orangecuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 8,108
- Like
- 12,695
I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion.
1) The only thing we know for sure is that Clemson and FSU made a proposal where they get more money and the length GOR gets reduced.
2) If the other ACC schools vote yes on this (and it appears it has to be unanimous), IMHO the driver for them is fear that ESPN will opt out of their contract with the ACC in 2026 (which I believe has to be done by February of 2025) unless they vote yes.
Clemson and FSU making another proposal that asks what they have been demanding for years should not be a surprise.
If something changed, I think it is that ESPN decided it was better to give FSU and Clemson some extra money to guarantee the ACC stays together through the length of the GOR. This is something I suspect the other ACC schools could live with.
If the other ACC schools agree to shortening the GOR to 2030, IMHO, it is because they prefer a guaranteed source of income through 2030 to a source of income through 2036 that can be ended in 2026 if ESPN feels like doing this.
It should be noted that a number of conference insiders like David Hale are saying this proposal has no chance of getting accepted.
It should be noted that the same people who knew the GOR was weak and would get crushed in court are the same people who are sure this proposal is going to get accepted any day now and FSU and Clemson will get everything they want.
I could see where something like this could happen but if it does, it isn't because the GOR was weak. Now, there are what 5 lawsuits left right now undecided on ACC vs FSU/Clemson.
Maybe all the legal experts are wrong, and when you sign a long term contract, take your money for decades and get what you paid for, then change your mind and want out of the contract because you decided it was a bad deal, it is perfectly fine.
I will be the first to apologize to you Kirb if the courts find the GOR null and void.
My money is on hundreds of years of law and precendents.
That's interesting.
It has been argued, somewhat emphatically here, that ESPN is embedded as a major benefactor in this "sweetheart" type deal. That their deal with the ACC is well below the alleged market value. So, why would ESPN opt out in 2026 and give up such a profit maker for them, especially, if the GOR is as Iron Clad as alleged? Wouldn't they just stay put, not opt out, continue to reap their significant profits and (due to the plaintiffs extremely alleged weak position, et al) let the disgruntled remain disgruntled until the plaintiffs (along with other obvious players not currently litigating) inevitably bolt down the road (2030 range or thereabouts anyways) when the GOR doesn't carry as much financial weight? Therefore, if indeed the case, not a good financial reason to throw them any bone at all?
Last edited: