|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
GOR arguments
2
Sep 1, 2023, 12:16 PM
|
|
Based on the additions and the speculation that keeping 15 teams in the conference, to keep equal ESPN payout, was a motivating factor I do think Clemson and FSU have gained leverage in the GOR argument.
The previous GOR used the language “necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement”.
The stipulation of 15 would also factor into the ACC being able to perform the contractual obligations and if breached would open negotiations.
Now, Clemson and FSU could easily argue the additions of 3 teams mitigates any impact on the conference’s ability to perform the contractual obligations brought on by exiting the conference. The fact that this happened before the decision was made to leave the conference strengthens the argument instead of the ACC claiming they had to add teams due to FSU and Clemson leaving.
I know the update GOR language may be difference, but the fact that you have schools to limit the financial impacts to the ACC and you were able to maintain your “No” vote, and you receive some extra cash in the short term is likely a positive in the long run.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3730]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4857
Joined: 11/4/03
|
Interesting - You are portraying some high level
Sep 1, 2023, 12:42 PM
|
|
…moves in a sophisticated chess game.
I know, I know…how could I be implying that the ACC leadership has the intelligence to play chess at even a low level.
However, I like the “game theory” analysis of your arguments.
Are we really playing the ”A Beautiful Mind”, “ignore the blonde, go for the brunette” strategy here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3213]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1204
Joined: 5/8/03
|
Re: GOR arguments
Sep 1, 2023, 12:46 PM
|
|
If this is the case then why would Clemson vote no to the expansion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [871]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1826
Joined: 9/24/01
|
Because T-net lawyers definitely smarter than Clemson/UNC/FS
Sep 1, 2023, 12:58 PM
|
|
lawyers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55449]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58451
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: Because T-net lawyers definitely smarter than Clemson/UNC/FS
Sep 1, 2023, 1:02 PM
|
|
It does appear that the lawyers that was used in the now contract wasn't all that smart in those negotiations. What makes you think they are any smarter now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: GOR arguments
1
Sep 1, 2023, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: GOR arguments ] |
|
Voting “No” allows you to state that the ACC is not using the GOR to negotiate in the best interest of Clemson. The additions do not put Clemson in a good position financially meaning you cannot force them to stay when they have better options for the financial interest of the university. If we vote “yes” our argument is void because we agreed to the additions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55449]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58451
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: GOR arguments
Sep 1, 2023, 12:57 PM
|
|
I was thinking that the contract was signed with the ACC having 15 full member schools, and when Cal, SMU, and Stanford in the ACC as member schools, that should automatically open that contract up for renegotiation, and once that happens, what's to stop Clemson from jumping ship the the minute the renegotiations begin? I mean if it has to be renegotiated, it would seem that no ACC school is tied down until all agreed to the new renegotiated contract. Right or wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: GOR arguments
1
Sep 1, 2023, 1:03 PM
|
|
ESPN contract stipulates that if the ACC adds quality teams, ESPN will pay an equal share for Tier-1 rights (70% of total). It does not stipulate Tier 2/3 but that will be subject to deals with the ACC network carriers. If it is built into the contract it doesn’t open up negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55449]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58451
Joined: 7/18/07
|
Re: GOR arguments
Sep 1, 2023, 1:07 PM
|
|
Well hopefully Clemson can find even the smallest hole to slip out of the ACC, and personally, I don't care about anyone else that wants to stay or leave bc "I am" all orange all the time, troof!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3730]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4857
Joined: 11/4/03
|
Yes, this was what I was thinking as well
Sep 1, 2023, 1:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: GOR arguments ] |
|
…the addition of these new teams would necessarily force some new contractual changes, that may have no affect on the GOR.
Maybe the GOR took into account the addition of new teams, just absorbing the new teams directly into the existing GOR.
But, that makes the GOR period less punitive for the new teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
I don't understand what context you're talking about . . .
Sep 1, 2023, 1:51 PM
|
|
First of all, by "previous GOR" . . . do you mean the current one?
Secondly. . . that phrase “necessary for the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the conference expressly set forth in the ESPN agreement.” *What* is necessary (or required)? what is that phrase used in reference to? Are you saying there's a clause in the GOR saying that it's necessary/required to have 15 teams in order to perform the contractual obligation(s) . . . as in, if the ACC had less than 15 teams then the conference would be in breach in regards to all remaining members?
From what I could find all that phrase means is that **in** granting of rights, the member schools agree to give the conference all rights necessary to carry out their duties (access, logistics, use of property, necessary information, etc.)
Besides, I thought it would have to get down to 8 before it was dissolved. Anyway, I'm confused as to what you are referring to with that phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: I don't understand what context you're talking about . . .
Sep 1, 2023, 2:46 PM
|
|
The GOR originally signed by member schools. I believe it was updated in 2016 which is the version being held at the ACC office.
You are correct it is talking about access, logistics, use of property, etc. It is simply saying that Clemson is giving the ACC the rights to what ever is needed to meet the requirements of the ESPN TV contract. That contract would layout number of games, time slots, etc. to be broadcast by ESPN.
Adding teams would collectively alter these numbers so if the ACC is required to provide ESPN with 100 games, for content, over the course of a season they would either have more teams to provide these 100 games or ESPN would make a change to require 120 games across the 17 teams, or say they require 6 per member institution. Either way losing 2 teams now does not impact the ACC’s ability to perform the contractual obligations under the deal before adding three teams.
The reference to the requirement for 15 teams was posted by several sources as a motivating factor for adding teams in the event schools leave the ACC. This is not part of the GOR but part of the ESPN contract allowing them to negotiate a lower payout per team if the number falls below 15.
None of this is about dissolving the GOR it is all about leverage, most likely in court, if/when teams decide to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
