BC Backpedal

[javadoc]

All the Big East would have to show is tortious interference from ESPN as it pertained to ACC expansion.

Which contract was the object of interference? ESPN's own contract with the ACC? There was no breach of contract there, right? ESPN suggested a way to trigger a provision in the existing contract.

The Big East had no contract with which to interfere, after they turned down ESPN's offer.

 

[All4SU]

9. we should be throwing a party and be happy as pigs in shlit here based on points 1-8
10. for some goddamn reason, we are not.

Oh Lord

I, for one, am as happy as a pig in %T.

 

[PeteCalvin]

I didn't see what the big deal was anyways with what he said. This whole thing is driven by money, which basically comes from football money, which comes from TV. The conferences have done every study imaginable and how teams would impact the TV contracts. Why wouldn't the ACC say "Hey ESPN, which 2 teams gives us the most money in a new contract". Why can't ESPN answer that? I am sure every conference has asked the same question one way or another of whatever networks they are tied to and maybe others as well. How is it different than just negotiating with the networks? And for the teams crying foul, they are all out there pimping themselves to the conferences and networks themselves. I'll mention again a statement made in an article several months ago that Rutgers had been out whoring themselves to every conference that would listen. More so than anyone else. These schools crying for lawsuits should look in the mirror because they would have done the same thing. They are just mad right now because it wasn't them. If ESPN had said to the ACC, "go get Rutgers and UConn", those 2 schools and their whiny fans wouldn't have said a peep.

Exactly. When I first read his statement, I did not take it as literal fact. I took it as more of a loose statement referencing how the TV networks are driving the conference expansion. The numbers the networks throw out to other conferences tell you who to take. Would you take a Syracuse or a Rutgers? Who brings more to the table?

 

[rrlbees]

All the Big East would have to show is tortious interference from ESPN as it pertained to ACC expansion.

Here is the definition
Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. The classic example of this tort occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party, in circumstances where the first party has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.
Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.

Well, Pitt and SU should sue the BE for tortoise too. They were too damn slow in making the BE right.

 

[Alsacs]

Well, Pitt and SU should sue the BE for tortoise too. They were too damn slow in making the BE right.

I don't want a lawsuit, but if sUeConn and the Big East decided to file one against ESPN it could be a dicey scenario and would likely get the Big East some money and broadcasts via a settlement because ESPN wouldn't want discovery and have to turn over all communication they had with the ACC it could be very embarrassing and damaging.

 

[Townie72]

Tortious interference...do not really see causation or how it applies here or in any other previous expansion cases throughout history. This is not Brown & Williamson vs. CBS Corporate and 60 minutes where the potential defendants signed some confidentiality agreement as one Jeffrey Wigand did. No such contract exists amongst any of the parties. If this was a classic case, then Conference USA would have sued the Big East under same when the Big East raided it back in '03 and so on and so on...good luck Big East showing cause...

I'm afraid some of our eager posters like ALSACs are practicing law without a license or even a law degree. Stay off the UConn Realignment board. Hysteria has set in.

 

[Alsacs]

I'm afraid some of our eager posters like ALSACs are practicing law without a license or even a law degree. Stay off the UConn Realignment board. Hysteria has set in.

Dude off I graduated from Boston College Law School after graduating from the S.I. Newhouse School 0f Public Communications and will forget more about the law than you will ever know. If you don't think the idiotic statements from the BC AD don't open a potential lawsuit you being an ignorant ahole. Its obvious with how fast BC AD's issued an apology it wasn't good for the conference. Which news outlet didn't address the Boston Globe article? Here is a clue it wasn't SI.com, CBSSPORTS, Yahoo sports, USA Today, or the New York Times it was ESPN. Why? Because they know the ramifications and legal problems it could curtail if they were shown to be involved with the ACC's expansion. If you disagree fine, but I will gladly debate you any legal issue, and kick your a$$ on it.

 

[Townie72]

Dude off I graduated from Boston College Law School after graduating from the S.I. Newhouse School 0f Public Communications and will forget more about the law than you will ever know. If you don't think the idiotic statements from the BC AD don't open a potential lawsuit you being an ignorant ahole. Its obvious with how fast BC AD's issued an apology it wasn't good for the conference. Which news outlet didn't address the Boston Globe article? Here is a clue it wasn't SI.com, CBSSPORTS, Yahoo sports, USA Today, or the New York Times it was ESPN. Why? Because they know the ramifications and legal problems it could curtail if they were shown to be involved with the ACC's expansion. If you disagree fine, but I will gladly debate you any legal issue, and kick your a$$ on it.

I noticed you didn't respond to Orangecuse's points above. He could no doubt use some illumination from a legal scholar such as yourself.

Seems to me UConn has been down this law suit path before racking up some huge legal bills and accomplishing nothing. Except poisoning the well for themselves. USF has reportedly been blocking UCF for years. What's the difference?

The ACC wanted to expand by two members to take advantage of a clause in the ESPN contract that allowed them to renegotiate if they did so. UConn was a candidate. In discussions with ACC member schools, BC objected. There may have been others who also objected. So they moved on to Pitt,

UConn was left out. They aren't owed a spot in the ACC. And BC is entitled to their opinions as to who would make a good ACC member.

 

[javadoc]

For the benefit of those of us who do not have law degrees, what was the exact nature of the tortious interference? I still don't see anything that has been interfered with, in a legal sense. Please spell out the statements of fact for a hypothetical case.

 

[Alsacs]

Tortious interference...do not really see causation or how it applies here or in any other previous expansion cases throughout history. This is not Brown & Williamson vs. CBS Corporate and 60 minutes where the potential defendants signed some confidentiality agreement as one Jeffrey Wigand did. No such contract exists amongst any of the parties. If this was a classic case, then Conference USA would have sued the Big East under same when the Big East raided it back in '03 and so on and so on...good luck Big East showing cause...

First off, the Big East is not going to be actually able to show actual causation because the case you mentioned and fact that ESPN did not physically make the ACC expand, but the Big East could prove proximate causation by showing that ESPN was in contact with the ACC, and through communication the ACC wanting to get more money from ESPN was told to poach teams from the Big East which resulted in the Big East not being able to generate a contract they believed it could receive on the open market. By taking two of the three valuable brands the Big East had it caused the Big East value to plummet and as a result will lead to lesser television contract from either ESPN, FOX, or Comcast. Secondly, in the eyes of the Big East while I severely disagree with this argument they say that when they expand to add teams from another conference they approach that conference and give them a heads up of their plans. While the Big East in my mind incorrectly believes what the ACC does and just poaches team without a heads up to the Big East is interference. I do not believe a lawsuit brought against ESPN would ever see a courtroom, but my point is if the Big East could show proximate causation due to ESPN outside influence and brought a lawsuit and got through pleading stage and went to discovery. It would lead to some facts and communications that ESPN would not want public. Thus, it would be likely they would settle the lawsuit to prevent harm to the company.

 

[Alsacs]

I am not saying UConn or any school will sue the ACC I am saying the Big East Conference could sue ESPN. Just as ESPN sued Conference USA last year over a contract dispute. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6866698/conference-usa-espn-settle-lawsuit-contract
However, the more I am thinking about it ESPN would be able to see what communication the Big East may have had with Fox, NBC Universal/Versus, and could open themselves up for a compulsory counterclaim from ESPN. So who knows what will happen I am just saying their are legal issues out that could be brought in court. There is a reason why ESPN ignored the story while every other media outlet reported it, and its because ESPN would be shown in a negative light. Thus, they are rightfully in their mind ignoring a harmful story.

 

[javadoc]

...and through communication the ACC wanting to get more money from ESPN was told to poach teams from the Big East which resulted in the Big East not being able to generate a contract they believed it could receive on the open market.

How is this interference in a legal sense? I read the tortious interference definition to apply in cases where the Big East was going to sign a contract with Comcast, say, and ESPN worked with Comcast to scuttle the deal.

Of course an organization becomes less valuable if you hire away its most valuable members, which can lead to any number of bad economic effects. Should businesses be sued if they lure a CEO away from a rival?

It sounds like you are saying that an unfounded lawsuit will still be scary enough to force a settlement. So is there a way for the ACC to get the case tossed out before discovery?

 

[Alsacs]

How is this interference in a legal sense? I read the tortious interference definition to apply in cases where the Big East was going to sign a contract with Comcast, say, and ESPN worked with Comcast to scuttle the deal.

Of course an organization becomes less valuable if you hire away its most valuable members, which can lead to any number of bad economic effects. Should businesses be sued if they lure a CEO away from a rival?

It sounds like you are saying that an unfounded lawsuit will still be scary enough to force a settlement. So is there a way for the ACC to get the case tossed out before discovery?

The ACC won't be sued or wouldn't be the primary party to the lawsuit they maybe a co-defendant to generate more scheduling between the conferences. However, I highly doubt the Big East would go after the ACC because as you said a business can poach another businesses members, but ESPN is suppose to be a television partner of the Big East Conference. As partners the Big East is entitled loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. If the Big East can show that ESPN violated its duties to one partner for the benefit of another it would be open themselves to litigation. As I just said though, ESPN maybe interested in any contact the Big East may have had with Comcast or Fox through back channel communications so the Big East may not want to go after ESPN if they violated their agreement with ESPN.

 

[OrangeHeel]

Dude off I graduated from Boston College Law School after graduating from the S.I. Newhouse School 0f Public Communications and will forget more about the law than you will ever know. If you don't think the idiotic statements from the BC AD don't open a potential lawsuit you being an ignorant ahole ..... If you disagree fine, but I will gladly debate you any legal issue, and kick your a$$ on it.

ALSACS, my brother or sister, take a deep breath. I'm sure you dont mean it, but that little ditty is why people hate us lawyers. I hope you don't let the PD's office get under your skin that easy.

As for people without law degrees offering up an opinion, I've always found a degree of common sense is more important than a law degree.

As for my opinion of the potential for a lawsuit, I believe the appropriate legal penguins is "that dog won't hunt".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OrangeHeel]

That would be "opinion" not "penguin". (Although I kinda like "penguins" better.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SmilinBob]

I'd like to know why Flipper is yapping like some guy who's pretending to be some big shot with power? I just picture him in the room stamping his feet and screaming until the rest of the ACC said just shut the kid up we'll take Pitt for gods sake.

 

[rrlbees]

The ACC won't be sued or wouldn't be the primary party to the lawsuit they maybe a co-defendant to generate more scheduling between the conferences. However, I highly doubt the Big East would go after the ACC because as you said a business can poach another businesses members, but ESPN is suppose to be a television partner of the Big East Conference. As partners the Big East is entitled loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. If the Big East can show that ESPN violated its duties to one partner for the benefit of another it would be open themselves to litigation. As I just said though, ESPN maybe interested in any contact the Big East may have had with Comcast or Fox through back channel communications so the Big East may not want to go after ESPN if they violated their agreement with ESPN.

Besides BE contact with Comcast or Fox, I'd like to know if they had contact with ESPN asking about teams to add to help with TV dollars. The same thing the ACC did. Nobody will sue anyone because they are all doing the same thing.

 

[TexanMark]

I noticed you didn't respond to Orangecuse's points above. He could no doubt use some illumination from a legal scholar such as yourself.

Seems to me UConn has been down this law suit path before racking up some huge legal bills and accomplishing nothing. Except poisoning the well for themselves. USF has reportedly been blocking UCF for years. What's the difference?

The ACC wanted to expand by two members to take advantage of a clause in the ESPN contract that allowed them to renegotiate if they did so. UConn was a candidate. In discussions with ACC member schools, BC objected. There may have been others who also objected. So they moved on to Pitt,

UConn was left out. They aren't owed a spot in the ACC. And BC is entitled to their opinions as to who would make a good ACC member.

Townie I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me where ESPN gets in "hot water" is:

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

 

[rrlbees]

Townie I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me where ESPN gets in "hot water" is:

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

It likely is. But you don't think the BE has contacted ESPN about their "bottom line"?

 

[Bayside44]

Say there was a conversation. ESPN could say, if you did X, Y could happen. And if you didn't do X, you could potentially end up with Z.

Laying out scenarios to me is just that. If the ACC (of anyone else) comes to a certain conclusion based on that well so be it.

 

[Townie72]

Townie I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me where ESPN gets in "hot water" is:

They currently have a contract with both the ACC and the Big East. By "advising" the ACC (contracted partner) how to improve their bottomline they are harming the bottomline of another contracted partner (Big East). Once again I'm not a lawyer but my commonsense tells me this is a "no-no".

I get the "contract" part .. but not the "partner" piece. No one has violated any contracts here.

Many of thse discussions seem to suggest that the ACC
had no idea that:

1. Their contract had a provision that either ESPN or the ACC could renegotiate the deal if the conference added or lost two or more schools.

2. That the market price of these contracts has risen tremendously since the ACC signed its contract.

Love him or hate him this guy Swofford is a pretty smart guy. I think the ACC was well aware of points 1 and 2 above. The ACC didn't need ESPN to coach them.

They may have asked ESPN which the available schools might yeild the most money in a re-negotiated contract. But, there again, Swofford is no dummy and he probably had his own ideas on his.

The original idea was to add SU and UConn. That may have been ESPN's advice. But Swofford ran into resistance to this within his own membership. Remember, it wasn't just BC that the UConn-driven lawsuit targeted but the ACC, as well. And no one in their right mind brings in a new "litigious" partner. Apparently, no one objected to Pitt, so they got the bid.

Much of UConn's problem in this is their own history. Then Attorney General Blumenthal drove that law suit. And now its coming back to bite them in the butt.

Besides, UConn is not suing anybody. The new CT governor --- a BC grad --- met with BC President Leahy on this and he came away with two messages. These were:

1. The only way UConn gets in the ACC is in a package deal with Notre Dame. If that doen't occur than the ACC might be looking to expand again in two to four years.

2. That, in the interim, UConn should not do anything else to piss off BC any more than they have.

Based on that, I'd say that the CT governor and the UConn president don't want to sue anybody. In fact, I'll think you'll see a charm offensive from UConn. And if it weren't for that grandstanding, slimeball Blumenthal, they probably would have been picked over Pitt.

 

[Townie72]

Say there was a conversation. ESPN could say, if you did X, Y could happen. And if you didn't do X, you could potentially end up with Z.

Laying out scenarios to me is just that. If the ACC (of anyone else) comes to a certain conclusion based on that well so be it.

From what we know of what happened, UConn was the second choice after SU. So if there were scenarios laid out for the ACC by ESPN, UConn couldn't have much of a complaint about.

Where UConn's invitation got waylaid was in the ACC's internal conversation. And we know --- because the BC AD told us --- that BC was against UConn's membership. Just like USF has been against UCF's entrance into the Big East before the current "crisis".

But this is all silliness. UConn isn't suing anybody. They aren't suing ESPN. ESPN is one of CT's most valuable assets. And someone once said that you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the car load. (Talking about newspapers in yesteryear)

And they aren't suing the ACC ... they are curently grovelling for an invitation that might happen. And they aren't suing BC. They need BC to acquiesce.

All this talk of a lawsuit is a few columnists and some people venting their spleens on the internet.

 

[Alsacs]

ALSACS, my brother or sister, take a deep breath. I'm sure you dont mean it, but that little ditty is why people hate us lawyers. I hope you don't let the PD's office get under your skin that easy.

As for people without law degrees offering up an opinion, I've always found a degree of common sense is more important than a law degree.

As for my opinion of the potential for a lawsuit, I believe the appropriate legal penguins is "that dog won't hunt".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was called an idiot without merit I may been a little extreme, for that I apologize but when somebody without cause insults my intelligence I will defend myself. I am not saying people without law degrees can't offer legal opinions at all. Hell one of the best Supreme Court Justices Benjamin Cardozo never graduated from law school. I never inferred I was smarter than anybody other than the guy who attacked me, but if somebody says I am addressing a definite possible legal issue and I have no clue what I am talking I won't take that.

Add-on I should say the only person I will take it from is Kaiser because truthfully he is right almost 100% of the time.

 

[Alsacs]

From what we know of what happened, UConn was the second choice after SU. So if there were scenarios laid out for the ACC by ESPN, UConn couldn't have much of a complaint about.

Where UConn's invitation got waylaid was in the ACC's internal conversation. And we know --- because the BC AD told us --- that BC was against UConn's membership. Just like USF has been against UCF's entrance into the Big East before the current "crisis".

But this is all silliness. UConn isn't suing anybody. They aren't suing ESPN. ESPN is one of CT's most valuable assets. And someone once said that you don't pick a fight with someone that buys ink by the car load. (Talking about newspapers in yesteryear)

And they aren't suing the ACC ... they are curently grovelling for an invitation that might happen. And they aren't suing BC. They need BC to acquiesce.

All this talk of a lawsuit is a few columnists and some people venting their spleens on the internet.

Again UConn isn't whom would file the lawsuit it would the Big East Conference against ESPN. Partners are owed duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. ESPN sued Conference USA because they alleged CUSA violated its duty of fair dealing when it wouldn't negotiate during ESPN's exclusive window. The two settled after CUSA had reached a deal with FOX doubling what ESPN was willing to pay, but to settle the lawsuit ESPN acquired the rights to the CUSA football championship till 2016, and CUSA got to keep its TV contract from FOX.My point isn't UConn is going to ESPN the first lawsuit was UConn et. al v. ACC, Boston College, and Gene DeFilippo. This action I am stating could be filed would be the Big East alleging one of its partners ESPN harmed the conference when one of its other partner's ADs said ESPN told them what to do to the detriment of another partner. However, I have given the counter-argument that the Big East itself would be subject to a countersuit if they have engaged with discussions with another potential television partner.

 

[Alsacs]

I get the "contract" part .. but not the "partner" piece. No one has violated any contracts here.

Hope this helps

. Generally, as between themselves, partners are fiduciaries. The fiduciary duties include the following:
1)Accounting: Every partner must account to the partnership for any profits derived from the formation, conduct or liquidation of the partnership or from any use of partnership property, unless he or she acted with the consent of the partnership.
2)Competing with the Partnership: A partner may not compete with the partnership without the consent of all other partners. They must disclose the other partnerships and the parties give consent.
3)Assets: A partner who purchases or holds partnership assets in his own name does so as a trustee for the partnership and can be compelled to account to the partnership for the assets or their value.
Partners’ fiduciary duties to one another are loyalty, care and good faith and fair dealing.
1)Duty of Loyalty: A partner must be loyal to his partners and make a full and fair disclosure to other partners of all information that may be of value to the partnership.
a.Not all self-interested transactions violate the duty of loyalty. The question is whether the partnership or the other partners are harmed.
b.Duty not to compete
c.Duty to handle partnership opportunities appropriately
d.Refrain from aiding adverse parties when winding up the partnership.
2)Duty of Care: The partner must refrain act how a reasonable person would in a similar situation and refrain from gross negligence, reckless conduct, intentional misconduct or knowing violation of the law in: 1) the conduct of partnership business; and 2) the winding up of the partnership
3)Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Partners must discharge the duties of loyalty and care in good faith and fair dealing.
a.Partnership is a fiduciary relationship, and partners may not take advantages for themselves at the expense of the partnership. Thus a partner who seeks a business advantage over another partner bears the burden of showing complete good faith and fairness to the other.
b.One way a self-interested partner may meet this burden is to have disinterested partners ratify its actions.