|
Replies: 17
| visibility 2309
|
All-TigerNet [6074]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
2
Mar 21, 2024, 9:01 AM
|
|
is strange.
The GOR agreement has been public information, but the ESPN agreements with the ACC has not been public and is redacted from both suits.
I wonder if the schools knew what Swofford agreed to on their behalf.
I suppose they do to some extent, since the redactions of information in both suits are evident. But I still wonder what is redacted and if the schools saw the complete agreement before they signed off on it.
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [32927]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 18465
Joined: 2008
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
5
5
Mar 21, 2024, 9:03 AM
|
|
that is the heart of the matter: If the ACC balks to divulge the documents during discovery, they might settle. If not, they open themselves up to revealing (from FSU sources) what appears to be a pretty crappy deal for the conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [6074]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
2
Mar 21, 2024, 9:11 AM
|
|
Exactly! If the ESPN agreement is revealed, it just might show that the slant of the agreement towards protecting RayCom (and Swofford's son) would amount to anti-fiduciary activity.
But the strange thing to me is if so, why did no school refuse to sign originally.
The ESPN agreement has to be put into daylight for me to have a reasonable opinion of which side is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
1
Mar 21, 2024, 10:29 AM
|
|
There was minimal protection of Raycom. All all they did was just get syndicated games from ESPN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50790]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 37057
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33723]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36105
Joined: 2003
|
I refused to sign. In fact, i never signed. I knew it was a bad deal.***
1
Mar 21, 2024, 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2561]
TigerPulse: 99%
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [50790]
TigerPulse: 79%
58
Posts: 37057
Joined: 2003
|
All member institutions deserve full transparency from the ACC.***
3
2
Mar 21, 2024, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1669]
TigerPulse: 97%
31
|
Re: All member institutions deserve full transparency from the ACC.***
1
Mar 21, 2024, 12:58 PM
|
|
Exactly.... Fire Brownell now for transparency!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1342]
TigerPulse: 74%
28
|
Re: Seems that other parties agree with the lack of transparency
Mar 21, 2024, 7:44 PM
[ in reply to Seems that other parties agree with the lack of transparency ] |
|
Are you kidding...most of them have been making big money of of our playoff runs...we made big money as well and being in the ACC allowed us to do that...3 trophies in that Dabo palace would not be there if we'd been in the SEC all that time...we did not great players because we were in the SEC...they came cause these hills were special...different when you wallow with pigs...something bout the smell. Might as well go to USC or UF!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
1
Mar 21, 2024, 10:31 AM
|
|
That's because ESPN is a third party. The GOR is strictly an internal matter between the parties, the ACC and the member schools. ESPN is a third party so there's a question as to how much information you can divide for the third party versus what you can divulge from the two parties directly involved in the lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22746]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2018
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
1
Mar 21, 2024, 11:03 AM
|
|
Yes, a simplified version of this is the universities granted their rights to the ACC to negotiate on their behalf so they gave away some of their right to transparency when it comes to what was agreed to between the ACC and ESPN. I'm assuming there may have been non-disclosure language in those agreements between ESPN and the ACC and therefore, the member schools would have no expectation or rights to access those agreements since they signed those rights away, unless the ACC/ESPN agreed to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
Mar 21, 2024, 11:20 AM
|
|
To go along with that point, I would say this to people who are making an issue about transparency with the ACC's contract. Show me a copy of the SEC's contract, or the Big Ten's contract, or the Big 12s contract. I doubt they would be able to find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5671]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
Mar 21, 2024, 12:44 PM
|
|
At the end of the day...its going get settled. Anyone who thinks CLEM is stuck until 2036 are the same ppl who thought Clemson wouldn't make a move to leave. Let me repeat, we are leaving. We HAVE to leave.
All these arguments have been vetted by Clemson....for YEARS..... You have to wait for discovery and for other "events" to occur. Patience ppl..........
Your admin knows what it is doing. Everything the ACC is doing has been expected. Listen to what UNC's chairman of the BOT said yesterday...........Clemson is going to get out of easier (not speaking of time) than most imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
Mar 21, 2024, 12:54 PM
|
|
Having to leave, and being able to leave, are two different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5671]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
Mar 21, 2024, 6:19 PM
|
|
Yep, they sure are.
More than happy to make a wager we are out before 2036..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22746]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2018
|
Re: One point in the ACC rebuttal suit against Clemson
Mar 21, 2024, 7:52 PM
|
|
The problem is when they signed away the rights to the ACC, they had no legal say in what the ACC negotiated on their behalf which is then kind of hard to say they didn’t know what was agreed to because legally, it doesn’t matter if they knew or not.
I’m sure there was communication between the ACC and the schools but I also expect there were some nuances in the contract that may not have been fully disclosed or well understood. The fact they had to go to Charlotte to read the darn thing kind of tells you they left it all to the ACC to negotiate and finalize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 2309
|
|
|
50
