Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 5017040, member: 622"] Just a few quick thoughts on Clemson's suit: 1) It's filed incorrectly in SC. Plainly, there are two cases in two other states. NC is the proper state and is the first. SC courts should defer to the first filing. 2) The case defeats FSU's case by denying an fiduciary duty. 3) Clemson makes the argument that the GOR only applies while Clemson is in the ACC, not after; while this is a generously favorable approach to Clemson's position, it is highly inaccurate as ESPN holds the rights and the GOR is good through 2036, the rights can only go where ESPN allows the rights to go. Big money will be required to pull the rights away from ESPN. 4) There are two major bodies of law and they happen to strengthen each other: 1) Contract law, and 2) Copyright law. Simply put, the arguments are baseless and not likely to affect an high court ruling. Sure, a home cooked state court [I]MAY[/I] give FSU or CU a favorable ruling, but the state high courts are not likely to tempt fate and have SCOTUS make the decision which would likely overturn well established case law. 5) Clemson has to admit they are doing this for the money. Nothing less. This defeats their own arguments. A bad bargain is still a bad bargain. 6) Though Clemson does a much better job of wriggling, they do not escape as they incorporate the ESPN agreement (which defeats the FSU arguments because FSU tries to ignore ESPN hoping for an SEC landing spot). Clemson admits the ESPN deal is a part of the contract and then argues that they can leave anyway. When a contract incorporates another document, that document has the same weight as the contract, it is part of the contract, not merely another document. This is Clemson's error and not likely to stand. 7) Kudos to Clemson for admitting they signed the GOR twice. However, this proves that Clemson cannot claim ignorance in the bargain. They couldn't anyway, but at least Clemson does not portray themselves as ignorant morons who got suckered twice into making a bad bargain. 8) The redacted portions are interesting as Clemson essentially tries to argue that the ESPN agreement allows them to leave. Obviously we do not know for sure. What we do know is that copyright laws have been upheld throughout history, this does not fare well for Clemson. 9) Clemson then argues the withdrawal fee is exorbitant. The problem is they agreed to it. They had plenty of time to dispute it. Even if they could argue it, the statute of limitations should apply making their arguments moot. 10) Clemson makes a far better argument for the withdrawal fee being exorbitant. but leave out some key points and whitewash others. The B1G schools actually own a portion of their network individually as schools. Both the SEC and the B1G are the top dogs and need less liquidated damages. 11) Clemson's best argument is their non-fiduciary argument. Without actually stating it plainly, they argue that contracts are at arms length, which is true. However, the point is likely moot as the the contract law and copyright law do not require a fiduciary relationship. On the bright side, 1) the argument basically admits the FSU filings are garbage. This filing will probably be used against FSU. 2) The FSU claim that ESPN can walk away in 2027 is only likely going to happen. First, ESPN is making money, the only MM division doing so right now. Second, there would be no need for this suit if ESPN was thinking of dumping the ACCN. Third, if ESPN loses the GOR all GORs are garbage. Fourth, this positions Fax in a stronger position to squeeze ESPN out of the northeast in College sports (read: hoops and football). With the BTN owned in part by each school (recall they must "BUY IN" to the BTN, they are most likely to stay together. The SEC is likely to stay together as long as the money is there. Only the BTN could lure them away. Anyway, SU is in the fourth most populace state with powerful legislators. VA and NC are also from populous states with powerful legislators. Ignoring any of them is a hazard unto itself. Any of these three are sufficient enough to start Congressional intervention, which would make the present nonsense appear reasonable. Plus SU has history, is a draw, and adds to PSU's need for more eastern teams. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?