
Yes. It was one of the pieces of information FSU included in their original filing, that ESPN and the ACC were upset about. The ESPN TV deal runs until 2027, not until 2036. Jim Phillip's signed to move the extension date to 2025 without informing the members. What we don't know yet, is if the members were told that the deal would go to 2036 and they needed to sign a GOR until then. The TV deal was negotiated after the GOR was signed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:20 PM
|
|
I was unaware that we've gone through the trial, or, at the very least, gone through discovery. But, I mean, if the Orlando Sentinel says so, then who can argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22873]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 28, 2024, 12:47 PM
|
|
You two get a room!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3265]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
If you read that article with an eye for . . .
Mar 26, 2024, 4:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
relevant details regarding why FSU and/or Clemson's suits aren't up to snuff legally and factually, it's just not there. That piece is a standard-fare recitation of the financial and business landscape of TV contracts and revenue incentives that led to the suits- it doesn't say much of anything at all about the substance of the suits than "they signed the contract, so tough luck." That's not much of a refutation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Good grief, no one including the FSU and Clemson lawyers actually believe Clemson owns their GOR. That doesn't even make sense. Nor does anyone believe that an exit fee isn't going to happen. Of course it is.
FSU has been cashing GOR checks for years. They can't say its in bad faith when they've been going along with it for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 4:53 PM
|
|
That’s not what they’re arguing there hoss. The argument is, once they leave the conference, they get their rights back, as has been the case with any university that’s left a conference, including Texas and OU when they left the Big 12, which the ACC GOR is supposedly based.
Also, no one is arguing there won’t be an exit fee. They’re arguing the ACC exit fee is punitive and not consistent with the landscape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 28, 2024, 1:36 PM
|
|
That argument is simply incorrect.
Texas and Oklahoma do not back up your argument. Texas and Oklahoma had to pay the Big 12 to get back their rights. The difference is, the Big 12's GOR (the one Texas and Oklahoma signed) expires in 2025. Texas and Oklahoma are only leaving one year early, in 2024. They only had to buy back one year of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5925]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1299]
TigerPulse: 74%
27
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 28, 2024, 9:43 AM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
You really can't make the conference whole after the 'CCC' exit...we are the only real football team in the basketball conference...Clemson has been an owner of the CFP from it's inception...only Bama is up there and we taught them a lesson and their GOAT team by curbstomping them...The ACC probably really wants to keep a founding member that has brought natty glory to the conference...and by being in the ACC we went dancing several times...had we been in the SEC or BIG ten I maintain we would not have gone as much...with the new format in the ACC we could dance every year...in our Natty years during the regular season we played everyone on the team including the waterboy...minimized injuries and created depth with game experience, something others could not do! That alone made us so deep and dangerous...if Clemson moves to the SEC we will get more money for sure...we may not go to the prom again! I like where we are right now and would hate to turn over conference leadership to UNC and Miami!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1777]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5925]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 8:04 PM
|
|
Who are all of these new posters (sub 100 points) arguing for the ACC and against Clemson, making essentially baseless claims? What’s their motivation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 9:54 PM
|
|
Eh, we all know the answer to that. Probably fans of Duke, Nancy State, any number of the Big East Refugees we took in, or most likely, gamecock fans who feel left out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5925]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 10:36 PM
|
|
I’m voting for co*k fan. I think that’s his angle. Spews nonsense, thinks he’s making brilliant points but is completely shallow, and resorts to ad hominem attacks thinking that’s real debate. Sounds like a coot to me.
On the other hand, your arguments are sound. I think you laid out the case brilliantly and I fully agree with you. This was not a debate. It was a massacre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32259]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16786
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
The ACC and ESON pay these clows to get on social media and fan sites and spew this BS. No real attorney would ever go public stating that a large institution has no case because they have none of the facts. Google Black's Law Dictionary and you will see that 95% of all pending law suits are settled. So, if this turkey is a lawyer, he must have no clients.
This law suit will fall into that 95% category which is what I have said from day one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32259]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16786
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 2:57 PM
|
|
ESPN. D AMN AUTO CORRECT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Will do. Right now I'm reading the AMA manual on brain surgery. After that I'll consult Blacks law dictionary. Good grief...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [592]
TigerPulse: 96%
20
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:22 PM
|
|
The PAC 12 played hard ball with ESPN and look what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [961]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
1
Mar 26, 2024, 3:42 PM
|
|
Look what happened? All the schools became free agents. CU and FSU would support that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1435]
TigerPulse: 94%
29
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 4:05 PM
|
|
Didn't work out too well for most of those schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [718]
TigerPulse: 97%
22
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 4:57 PM
|
|
Well, we’re not really worried about those other schools. Sounds harsh, but that’s the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32259]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16786
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 5:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Consult any source you wish. But if you Google "how many lawsuits are settled pre trial" you will find many sites and all Give the figure of 90 plus %. Black's law is one site but there are many others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 8:06 PM
|
|
Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 9:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Genius, JunkYard! This has the intellectual acumen of a novice golfer. You start everything with, "If you google . . . " Did you complete your studies at Pendleton?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 6, 2024, 6:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Here you go again. Just saying sh#t without any connection to real fact. Lawsuit is one word, and Black's Law Dictionary has definitions not statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32259]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 16786
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 5:17 PM
|
|
Try Google, you'd be surprised at what you can learn. It even gives answers to what constitutes a smart a zz. Look it up. You might see that it fits you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 8:06 PM
|
|
And it will show that you never went to Clemson and could never get in either. JunkYard, try basics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5925]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 8:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
To your point. I’ve been involved in several lawsuits. None ever made it to court. All were settled because both parties would incur serious legal fees otherwise. Many times, our position was strong, but it was more practical to settle.
The only difference here is the ACC may feel they face an existential threat. Still, odds favor some sort of settlement. Maybe early exit or reduced exit fees. I hope people who say it will be settled quickly are correct. I just think it will take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 27, 2024, 10:50 PM
|
|
Exactly how many lawsuits have you been involved with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [163]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 10:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
A barnham statement are words that have a specific meaning to you, but very different meanings to other people. All contacts are full of them. Anyone acting in bad faith can argue anything. And if you think you know what a judge will rule, you live in a fantasy world. After all, we live in a system where 9 government jokers in robes can rule 5-4 as to whether something is in the constitution. Think real hard about that!! Would you sign that contract? After 240 years of going one direction? And you think you can get justice in a courtroom?
You’ve got much better chance of justice arguing to my neighbors on my back porch over a glass of fine bourbon!! That’s a fact!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 27, 2024, 10:50 PM
|
|
This makes no sense. Tell the world why and how you are so certain judges are as incompetent as you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2392]
TigerPulse: 98%
32
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 3:58 PM
|
|
Yawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [25]
TigerPulse: 97%
3
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 5:29 PM
|
|
Unless he went to the ACC offices and read the agreements, how would he know?
Struggling lawyer looking for PR. Typical playbook - say something inflammatory in public. Unfortunately boneheaded blogs count as public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2248]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 6:43 PM
|
|
Thread title should read Duke alum and ACC fan….
Other than geography he has no affiliation ti Clemson..
Just another arrogant Duke attorney…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 26, 2024, 6:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: Clemson Native and Attorney ] |
|
Look, this guy says nothing inflammatory, actually. He mentions that South Carolina would be fair. He says Go Tigers several times. I don't get the sense that he is poking anyone in the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31589]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 18166
Joined: 2008
|
Re: Clemson Native and Attorney
Mar 27, 2024, 10:18 AM
|
|
This guy specializes in IP and copyright law. While I know who he is and respect his work, he's out of his wheelhouse on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5428]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 27, 2024, 11:52 AM
|
|
Hasn’t seen the GOR
Hasn’t seen the ESPN contract
Doesn’t specialize in an area of law relevant to this lawsuit
But he’s some random lawyer with plenty of time on his hands, so we should listen to him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5428]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 27, 2024, 10:41 PM
|
|
I’ve not seen anyone post the signed 2016 GOR in its entirety
Supposedly Clemson and fsu don’t have it either
And how could any lawyer with and ounce of self respect (yes all 2 of them), render any meaningful opinion without seeing the “ESPN contract” and any amendments thereof that may or may not exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 27, 2024, 10:45 PM
|
|
How can you opine without access to the ACC-ESPN contract or reading the GOR, which is pretty clear for you (abundantly)?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5428]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 27, 2024, 11:00 PM
|
|
It’s pretty easy to opine about a shameless know-nothing lawyer that’s just trying to get some free advertising for his struggling law firm
What patent attorney worth their salt has the spare time to suck around with this crap?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1299]
TigerPulse: 74%
27
|
Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 28, 2024, 9:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that ] |
|
What do you mean FSU booster posted it and the injuns have been threatened with a lawsuit for disclosing portions of a 'commercial contract' the release of which could give potential competitors leverage in negotiating contracts! Contract Law, Patent Law and Constitutional Law seem to be way past your reading level and directly related to this Lawsuit! Once you have started this ball rolling it will gain speed and everyone that I care about 'Clemson' may be hurt! Carrying through with your agreements is what separates us from the thugs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5428]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Sure talks a lot for a guy that
Mar 28, 2024, 2:49 PM
|
|
Please provide a link substantiating your claim that FSU (or a booster) posted the current ESPN media rights contact with the ACC
I have not seen or heard that from any credible source
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 85
| visibility 8774
|
|
|
50
