|
Replies: 61
| visibility 4476
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 98%
11
|
GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
5
5
Mar 27, 2024, 4:00 PM
|
|
I have seen a lot of arguments about the GoR that seem to form two sides.
1. Clemson signed the GoR, they agreed to it.. they have to honor the contract.
2. Clemson was duped by the ACC, they should still own their rights and pay nothing to leave.
The truth is neither side thinks either of these things will happen. There will be a settlement. All of the posturing now is about who can do it the best to get the settlement closer to where they want it.
Why Clemson will settle:
Because it can make significantly more money and makeup the settlement money within 5-10 years... maybe sooner... and because if it has a verbal offer to a P2 conference, it cannot wait around and waste time risking getting left behind which is a virtual demotion.
Why the ACC will settle:
The ACC will settle because they cannot afford the possibility that Clemson might win its case. Clemson's case is that they owe $0... it was smart to start there for two reasons. A. When negotiating, you want to start in the most profitable position to work from... $0 is that. B. It forces that ACC to settle... because...
If Clemson wins its case, the ACC is dead because it provides a get-out-of-conference-free card to every member. The ACC cannot risk that.. so it will settle.
Depending on who is doing better in court will determine how high the settlement goes. If the ACC gets some momentum with some smaller decisions, this could go on for a while and Clemson will have to settle high.
If Clemson starts getting some small decisions to go its way, I think the ACC will settle quickly to avoid any risk of Clemson winning the case outright and paying $0.
So now we wait.
|
|
|
|
 |
Asst Coach [822]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
2
Mar 27, 2024, 4:03 PM
|
|
I would be shocked if anyone including Clemson thinks they own their GOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12482]
TigerPulse: 98%
47
Posts: 12641
Joined: 2003
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:15 PM
|
|
I would be shocked if anyone including Clemson thinks they own their GOR.
As stated above, its only posturing to get a good deal on a settlement. It might work out for Clemson but most likely trying to get the amount down to a manageable level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [822]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:22 PM
|
|
Ok. smarter fellas than me I guess. Because I know if I go to Carlson's and offer $10 for a new Mercedes in order to "posture" for a good deal, I'll get thrown out on my rear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [134]
TigerPulse: 95%
11
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:28 PM
|
|
If Carlson's has a fear you might get the car for free, they will probably negoiate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:18 PM
|
|
No they wouldn't, because you can't get a car for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35373]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17280
Joined: 2008
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
2
Mar 27, 2024, 4:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
Why are you so dead set against Clemson trying to put an end to being screwed by the ACC. Clemson does own their GOR. How do you think the ACC and ESPN got them? If Clemson did not own them, they would not be going to another conference. When one rents or leases a piece of property, that does not mean the no longer own the property. And leases are broken every day.
I don't understand why there are so called fans on tnet who are so negative about Clemson's outcome regarding this law suit. It is to benefit Clemson sports. That is the only reason it was filed. If you are a Clemson fan/supporter, you should be happy about the law suit and not trashing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [822]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:33 PM
|
|
Trust me I'm not. The ACC deal is an anchor around our neck. But I dig the truth and some semblance of sense. You say Clemson owns its GOR. It doesn't. Clemson signed it over. It would be nice that we are all on the same page but I keep reading nonsense which does no one any good no matter how "negative" you think people are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35373]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17280
Joined: 2008
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:59 PM
|
|
Clemson owns it GOR. If you lease me a house for three years, you still own the house even during the three years I'm living in it. And during those three years, I can sue you to have the lease terminated and you can do the same. But YOU still own the house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64959]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49109
Joined: 2000
|
So we own our rights, even though we granted the use of them to the ACC
Mar 27, 2024, 5:20 PM
|
|
until 2036, unless we pay the buyout. From a practical standpoint, even though we own them, we have forfieted control of them for the duration of the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64959]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49109
Joined: 2000
|
That's the way I see it too. I hope to Gawd we can get out of the ACC, but
1
Mar 27, 2024, 5:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
we signed our rights away. The idea that Clemson filed this suit not expecting to be released from the GOR, but in hopes of negotiating a lower, more reasonable payout, seems reasonable, and probably is the goal. I'm afraid that may be extremely optimistic outcome, and the ACC may hold on and not agree to negotiate, knowing that the GOR is iron-clad.
I think Clemson's best hope is to argue that while they signed the GOR in good faith, based on the belief that doing so would provide stability and prosperity for all parties, the landscape of college football has changed (and continues to change) so dramatically and what then would have been unimaginable ways, that continuing to honor the contract would amount to Clemson being forced to suffer unfair and avoidable losses of a devastating scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: That's the way I see it too. I hope to Gawd we can get out of the ACC, but
Mar 27, 2024, 5:34 PM
|
|
That argument won't work. You aren't going to be able to make the argument that you should be able to get out of your contract just because somebody else makes more money that you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64959]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49109
Joined: 2000
|
I don't think you can get out of it because you regret signing it either.***
Mar 27, 2024, 7:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17977]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 10826
Joined: 2016
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 8:30 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
The media rights are leased to the ACC through a contract. Clemson ultimately owns the media rights and that was validated by the Supreme Court. What an Institution does with those rights us up to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 5:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
Nobody is being negative because they want Clemson to lose and be stuck in the ACC.
The people whom you claim are being "negative" just understand that the law and the media contracts simply don't work the way you want them to work.
Basically, you are just engaging in wishful thinking, and the people whom you claim ate "negative" are just being realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8040]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 7:08 PM
|
|
Forget the GOR. Forget the contracts. What do YOU prefer. Would you like to see Clemson move to P2 or do you want to stay in a lower level ACC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 12:13 PM
|
|
I would prefer Clemson to be in the best position for the school and programs, whichever conference that may be.
However, what I prefer is completely irrelevant. The reality of the situation is the only thing that is relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8040]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 28, 2024, 1:40 PM
|
|
Nice non answer. The reason I asked is because all of your posts, going back well before Clemson filed suit, read like you are terrified of Clemson leaving the ACC. It’s ok if that’s the case. Just own it. Acting like you know what’s going to happen with this lawsuit more so than those on the inside or the highly paid Lawyers is just silly. Everyone has opinions, but you state yours as fact.
Here are a few things to keep in mind.
Contracts are challenged every day.
A settlement can be considered a win.
Clemson has been working on this a long time and I doubt they would spend so much time and money on something they felt was a lost cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 2:15 PM
|
|
It's not a non answer. If you get the idea that I'm "terrified" of leaving the ACC. All I'm saying is there really isn't a path to get out of the ACC.
As to stating my opinions as fact, what is silly is the notion that I have to offer qualifiers like "It's my opinion," or "I believe that," or "I think that."
A settlement isn't a win. The GOR is not what people think it is. Nowhere in the GOR does it state any teams are bound to the conference. All it says is that the teams have granted the ACC their media rights. That's the problem. The media rights are so expensive that the teams can't afford to leave.
Yes, Clemson would spend that much time and money on a lost cause. If the alternative is being left out of the top tier of college football/athletics, yes they absolutely would throw a Hail Mary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8040]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 2:41 PM
|
|
We’ll see. I trust Clemson and their lawyers more than a random poster that just wants to remain in the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 2:46 PM
|
|
The problem is, the ACC ans ESPN have lawyers as well. It's silly to think Clemson's lawyers are the only ones who know anything, and all the other lawyers are dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [873]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [822]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 4:09 PM
|
|
Where the ACC and I'll include the member schools screwed up is when OU and Texas left the Big 12, the ACC should have swooped in and grabbed 2 - 4 of the best Big 12'ers and renegotiated the GOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 4:20 PM
|
|
The gor doesn't get renegotiated just because you add more teens. If they want to join the conference then they simply have to sign it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [822]
TigerPulse: 97%
23
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 4:26 PM
|
|
It could. The Big 12 lost Texas and OU and came out with a better deal. Washington and Oregon too less to join the B1G. It makes more sense than these lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:31 PM
|
|
No it can't. You are confusing the TV contract wirh the GOR. They are two different things, and do not function in the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17977]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 10826
Joined: 2016
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 8:41 PM
|
|
What happens to GoR if there is no TV contract?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 12:11 PM
|
|
Nothing, honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12628]
TigerPulse: 72%
47
Posts: 21169
Joined: 2005
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 28, 2024, 12:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
The ACC had the chance to get WVU and chose freaking BC and Syracuse because of ELITE ACADEMICS
Which add nothing to viewership. The ACC has to atone for their decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1285]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
2
Mar 27, 2024, 4:26 PM
|
|
Alot of this will depend on the court's interpretation of the contract.
At face value, Clemson has the best case. It even uses the contract's own words to make the case
"Clemson granted certain media rights to the ACC in an agreement executed in
2013 and amended in 2016. That agreement provides, however, that Clemson granted the
Conference only such media rights as were "necessary for the Conference to perform the
contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in [certain, specifically identified
media agreements between the Conference and ESPN"."
"The media rights to games played while Clemson is a member of the ACC are the
only rights necessary for the ACC to perform the Conference's obligations under the ACC's
media agreements with ESPN."
The express terms of the contract seem to favor Clemson.
However, given the context of College Football as a whole and the conversations around GORs in the league, the court could possibly determine that even if the express terms don't say it, the ACC owns the rights as an implied contract.
As for the exit fee, I don't see how the court doesn't agree that it is unconscionable. If you look at the exit fees of other conferences and compare them, the ACCs is outrageous. It doesn't really matter if it's in writing or not, an unconscionable term of a contract is void.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35373]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17280
Joined: 2008
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
2
Mar 27, 2024, 4:33 PM
|
|
I like your response, but I would point out that nothing in a contract is implied. That why a contract spells it out in detail. If it is is not stated in the contract, it is not valid. Implied things end up in a court of law and usually the one wanting the implied thing enforced loses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1285]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:42 PM
|
|
That's a good point. I think you are right about that. Rethinking it: I don't think that terms can be implied when there is an express contract. The contract would have to be one or the other and in this case, it is express.
Still new to business law. Haven't finished my degree yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [324]
TigerPulse: 98%
15
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
Ahhh. Good point about implied. On the other hand, if there is ambiguity in the contract, it will more than likely be more beneficial to Clemson. Since they didn’t write the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [402]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 4:27 PM
|
|
Cant we be grandfathered in as an original member using language from the initial formation of the league in 1953. We need to take a look at the founding fathers constitution of 1953. No way Frank Howard would have let something like the GOR get by him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 4:31 PM
|
|
Your entire premise is flawed, mainly because you have Point number one wrong. The Grant of Rights being "Ironclad" does not mean what you think it does. The grant of rights has never bound a school to stay with the conference. Clemson could literally leave the conference today if they wanted to. t
The gor doesn't prevent them from doing that. What the grant of rights does say is that the ACC would own Clemson's media rights if Clemson chooses to leave the conference, and the ACC would not have to release those media rights without Clemson repaying the ACC for them.
The problem is that those rights are so prohibitively expensive that Clemson wouldn't be able to pay them back. And the other issue is if Clemson can't pay them back, then that means that the new conference won't be able to use Clemson's rights, which means they won't make money off Clemson, which means there's no incentive for another conference to add Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [232]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 5:11 PM
|
|
"The problem is that those rights are so prohibitively expensive that Clemson wouldn't be able to pay them back."
The truth is that the value of those rights is impossible to determine. There are many many factors which will determine what the monetary value of the media rights for broadcasting Clemson sports through 2036 will be.
If Clemson tomorrow decided to drop their football and basketball programs, the value of those rights would drop to close to nothing. If Clemson wins multiple national championships in multiple sports and becomes the most popular college sports franchise in the world and Taylor Swift starts dating a Clemson player, the value would skyrocket.
But the GOR agreement does not say that the value of the rights will have to be paid in full in order to retrieve them if a school chose to leave the conference. It is simply assumed that any school wanting to exit the conference would need to take their media rights with them, and as such would need to purchase them back from the conference. But since the value of said rights cannot be calculated, it would have to be a negotiated amount.
Clemson is starting these negotiations at $0. The ACC is starting at infinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:17 PM
|
|
No, that's incorrect. The value of the rights is known. The value is Clemson's share of the TV contract over the life of the contract. Let's say, just for example, the payout averages $30 million a year. With 12 years on the contract, the value would be around $360 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35373]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17280
Joined: 2008
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:35 PM
|
|
That value is not a limited value. That 30 million value is what it is worth to the ACC and ESPN during the life of the contract. It may have a higher value to some other conference or network. So, the value of anything is always what someone is willing to pay.
Just because some one bought it on the cheap does not mean that is the value if there are others who would have paid more or who are willing to pay more now.
Of course, the value could be lower if Clemson joined a D2 conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:40 PM
|
|
If you want to make the value go up higher than that, then you're making this worse for Clemson than I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4324]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 9:30 PM
|
|
One way or another Clemson is gone!
Clemson could borrow the money and still come ahead over a ten year span from new deal.
Clemson could lose in court but also be granted a long term payment plan to soften the blow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [232]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
But a TV contract does not exist past 2027. Also, it's reasonable to assume that the value of one school is not the same as all others. That's just one of the ways it has been estimated.
But my point is that the GOR does not state that a school would have to pay whatever the value of it's media rights are determined to be. The GOR states that the rights are owned by the ACC. As such it is up to the conference to determine whether or not they will sell them back, and for how much.
These negotiations have, by nature of Clemson's lawsuit, started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:45 PM
|
|
The contract does exist past 2027.
The negotiations have not started. That's simply incorrect.
If Clemson wants to buy back the rights, they have to pay back what the rights are worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [232]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 6:50 PM
|
|
Again, only if the ACC agrees to that amount. The GOR does not include a buy-back price.
If I have an item whose market value is $100, I am not required to sell it for that amount. I can take less or I can ask for more or I can decide not to sell it at all. It is my choice as the owner.
If the ACC owns the rights, they can decide their price to sell. With that in mind, my statement that the negotiations have started is me saying that Clemson, through their lawsuit, has said they want it for $0. The ACC, through their counter-suit has said it is not for sale i.e. infinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 7:01 PM
|
|
The ACC hasn't said the value is infinity.
There isn't a negotiation in place, as no one knows if any teams are even leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [232]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 6:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
ESPN has an exclusive option to extend their current contract beyond 2027. But the current contract ends then.
ESPN does not have to extend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12415]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
4
Mar 27, 2024, 4:46 PM
|
|
I'm gonna wait on the real lawyers who Clemson U hired to handle the case to tell me what the results of this action is at the end. All this hupla over the lawsuit is not gonna amount to a hill of beans. Tnet lawyers are good but are not handling the case. So, as stated I will wait on the real answer. It will be forthcoming at some date to be determined. Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:26 PM
|
|
What you actually need to wait on is the judge's ruling. The lawyers can say all they want, bit only the judge's ruling matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8087]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 5:22 PM
|
|
Or we may get the proverbial "Go to Jail and Do Not Collect $200" card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2330]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Thats where we are right now.***
Mar 27, 2024, 10:11 PM
|
|
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35373]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17280
Joined: 2008
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
2
Mar 27, 2024, 5:26 PM
|
|
Most all civil cases are settled at some point once filed. You can settle on some points in a suit and still have other parts settled by the court.
Law suits are almost always settled, because both sides end up getting something.
Once discovery starts, the ACC will settle. No one is perfect, including corporations and the officers who run it and make the deals. No one wants a team of lawyers doing a proctologist exam on their life and making those findings not only a matter of relevancy in a court of law but also to the public.
These cases will be settled. They will most likely end up in a federal court since Florida, NC and SC will all claim jurisdiction. Once it gets to a federal court, it's a new ball game. The last thing the ACC or any conference or broadcaster would want is for a federal court to rule against them and their media rights. They certainly would not want it going all the way to the Supreme Court and lose the case there which could change all of college FB conference rules and broadcasting rights. If you think the federal courts have given favorable treatment to student athletes, just wait until they get the chance to reign in the media and the conferences who have a monopoly over college sports.
One can disagree about the federal court picture I painted and that is OK, but if I was ESPN and the ACC, I would not want to go there.
A settlement is not too far off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 5:46 PM
|
|
The ACC isn't going to settle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5666]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 6:01 PM
|
|
This will get settled. And it wont be as hard as some think.
Wait for everything to come out. A ways to go......
I'll say it again, there is NO REALITY where Clemson stays in the ACC until 2036.
NONE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 27, 2024, 7:03 PM
|
|
The ACC isn't going to settle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 98%
11
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
1
Mar 27, 2024, 9:10 PM
|
|
The ACC has to settle. They can't risk Clemson winning.... that precedent would destroy the conference.
They added 3 teams to insure against 3 teams leaving. They would have never done that had they thought they could keep teams handcuffed to the ACC.
Clemson and FSU are leaving... the legal game determines how much it costs to do so and when.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 12:46 PM
|
|
Indeed. As soon as the ACC gets any vibes that a buyout amount is going to see the light of day, they will settle out of court beneath a moonless night sky (i.e., sell Clemson and FSU's GoR to a private entity...like the SEC or the B10).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 12:52 PM
|
|
You can't sell a GOR. You are misusing the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1574]
TigerPulse: 95%
30
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 1:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing" ] |
|
None of the teams are handcuffed to the ACC. Clemson is not legally bound to the ACC. They could leave today if they wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2330]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
We should have sued the ACC for a half a billion dollars
Mar 27, 2024, 10:18 PM
|
|
for negotiating on our behalf in bad faith. Dereliction of fiduciary duty. Starting at $0 was a beta move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 98%
11
|
Re: We should have sued the ACC for a half a billion dollars
Mar 28, 2024, 11:37 AM
|
|
That is an interesting concept... I curious if they considered that tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5706]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Anyone that tells you a contract is ironclad
Mar 28, 2024, 11:39 AM
|
|
And impossible to get out of
Hasn’t been around the block
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7178]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: GoR: "Ironclad" versus "get out for nothing"
Mar 28, 2024, 1:42 PM
|
|
Nothing is “Iron Clad”. Nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 61
| visibility 4476
|
|
|
50
