Thanks, again, Tom.
From the link to download, go to Page 164 on your PDF counter, Section 14 of the Amended and Restated Multi-Media Agreement:
14. Extension Option: [redacted]
14.1 Extension Option. ESPN has the exclusive, revocable option (the "Extension Option"), but not the obligation, to extend the Agreement until [redacted] subject to the remainder of this paragraph (such extended term of July 1, 2027 to [redacted] the "Extension Term") by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]
14.2 [redacted]
14.3 [redacted]
14.4. [redacted]
14.5 [redacted]
(a) [redacted]
(b) [redacted]
To analyze this paragraph correctly, one must know the redacted information. As the entire section is roughly two pages and we have only a few lines, the bulk of any analysis is in truth mere speculation.
What we can readily discern is that ESPN had an "exclusive, revocable option";* this means that ESPN owned the option and it is revocable. While the option is revocable, the revocation conditions are not disclosed. As FSU mouthpieces and internet blowhards are the source of most claims pertaining to the Option, we can logically discount the credibility and accuracy of their claims. What is clear is that the redacted portions of Section 14 are highly important in explaining ESPN's revocable option.
Next we see ESPN had no obligation to extend the agreement to a specified but redacted time, presumable 2036 as that is the internet rumor and if I recall, has been disclosed by some officials (speculation on my part as I lack evidence to support the claim, others are welcome to prove/discredit and I will defer).
Then we see that all of the above is "subject to the remainder of the paragraph (such extended term of 1 July, 2027 to [redacted] the "
Extension Term")..." Thus, my position that the remaining redacted subparagraphs are highly important to the proper understanding of the entire section, the visible language plainly states that the option and everything associated with it are conditioned by the redacted portions.
Finally, we see how and when the extension must occur: "by providing written notice to the Conference no later that two (2) years after the launch date of the ACC-ESPN Network. {redacted]" As the ACCN has been on the air several years, well beyond the two years, in which ESPN had to exercise their option, and considering the fact that ACC Commissioner Phillips has expressed the agreement will continue, we can reasonably conclude that ESPN exercised their option within the stated two-year period. Had ESPN not exercised their option, there would be no basis for FSU, and Clemson's, lawsuits. FSU and Clemson merely would need to wait a couple years and complete the agreement in 2027 and based on UCLA, USC, UT, OU, SU, and PITT's prior handling of the matter and act accordingly, a much less costly and surefire method of exiting the ACC. Further, both lawsuits readily recognize that the agreement was extended beyond 2027 claiming the longer date as a part of the damages.
To clarify, this is a revocable option on ESPN's part, but no internet blowhard knows the the conditions on which ESPN may revoke their intent to continue the agreement after 2027 as previously noticed to the ACC. That said, all indications are that ESPN plans to continue the agreement. The look-in will occur, and if I recall, there will be a third look-in around 2030 (this is from memory, I will defer to any substantive proof - No, Locked On Big 12 does NOT constitute proof of most anything!)
With the completely redacted subparagraphs which contain the conditions under which ESPN may revoke the agreement, there is only speculation as to how ESPN may revoke. Without a methodology of how ESPN may revoke, you must apply logic to any claim (until some time when the agreement is fully disclosed) that the speculating party may have a bias. As the speculation is essentially starting with FSU fans, you should seek documented proof before believing anything they report. Equally, if other ACC school fans present speculation you should also seek documented proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in and of itself, however, if you are to give it credence, you should have supporting evidence.
Further, the language proves FSU and Clemson would need to sue ESPN to get out of the ACC, with one exception. If FSU and/or Clemson could cause enough disruption to destroy/damage the ACC enough to the point that ESPN would no longer wish to continue the agreement and revoke their option. This tactic has failed miserably. Thus, the suits are likely frivolous. Ironically, their actions serve as proof that ESPN was not the impetus of moving more valuable properties to the SEC to make more money and dump the ACC deadweight; a fact that discounts the very basis that they "need" to change conferences, as perpetuated by many FSU mouthpieces.** And without ESPN being the impetus for FSU and Clemson changing conferences and ESPN's notice that they would extend the agreement, we can justifiably question why ESPN would destroy the ACC, especially when the ACCN has proved to be a profitable entity, making an action in which ESPN destroys the ACC and ACCN a very bad business decision.
We can reasonably conclude that most of the "information" coming from FSU and FSU related sources should be viewed through a skeptic lens. Further, when the "information" contradicts known facts, this "information" is false.
We know that that the majority of the Power 4/5 schools and likely many of the G5 schools have had their legal departments and contracted law firms search for means of breaking the agreements and GORs. All have concluded the same thing, as have independent firms looking for ways to generate new revenue. No one figured a means of defeating statutory and case law in well-resolved areas of law, namely IP, contract, and entertainment.
For another perspective on the FSU lawsuit against the ACC, see the following link and the internal links to our new ACC Member Cal:
FSU has gone back to the drawing board to find reasons why the ACC is bad. Did they turn up anything good?
writeforcalifornia.com
For any deeper analysis on ESPN's Option, we would need to know the actual language of the redacted portions.
*On the existence of the Option, I stand corrected. However, the major point stands that the Option is highly controlled and is not merely a whimsical decision as portrayed by FSU.
**FSU and Clemson's desire for more money remains valid, as every school wants more money; however, the claim of the "need" and ESPN as the impetus for conference change have been destroyed.
