|
Replies: 42
| visibility 5315
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
1
3
Feb 22, 2024, 8:16 PM
|
|
ESPN filing a supportive brief of the ACC's effort to keep the ACC-ESPN deal under seal is not surprising. However, ESPN filing a brief in support while openly questioning whether FSU and its lawyers have committed a felony by knowingly disclosing ESPN's trade secrets is very much surprising.
Clearly, ESPN is not happy with FSU or its attorneys.
Otherwise, ESPN's memo argues for sealing the agreements between ESPN and the ACC as they are "highly sensitive" and "commercially confidential trade secrets." ESPN contends that disclosing these agreements would undermine its "competitive position" -- i.e., its "competitive position [against Fox]" -- and that disclosure would harm its negotiation capabilities. ESPN is correct to assert that the agreements contain trade secrets under both Florida and North Carolina laws.
But you have to love the twist here. ESPN is signaling that it means business about whether FSU or FSU's lawyers have disclosed or tried to disclose its contracts. It openly suggests that ethical and possibly criminal lines have been crossed.
Florida State University: Congratulations, you have ESPN's undivided attention.
|
|
|
|
 |
1st Rounder [678]
TigerPulse: 96%
21
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
1
Feb 22, 2024, 8:39 PM
|
|
They can allege that the documents contain trade secrets all they want, but ultimately, it’ll be up to the judge in the cases to determine if what they’re claiming to be trade secrets are actually confidential materials protected by sunshine laws.
We all understand why ESPN is doing it though, as they’re paying pennies on the dollar for broadcast rights due to inept leadership, and with their move to DTC, they need as many properties that can keep them in the black as possible, while they make that transition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
1
Feb 23, 2024, 7:46 AM
|
|
You are wrong...the judge is first going to decide if FSU violated the contract that they signed...is the contract valid...did you sign it... if Safeway signs a contract with consolidated foods to buy a million cans of beans for 9cents a can and CF delivers...it does not matter if Walmart comes along and signs a contract for 5million cans of beans at 5cents per can unless a clause in the contract expressly forbids that deal! WIKI explains contract law pretty well! If FSU is going to buy themselves a football team from those who see no value in education then they need MO money! You can't steal players from Alabama without it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [678]
TigerPulse: 96%
21
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
1
Feb 23, 2024, 8:11 AM
|
|
And your oversimplification of what happened is wrong. Did FSU sign the contract? All signs point to the university president having done that. Did the university president have the authority to do that without the approval of the BOT? All signs point to that as being the case (No different than when our BOT has to approve any contracts that we enter). If Walmart enters into a contract with someone who cannot consent, whether that be they're underage or under the influence, it doesn't matter whether they delivered the goods or not as the contract was never valid. Congrats to you for going to Wiki for your legal advice, as that seems like a solid strategy. The judge will also need to decide if the ACC violated their fiduciary duty by misrepresenting the length of the ESPN deal, claiming they needed a grant of rights until 2036 for a contract that, for all intents and purposes, ends in 2027. A contract that does have an option, but has yet to be exercised due to, what can only be characterized by inept leadership, kicking the can down the road and allowing ESPN's date to exercise said extension be moved to 2025. This is also a point of contention as this moving of the date was signed by Jim Philips and never presented to the ACC members.
You can hate FSU all you want, and I certainly have no love lost for them, but I loathe the ACC even more. Politics make for strange bedfellows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 8:40 AM
|
|
So as a Clemson whatever you are claiming the FSU personnel who signed and agreed were uninformed as you are...don't assume, you know the outcome...why a Clem SD on graduate is so worried about our great friends at FSU...suing the ACC is suing us as well...your misplaced allegiance is shocking...the wiki quote was for u...none of us are great on contract law...as the president of FSU and the current crop of attorneys must be...Is the contract and the GOR valid and did FSU in good faith support it? INQUIRING minds want to know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [678]
TigerPulse: 96%
21
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
2
Feb 23, 2024, 9:06 AM
|
|
Who said I'm worried about our friends at FSU? My concern is Clemson being left with the anchor that is the ACC, hanging around it's neck. Clemson, just like FSU, needs to find a path out of this conference so that they can move to another conference an continue to compete at the highest level, as that will not be the case with the ACC in the near future. If FSU wants to go first, and create the blueprint to get out of this conference, I'm all for it.
As far as misplaced allegiance, where exactly should my allegiance lie? It's certainly not going to be with a conference that has served the interests of Tobacco Road, and not other member institutions, for my lifetime (I'm 40 BTW). A conference that continues to be reactive to the changing landscape, rather than proactive, and even this past summer, added 3 schools who are value dilutive to the conference. What do I mean by value dilutive? Well, the 3 schools receive full "Pro-rata" shares. A pro-rata share is $24 mil a year, where as current members make around $31 mil a year. That, in and of itself, is indicative of how bad this ESPN contract is, that even when schools are brought in, they do not command a full share that is equal to the current per school payout. Lets not even mention the fact that after those schools term that they're differing the money comes to an end, they will then be entitled to equal splits of the revenue. Simple math would tell you that every school will then receive a lower payout as a result, but since the can is being kicked down the road, the simpletons don't seem to mind. So tell me, does any of that sound like a conference with Clemson's best interests in mind?
All in all, my interest in this, are in regard to what path it opens for Clemson to leave this dumpster fire right behind them, and I have no doubt that Clemson is working on their end to find a way out as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 1:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention ] |
|
My oversimplification was for you...go on the internet and read the ESPN filing...FSU better have some Kentucky jelly cause they are going to need it! Nothing legal is ever very simple...contracts are easier...were you able to understand the contract (lawyers) did you agree and sign the contract...if everyone but you lived up to the contract and profited from it...you profit and sign it twice but now you have broken it made up some trash and want out...you may have to return the money with penalty and interest ( but we don't have the money we spent it on Fumbo Fishnet and Willy Taggert) read the ESPN brief filed in Charlotte...it's lawyer junk but easy reading...the injuns may be scalped!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [938]
TigerPulse: 78%
24
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
1
Feb 23, 2024, 4:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention ] |
|
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. That's exactly how it works. Courts determine whether a document should be sealed or public. What ESPN wants isn't very relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26732]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
I'm no attorney.
5
5
Feb 22, 2024, 8:48 PM
|
|
I'll let them speak on the legality of the situation.
But, doesn't that look bad for ESPN in the court of public opinion?
"We made a contract with the ACC, but we don't want you to know what's in it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1672]
TigerPulse: 56%
31
|
And it's a good thing you're not Brett
1
Feb 22, 2024, 8:51 PM
|
|
Why would a company want to disclose its contracts publicly??? Who does that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [678]
TigerPulse: 96%
21
|
Re: And it's a good thing you're not Brett
2
Feb 22, 2024, 8:53 PM
|
|
Well, it is baked into the cake whenever you make contracts with public entities. You don’t have to necessarily put it out to the public, it just needs to be readily available if the public wants to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17238]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 11003
Joined: 2007
|
Re: And it's a good thing you're not Brett
2
Feb 22, 2024, 9:21 PM
[ in reply to And it's a good thing you're not Brett ] |
|
They didn't invent anything. There is no secret formula. And they usually trumpet the value of the deals they make. It is shady as all get out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6569]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26732]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
When you make a contract with a government agency in Florida...
Feb 23, 2024, 7:57 AM
[ in reply to And it's a good thing you're not Brett ] |
|
.... you certainly make it public.
This isn't Joe signing a contract with Bob.
This is a state university involved in a contract.
Like I said, I'm no attorney. I know Florida has pretty strict "government in the sunshine" laws. I'll let the courts figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [67328]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 89874
Joined: 2001
|
I think that may be ESPN's point...
1
Feb 23, 2024, 8:12 AM
|
|
ESPN didn't contract with any government agency. ESPN's contract is with the ACC. It was the ACC that ultimately contracted with the individual schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26732]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
|
This is why I don't claim to be an attorney.
Feb 23, 2024, 4:26 PM
|
|
OK, the agreement was between the ACC and ESPN. FSU is not a party to the contract.
But, FSU is accused by ESPN of possibly committing a felony by making part of the contract public.
Shouldn't ESPN be suing the ACC, because it was the ACC that told FSU about the contract?
How did FSU learn of the "trade secrets that must not be made public" when they weren't even a party in the contract?
Note: I'm not arguing with you. Just pointing out how easy it is to confuse me when we start talking about all things legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [73093]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117523
Joined: 1998
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
2
Feb 22, 2024, 9:33 PM
[ in reply to I'm no attorney. ] |
|
since most of them are public institutions it would seem people in those states have a right to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
Feb 22, 2024, 10:07 PM
|
|
I have a lot of concerns about not being able to reach agreements between public institutions and the ACC. That was the case with the GOR. And, frankly, Clemson, UNC, et al should have done more to fight to make those agreements public. If you don't want the the public to review your contracts, then don't take the public's money.
I also think that the whole point of keeping the GOR at league offices in Charlotte and not providing members with copies was a transparent attempt to circumvent public records or FOIA requests.I know the beat writers in Raleigh were banging on UNC's doors with FOIA requests for the GOR, but UNC didn't have anything to give.
But I do think that the ACC-ESPN deal is different. That doesn't involve public entities and does have highly sensitive information like performance metrics, etc. It's fair to keep that under seal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7860]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
2
Feb 23, 2024, 5:12 AM
|
|
ESPN openly slanders the ACC on most CFB programs, or omits them in an overt manner. How is that not some kind of breach of contract? Besides the lowball GOR deal, they give the paddle and the ACC says, “Thank you, sir, may I have another!”
This is all bad for college football. Let the coaches and players decide who is best. Not the clowns in their clown suits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
1
Feb 23, 2024, 8:06 AM
|
|
That's just why Saban quit...the clowns at FSU want to buy someone else's football because they can't recruit a team of players who want an education...isn't student athlete a strange term?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
Feb 23, 2024, 5:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'm no attorney. ] |
|
Gosh LeeRoy I bet poor little Ole FSU has been duped again cause they didn't read the contract they signed as a public university...do you realize how stupid that sounds? All those folks knew about sunshine laws etc but they wanted MO money...now they want even more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
Feb 23, 2024, 7:12 AM
[ in reply to I'm no attorney. ] |
|
Many contracts contain trade sensitive materials...the issue here is whether the Members of the ACC agreed up front with the nature of those documents sensitivity and signed that contract...what happened later on with the SEC or anyone is not relevant to this signed contract for which value was exchanged...unless ESPN disclosed the ACC terms to the SEC during their discussion...now ESPN could be in deep doo...none of that exonerated FSU from breaking their contract...have said all along that FSU should have sued ESPN all along...ESPN is the 800 lb gorilla with bad breath!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2189]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
Feb 23, 2024, 8:07 AM
|
|
I'd really like to know the names of the attorneys that were representing the ACC in the GOR negotiations with ESPN. Why do I have a feeling they were all based near Tobacco Road.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I'm no attorney.
Feb 23, 2024, 7:50 AM
[ in reply to I'm no attorney. ] |
|
That's a fact...the judge does not rule in that court...how much info in a courtroom is sequestered info...when the judge tells the attorneys to approach the bench it is not to find out where they are going to lunch...it's private lawyer crap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5109]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
What the #### is ethical about locking a contract in a vault
4
Feb 22, 2024, 10:05 PM
|
|
And not letting member institutions have a copy
What load of horsecrap
I hope FSU takes a steaming dump on their settlement offer and posts it all on wikileaks
The acc claiming that piece of paper is a trade secret is like McDonalds claiming their bathroom cleaning instructions are a trade secret…. Doesn't a trade secret need to provide a competitive advantage?!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13735]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Re: What the #### is ethical about locking a contract in a vault
1
Feb 22, 2024, 11:00 PM
|
|
McDonalds cleans their bathrooms?!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [16]
TigerPulse: 100%
2
|
Re: What the #### is ethical about locking a contract in a vault
Feb 22, 2024, 11:30 PM
|
|
Yep. Every time they clean the ice cream machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [57464]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 23577
Joined: 2011
|
Is ESPN getting scared?***
2
Feb 22, 2024, 11:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26511]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14912
Joined: 2011
|
I'm no lawyer, but though ESPN is dealing with the ACC,
Feb 23, 2024, 6:13 AM
|
|
the ACC reps a whole lot of public institutions, the key word here being public.
And, as far as I'm concerned, the public has a right to know, if they request info.
I, also, can not imagine why no member institution has a copy of any and all GOR agreements. Which lawyers for which institutions thought it a good idea not to request copies for future reference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I'm no lawyer, but though ESPN is dealing with the ACC,
Feb 23, 2024, 7:20 AM
|
|
What did you sign and when did you sign it...were you of sound mind when you signed it (able to make a contract) where were FSUs money grabbing lawyers? Have you profited from signing that contract...any money and or goods and services changed hands? FSU must be dumb as sack of hammers...don't take contract law at the FWTC law school!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [271]
TigerPulse: 97%
14
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 7:30 AM
|
|
I wonder if this will hurt FSU’s chances of getting into the SEC, since it’s an ESPN product now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 8:13 AM
|
|
FSU does not like the contract...when did you know or when should you have known?...not years later after you have reaped the benefits of the contract and now you want to buy a football team and need MO money...so now we don't like the contract...ergo GOR!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14406]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
This could lead to ESPN preventing FSU
Feb 23, 2024, 7:52 AM
|
|
from getting a SEC invite in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [51411]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
|
Thats probably why
1
Feb 23, 2024, 7:53 AM
|
|
FSU is probably going to the B1G.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: Thats probably why
1
Feb 23, 2024, 8:14 AM
|
|
Is B1G a code for the toilet!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4561]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 8:08 AM
|
|
Maybe I'm just old or don't understand the minutiae, or heck it could be early dementia. But doesn't it seem like there should be a clause in that contract that states if the dynamics change then there will be a renegotiation for the equality of the parties to be preserved? It definitely shouldn't be to the detriment of one side and a boon to the other. Seems to me one side had quality attorneys and one side had ambulance chasers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 9:00 AM
|
|
Separate contracts do not require recurring disclosure or change in terms unless it is stipulared...ACC may have gotten the best deal at the time...FSU was going in the crapper and everyone else was marginal...Clemson was carrying the ACC, it all changes...NIL, portal, rent a player, 2 years and a cloud of dust...they are not student athletes any more looking for a great education, they are migrant itinerant almost pro football with dreadlocks looking for MO money!..We at Clemson are still trying to do things the right way..Dabo has a way...our kids can get a great education...let's not spend too much time supporting FSU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16964]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 15164
Joined: 1999
|
I think ESPN has a valid, enforceable contract
1
Feb 23, 2024, 8:28 AM
|
|
I would love to see it published, just to watch them squirm and because, as a South Carolina taxpayer, I feel like I have a right to see a copy of any contract signed by a state institution…but I doubt it will.
What I am more interested to see is the discovery regarding how the contract was negotiated and signed. We all believe it to be a crappy deal; I want to see the emails, memos and minutes where the negotiating and signing was discussed. Did the Commissioner negotiate in good faith on behalf of all institutions? Was there a “bait and switch”, or did anyone agree under duress? Were there any verbal or written assurances given by any party outside the contract itself?
I don’t know anyone who would sign a financial agreement that is locked in for this long in an ever changing financial landscape. Yes, many of us have 30 year mortgages, but those are all breakable, albeit with prepayment penalties. Surely no one thought that we were getting the better of ESPN, and that this was just too sweetheart of a deal to pass up. Something smells in these hills, and all over the Atlantic Coast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-48]
TigerPulse: 80%
-1
|
Re: I think ESPN has a valid, enforceable contract
Feb 23, 2024, 12:31 PM
|
|
You (and FSU) are right to be troubled about the lack of public access to any deal between ESPN and any public school. That's 9 ACC schools. Clemson, UNC, NCSU, GT, etc. did not do enough to press for release of those deals. This includes the GORs. If you don't want the public to inspect your deals, then don't take the public's money.
Otherwise, I suggest looking at the GORs' length in the context of what it is: an IP licensing agreement. The lifespans of IP are far longer than anything else at the center of almost any other conceivable agreement. For example,
* Patents: Typically last for 20 years, with easily attainable 20 year extensions for enhancements.
* Copyrights: Typically last for the author’s life plus 70 years.
* Trademarks: Can last indefinitely with active use.
* Trade Secrets: Protection lasts as long as they remain confidential and valuable (here, think of the famous Coke recipe), and not easily subject to reverse engineering.
As you can see, IP lasts a long time, and this is especially true for copyrights that are at the center of the FSU-ACC dispute. But it is not abnormal, and it is how copyright holders monetize their copyrights. Think of how Disney seemingly controlled Mickey Mouse for what seemed like an eternity, or how George Lucas continues to exploit the Star Wars genre 47 years after its release. Consider also how Elvis’ family continues to enjoy music royalties, despite Elvis having passed away in 1977.
Also, Clemson released Tiger Paw was released 54 years ago in 1970, and it has licensed or controlled the IP rights to it for longer durations than the GOR. The IP nature of the GOR is what makes it different.
Otherwise, I don't think the ACC-ESPN deal is the same as any Clemson-ACC deal. It doesn't involve a public entity. While one can quibble over whether that deal constitutes a trade secret -- indeed, it probably doesn't -- the standard here for keeping it sealed is whether it contains sensitive business information that a competitor (e.g., Fox) can see and then use against ESPN. I think that standard is easily met with the ESPN-ACC deal, and that it is right to keep it under seal and that the ethical questions raised about partial disclosure are valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: I think ESPN has a valid, enforceable contract
Feb 24, 2024, 3:41 PM
|
|
All of what you may sound good but it has nothing to do with the law dealing with contracts...all was fine we ith FSU until they needed more money to buy themselves a resident football team in this age of athletic mercenaries post student athletes! Before filing suit they started running their mouth about the bad contract, bad GOR etc., something that real business folks with a legitimate beef should not do!..now they want to sue all the rest of us, dissolve our conference and move to some conference where they can be paid and respected more...good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15431]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 10:53 AM
|
|
Maybe they can argue that the school BOT and State Legisatures should approve contracts for state schools. If FSU wins and ESPN trade secrets can become public, just maybe ESPN will renegotiate or void the existing contract. If the contract is void, it will hurt until a new contract is in place but it's cheaper than a $150 to $300 million buyout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1222]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: FSU Now Has ESPN's Full Attention
Feb 23, 2024, 5:49 PM
|
|
Keep praying for a miracle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 42
| visibility 5315
|
|
|
50
