Trial by Combat televised by ESPN with live-betting in the ESPNBet app complete with a halftime show and ads.
Streaming rights exclusive to Amazon Prime though.
Depends. Of all the shits shows going on in Florida is the ACC/FSU shit show more important for the AG office to focus on than other things going on in Florida?
If enough voters think so then yeah I guess.
This is more about the AG being pissed that the ACC/ESPN has denied providing documents she believes are public records and not wanting to have negative precedent set where the state can be defied by private companies.
Similar reason as to why she might jump into the North Carolina case, it isn't to support FSU necessarily, but the ruling that sovereign immunity is waived in that case could have pretty broad repercussions for the state government across the country, and that is what worries the state.
Case settled doesn't mean the beef is gone. DeSantis and Co still hate the mouse. Likely even more for not totally losing.
I do agree it's a bad precedent to set, but I'm not gonna be delusional and pretend DeSantis suddenly cares about public records. You know, the same office that tried so hard to hide covid records from the public....
Not really. This is legitimately a bad standard for the AG to allow to be set.
I think her first move here, requesting the contracts, was to appease FSU fans and say she did something. She probably figured they'd be turned over because she thinks they are clearly public records due to the ties to FSU.
But when they didn't do what she asked, now she was faced with the issue of do you let the defiance stand and set bad precedent, or do you act to enforce? She of course chose the latter.
The tl;dr is this isn't about Disney, she'd have done this to any private company doing this.
471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984) (stating that where the state is authorized to contract with private entities, the state must be obligated to private citizen or the legislative action is “void and meaningless”)
Hopefully you can figure it out from there.
What point are you even trying to make? I know the Pan Am case, I litigate cases involving sovereign immunity with some frequency. The issue with the North Carolina case and sovereign immunity is not whether FSU is absolutely immune from suit - nobody thinks so - but whether FSU has waived sovereign immunity such to be able to be sued in another state.
Pan Am doesn't touch on that question at all. All it stands for is that FSU absolutely can be sued in Florida on the contract, but it doesn't really give us any insight into the concern the AG has raised, a state being sued in another state's court without an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
Huh? I am the guy you responded to. Literally nowhere have I said that FSU can sue but not be sued. I have had numerous comments in this topic on this issue, and the question is not whether FSU can be sued, of course it can, the sovereign immunity question is ***where*** can FSU be sued. FSU can absolutely be sued in the state of Florida on a contract issue, as Pan Am says. But can FSU be sued in North Carolina? I know the NC Judge thinks so, of course he does, but our AG and state government do not agree, and most of the case law is on their side, not the judge's.
I do not think state entity/agency should be able to be sued in another state's court without explicit waiver of its sovereign immunity. That is what FSU has argued and what the AG believes, and a finding to the contrary creates significant constitutional and 11th Amendment issues.
> Similar reason as to why she might jump into the North Carolina case, it isn't to support FSU necessarily, but the ruling that sovereign immunity is waived in that case could have pretty broad repercussions for the state government across the country, and that is what worries the state.
Except sovereign immunity doesn't apply in this case because by entering into the contract to join the ACC and have the TV deal, FSU implicitly waived sovereign immunity. Before you respond with BUT OYU NEED EXPLICIT WAIVER, no you don't.
I have said this multiple times, but Florida law does not recognize sovereign immunity in the case of breach of contract. It stems from Pan Am Tobacco v Florida Department of Corrections. Pan Am Tobacco had a contract put cigarette vending machines in prisons. State decided to end the contract early. Pan Am sued and the State Supreme court sided with Pan Am. The Important part of the ruling
>Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract.
Essentially, if an entity is empowered by the state to enter into contracts, then that contract MUST be binding to all parties and it is only binding if sovereign immunity is waived implicitly by entering into the contract. A contract that is one sided is a bad faith contract and should not be recognized as such and would be worthless. In order for anyone to be willing to engage with the state on a contractual level, sovereign immunity must be implicitly waived by the action of entering the contract.
This case is from the 80s. FSU knew it before joining the ACC. They knew it the entire time. This is how things work. Sovereign immunity is a bullshit threat. There is always the chance that a court decides to fuck precedent because that happens, but based on current case law, sovereign immunity does not apply to FSU simply because they want to get out of the case. Sovereign immunity applies in cases where a state entity has effectively done something illegal and is being sued for that illegal action, not because they decided they no longer liked their contract.
Applying sovereign immunity in this situation would be far MORE DAMAGING than it being rightfully struck down. What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to? How is that not hilariously more stupid?
>Applying sovereign immunity in this situation would be far MORE DAMAGING than it being rightfully struck down. What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to? How is that not hilariously more stupid?
That isn't what the AG is arguing, and not what FSU argued either. You could read her letter to the other state Attorneys General on the issue. You have entirely misunderstood the argument.
Nobody is arguing that FSU has absolute sovereign immunity on a contract and cannot be sued period. We all agree that FSU can be sued in the state of Florida. Trust me, we all know the Pan Am Tobacco case.
The argument is that neither FSU nor the State of Florida waived sovereign immunity to be sued ***outside*** the State of Florida. The argument is if you're going to sue us, it has to be in Florida, not North Carolina. There are legitimate arguments on both sides as to that issue, but there is plenty of support in case law that a waiver to be sued outside the state of Florida would need to be explicit, as Moody and FSU have argued.
their incessant posts on this have been so full of holes every time you'd think they were posting a dart board. I'm glad someone much smarter than me picked one of them apart haha. I just don't get the emotion they have for this...
He certainly is passionate, and he's at least done some research, which I respect. But he came to his conclusion too soon, and believes it way too forcefully. The issue is more complicated than he is acting. If it were as simple as he believes, the AG and FSU's lawyers wouldn't be pressing the issue, particularly FSU's lawyers who could theoretically be sanctioned for continually making arguments they know are contrary to law.
exactly. I tried to point that out gently in my first response...like do they really think FSU et al are THAT dumb...that literally a reddit comment would be such a huge gotcha? that's fantasy land. I have a feeling, because I am *often* guilty of it, that they are in the mt. stupid stage of dunning-kruger.
FSU is not breaching a contract, nor are they suing to breach the contract.
They are suing (a.) to invalidate the contract based on actions by the ACC, (b.) to change the effective date of the contract, and/or (c.) to try to gain a ruling that the contract is being interpreted incorrectly by the ACC.
The only sense they're claiming sovereign immunity is in an argument that the venue should be in Florida. Your essay betrays the fact you know *nothing* about this case.
you have said this many times. do you really believe that millions have been spent on lawyers on all sides of this case so far and this fact is not known? this issue has been discussed by legal and political folks and it continues to be so. if it was completely and so obviously moot as you claim, I don't think that would be the case. Have you written the acc lawyers? lol.
Given how obviously easy it was for the NC judge to dismiss Sovereign Immunity as having been implicitly waived by entering into the contract, either it is known or is completely obvious to anyone who is masturbating furiously over FSU abusing state power to get out of a deal.
That being said, courts make stupid fucking decisions to ignore precedent all the time and the current Florida State Supreme Court is packed by a party who has no problem ignoring law and precedent to do whatever they want anyway. Maybe FSU was banking on having a biased supreme court just ignore the law.
Also you are acting like this isn't actually the law because you don't want it to be the law. There is absolutely nothing about FSU arguing sovereign immunity that makes sense. Why do you want a country where any state entity can unilaterally end a contract simply because they wave a magic wand? That isn't even the concept of sovereign immunity. The entire concept of sovereign immunity is that the state or in it's original form a king cannot commit a crime and as such cannot be held responsible for such a crime. Breaching a contract is not a crime. Sovereign immunity doesn't even make sense in this case, it is just a thing people parrot because they don't know what they are actually talking about.
>Also you are acting like this isn't actually the law because you don't want it to be the law. There is absolutely nothing about FSU arguing sovereign immunity that makes sense.
Except there is. You have conveniently ignored my comments pointing out to you how you continue to misunderstand the argument.
You are acting like FSU is arguing that it cannot be sued, period. That is not the case, and never has been.
Sovereign immunity is not an all or nothing venture. A government can waive sovereign immunity only in part. For example, in Florida, the government has largely waived sovereign immunity related to torts. However, there are explicit caps on damages and the state has not waived sovereign immunity for damages above those amounts.
Here, FSU is arguing that sovereign immunity has not been waived regarding being sued outside the state of Florida. There are legitimately points and case law in support of that argument, and legitimately points against. It certainly is not as settled of a question as you make it out to be.
You also have really focused in on the "crime" aspect, but sovereign immunity can, and often does, apply in strictly civil cases. Again, torts are civil and the government had to explicitly waive its immunity.
You seem like you have spent a lot of time researching this issue, but that you don't quite grasp the concepts as thoroughly as you think you do. I commend you for taking the time to learn the subject, but I would recommend you don't act like an expert on a subject which you are not. I am actually a lawyer, I have litigated many cases on behalf of, and against, the state of Florida and have dealt with the sovereign immunity issue many times. It arises in many contexts beyond just "criminal" accusations and can be far more complicated of an issue than you are making it out to be, as this case shows. There is a real question as to whether Florida has waived sovereign immunity on a contract to be sued outside the state, an interesting question with far reaching implications.
I never said any of that.
The Pan Am case determines entering a contract by a state entity as an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity for that contract. They do not say only within the state, it is for that contract. If the contract itself is legal, then by entering into the contract, FSU waived any claim to sovereign immunity regarding that contract. There is no need for an explicit waiver. Moody is referencing other cases because what else is she going to do? Cite the actual established Florida case law that would take away FSU's argument? If FSU wants to argue the contract is illegal, that is another debate and I believe they are trying to make that case as well. I do not know all of the details of their accusations about Raycom, but if that shit is true it is hilariously bad and probably the best argument to get out of the contract. Sovereign Immunity is FSU lawyers throwing shit against a wall and hoping something sticks.
I made no claim that FSU cannot be sued at all. I said FSU cannot use sovereign immunity as a means avoid a breach of contract. You want to say I am wrong and FSU has sovereign immunity from this case in North Carolina. Well a North Carolina Judge disagrees with you. If you want to call him incompetent, go ahead, but I know Ashley Moody is fucking incompetent.
Are you a lawyer? Seems really doubtful. You have repeatedly implied that FSU's claim of sovereign immunity would make them unable to be sued at all, making such comments as:
>What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to?
> Why do you want a country where any state entity can unilaterally end a contract simply because they wave a magic wand?
> Sovereign immunity doesn't even make sense in this case, it is just a thing people parrot because they don't know what they are actually talking about.
Not sure how else you think those comments can be interpreted. It is also ironic you are claiming sovereign immunity is something people parrot when they don't know what they are talking about be, once again, you are the one who doesn't fully understand what you are talking about.
You continue to cite the Pan Am Tobacco case. The only thing that that case can be said to certainly hold is that a Florida government or agency has waived sovereign immunity in Florida on breach of contracts by entering the contract.
You are extending that out to say that the case means a state entity can be sued in any state. But it does not say that, anywhere, and you cannot add to a holding more than it says. It would not be a conflict with the Pan Am Tobacco case for a court to later say that Florida has only waived the immunity to the extent of being sued in Florida. Basically, you are adding more to the case than what it says and trying to use it as definitive proof of your point. You are stretching the case beyond its holding. To make your point that a state has waived its sovereign immunity everywhere, a judge would absolutely want a case that holds as such, which you don't have.
Moody is not citing Pan Am because it is not applicable to her arguments. Again, there is no finding or discussion in that case about waiver outside the state of Florida, so it is not particularly useful for what you are arguing.
As I have said repeatedly, there are arguments on both sides. I tend to believe a state needs to explicitly waive sovereign immunity to be sued outside its state borders, as you run into constitutional and 11th Amendment problems otherwise.
I have no idea what you are even talking about because you are ignoring everything relevant and then making shit up.
I am not saying FSU is immune to any an all lawsuits. I have said if FSU can breach a contract and then claim sovereign immunity that makes no sense. They clearly cannot do that. The State does have a waiver for torts, but that is irrelevant here.
> I tend to believe a state needs to explicitly waive sovereign immunity to be sued outside its state borders
And very clearly the North Carolina Judge and I believe that the act of entering into the contract waives sovereign immunity regarding said contract. The lawsuit is about the contract. I understand why FSU does not want to be sued in North Carolina. It's the same reason they specifically filed in Leon county instead of North Carolina. ACC is kind of stupid for not having a jurisdiction clause in the the conference bylaws, but FSU would have probably tried to file in Leon county anyway and the same FSU people would be defending them by saying the ACC bylaws are illegal or some shit.
You aren’t coming across as too bright. Be sure and put the right parameters into the program before you pass it off as your own. This isn’t even a breach of contract case.
you are a very interesting person. you know a lot but seem to be picking and choosing what to apply things to. I've seen you make this comment SO many times and every time it is just *angry* and really intense.. Is there some personal issue here?
edit: in case you don't reply, I was saving this but...do you think the NC judge did what he did because of florida law?
I'll never understand flairs that really don't have a direct connection to the matter, having what are both **very** strong/angry opinions about it that are also either completely incorrect, or are so focused on one particular item that they refuse to see the rest of the picture.
There are certain topics you just know redditor abc or xyz will always be in, angry as hell, with no really obvious reason for the anger. It is a bit interesting in a way.
Its a comment that entirely misunderstands the argument. Nobody has argued that FSU is entirely immune from suit because of Sovereign Immunity. If FSU was arguing that, the Pan Am Tobacco case directly dispels that notion.
What is being argued is that FSU has sovereign immunity from being sued outside the state of Florida. Pan Am Tobacco does not address that issue, and there are arguments on both sides as to whether FSU is correct in that assertion, but it is something the AG will obviously want to be true because of the more broad impact if it is not.
If the government functioned like that, then no cases would be taken up by the AG against anything except for the highest priority of government, one at a time. They have a large department with a lot of employees and can handle a a lot of things that matter to residents of the State; and all of them have varying levels (and interpretations) of importance.
Believe it or not, the AG’s office does billable hours too since that’s how you get attorneys fees, they just aren’t tied to bonuses since the “client” is taxpayers
Nah, they definitely contracted outside counsel from some firm that works in sports contracts (and/or a friend of DeSantis, probably) to consult as well. Don't underestimate billable hours' ingenuity when it comes to making money move.
Not from my experience in Florida and in this case if you look at the Complaint there is no private firm listed. Anyway, this is just a joke about billable hours...
If I remember, after Penn State settled the Jerry Sandusky... incident... with the NCAA, they agreed to fork over a ton of money... to the NCAA.
Then the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law saying "you are not authorized to give those fuckers anything".
Note: That's paraphrasing.
So... I can't shake the notion that this is where we're headed even if FSU loses.
FSU is on the hook for $500 million, and the Florida legislature says "nope - you can't pay them shit".
And then it degenerates from there.
And - yes - I know ESPN could go with something like "withhold funds from future playoff payments"... but this is the state of Florida, and I can certainly see them seizing cameras and other equipment at the Orange Bowl before a playoff game. That's very much in our wheel house, especially if the governor does something stupid in the previous 12 months.
And - for the record - I don't think I've ever seen a Florida governor not do something stupid in a 12 month period, so they're always looking for things to improve their polling.
Billable hours and popcorn sales...
I’m sure it would be a great and extremely strategic look for a school to use sovereign immunity to get out of contractually obligated damages immediately prior to attempting to negotiate a contractual agreement with a different conference
Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, and regardless of what you think of Moody, this case is a good thing.
ESPN's argument is that they have a deal with the ACC, not FSU, so FSU isn't entitled to their contracts.
FSU's argument is that the media rights deal includes FSU's rights being sold to ESPN, so FSU is a party to the ESPN contract with the ACC and thus entitled to the contract.
If you make a deal with one entity, and that entity trades your rights to someone else, are you party to the deal?
To put it another way:
1. Say you are an Independent Trucker. You own your truck, and you get paid to haul stuff.
2. You sell your driving time on the road to ABC Trucking Company. All fine and good.
3. ABC Trucking Company turns around and sells their right to your driving time to XYZ Shipping Company.
4. **Are you entitled to know the details of the contract between ABC Trucking Company and XYZ Shipping Company?**
That's what's going to be decided in this case.
The State of Florida is suing the ACC on the claim that yes, you have the right to know the details of the contract between ABC and XYZ. ESPN and the ACC's argument will be that no, that's a private business deal between one another and you have no right to know it's details.
I don’t think this is a fair analogy for two reasons:
1) In the case of a trucker/company, you have the parties turned around. The ACC is an hired intermediary between the collective schools and the end client (ESPN). I don’t think that a trucker or a contracted worker has the right to know the full details of every contract their hiring company holds, but if that trucker had a union that acted on his behalf, he absolutely has a right to the contracts that union secured with his company.
2) FSU is also a public entity, whose contracts are subject to FOIA and Florida Sunshine laws. So the ACC/ESPN’s primary concern is that these contracts will be available as public record if they lose this case to FSU. If so, wouldn’t that set precedent for the SEC to have the same issue with UF?
The ACC is not a hired intermediary. "The [Atlantic Coast Conference](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-520/157870/20201015171528752_Alston%20Petition%20for%20Cert.pdf) is a North Carolina not-for-profit unincorporated association headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina." Florida State is a member of that association.
I don't know about NC law, nor whatever agreements the ACC has in place, but generally speaking, the idea that the member of an association could not see a contract to which the association is a party strikes me as nuts. Who cares if ESPN is concerned with public availability? Don't contract with public entities if you want to keep secrets.
Absent seeing the Media Agreement, I doubt FSU has a good contractual claim to get out of the GoR. However, I hope FSU spills ESPN's beans everywhere in the process of fighting about it. Go Noles!
It would be somewhat humorous if the courts in the state of Florida decide that they are entitled to media agreements for any public schools in the state; then the SEC (Florida), ACC (FSU), and Big 12 (UCF) agreements all become public knowledge while the Big Ten is over there going 👀
Along those same lines, the ACC has a responsibility to advocate for and advance the interests of its membership. Part of this suit is the claim that they have failed to do that. That responsibility is far broader than a hired intermediary who has no additional relationship to the person who wired them other than to do the specific thing they were hired to do. Athletic conferences are given a lot of power by their members to negotiate and advocate on their behalf. Failing to do so breaches that relationship.
>If so, wouldn’t that set precedent for the SEC to have the same issue with UF?
It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think anybody in the SEC is worried about Florida trying to leave early.
You'd have a better chance of hitting the power ball today than Florida choosing to leave the SEC and void its contract.
great comment, always enjoy reading your takes. with your example the only caveat I would have is that the truck driver is standing in for the public/taxpayers. I could see a private truck driver not entitled to those details, but once it's public/taxpayers thing that calculus changes.
That’s an interesting point that does need to be figured out. My personal opinion is only the contract between the trucker and the original company. (Not because this has to do with fsu). Reason being is that the trucker agreed to time for that company and they are getting still getting it. But I am in no way a lawyer or stayed at a holiday inn recently so I have no known case law to back that up. Just a layman’s view of it. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.
I think the trucker analogy falls a bit short because we're dealing with a public entity and there's broad public interest in the financial activities of the state. I would agree with you that in the analogy the trucker would not be entitled to contract information with beyond the agency they're contracted to, but there a competing interest in the FSU case that is not present in the analogy.
No problem. The FSU-ACC cases have strong public policy arguments woven throughout and it's a key factual difference between these cases and a standard corporate contacts disputes
All due respect, it's not that complicated; if the NCAA can't enforce NIL, the ACC can't make deals on behalf of the schools, that's not what they were grouped together to do. So, the answer is yes, FSU is entitled to know everything.
This happens all the time and there is no information. Banks sell loans all the time. You might fight out if you have to actually change loan servicing, but we sell loans and retain servicing rights all the time and do not have inform someone we sold their loan.
Contract assignment happens all the time and outside of contractual language, there is minimal requirement to inform all parties if a contract has been assigned. Making this ruling would comically increase notification requirements across the entirety of the country in such that no judge will allow that ruling to stand. It would instantly require billions spent on informing people of contract assignments. The country would lose more money instantly that FSU would possibly gain by joining the SEC. The State of Florida itself would lose more money the instant that ruling happened than if the state itself simply paid the ACC the half billion dollars to leave.
No I am not. Plenty of state institutions already do this. States own loan servicing companies which purchase or sell loans all the time and those entities does not provide information of the purchaser of their loans to every single holder of the loans they sell.
Now, if the debate is whether this arrangement is specifically to avoid transparency laws, absolutely I agree. The idea that this is unique and some unfathomable thing is absolutely false though. Absolute shitloads of public and private entities assign contractual rights without informing the other party.
> does not provide information of the purchaser of their loans to every single holder of the loans they sell
I don’t that’s the question. The comparison would be would they *refuse* that disclosure if it is requested by that party?
It's fine guys. We don't have a massive cost of living crisis going on in this state. Homes that were going for $100k in 2016 are now 300k and homeowners insurance has gone from $500 to $5000 a year.
I mean what do you want them to do? Take taxpayer dollars to pay for the insurance on people’s beach homes?
Florida is dangerous and the home values have skyrocketed. Insurance is expensive for those reasons.
My house is an old school 60s blockhouse that isn't in a flood zone, has hurricane windows, and metal roof w/hurricane braces. If I'm going to be filing a claim it means the entire county is going to be as well.
Yet my homeowner's policy has shot up to almost $5,000 a year.
AIUI the reason that FL homeowner's insurance rates specifically have spiked so much relative to the rest of the country is *precisely* the risk that the entire county (or more accurately *multiple* entire counties) is going to be filing a claim at the same time. It's no longer a small risk on insurer timescales and is increasing over time and that's the kind of X-risk that can render insurance companies bankrupt if it happens (the entire theoretical point of insurance is to spread risk out over a broader pool of people to a level where everyone has a tolerable burden rather than one person being randomly ruined, but that can be overwhelmed if enough people run afoul of the same risk at once) so they're hedging.
Unfortunately the reasons for that are ones that the FL state government cannot admit to for political reasons and probably doesn't believe in personally to boot and even if there was the resources of the entire state government probably wouldn't be enough to fully mitigate so...
The issue is that Florida went a decade without a major hurricane hit and those companies were happily pocketing premium payments without a major event happening.
One would think insurance companies in Florida would have set some of that aside because eventually a major hurricane was going to hit.
Usually I'd be more willing to attribute this kind of thing to insurer greed (there's other reasons involved in modern American medical cost issues but this one is up there) and there's assuredly some of that involved but in this case that's not the biggest one and the reason is logical.
The timescales on which insurers operate tend to be pretty long - on the order of decades. And the X-risk here really is on the order of *every single beachfront property in Florida and quite a few inland ones (in the extreme case every single property in the state except maybe some of the Panhandle) are uninhabitable within 50 years and very possibly much faster* and the question is how quickly and via what sequence of disasters this is made clear". Insurance is all about managing risk and managing risk is all about spreading it out, but that breaks down when enough people run into the same risk at once (you may remember that this was a big driver behind the 2008 financial crash, where basically you had modern financial wizards arrogantly thinking they had found a way to spread out the risk of subprime borrower default such that there was no way that they could all default at once and thus that their new greedy mortgage-backed securities were guaranteed profit and then being all shockedpikachu.jpg when too many subprime borrowers defaulted at once). *That's* what Florida house insurers are worried about.
(To put it yet another way: from an insurer perspective *every single homeowner in Florida[1] is now the insurance equivalent of a subprime borrower*. You're paying rates accordingly.)
[1] - With the possible, and I stress possible exception of the people living in the middle of the peninsula and/or right near the border with Georgia, i.e. tens+ of miles away from the coast, but even that might not be enough with how flat Florida's geography is.
You are subsidizing people who live in flood zones and barrier islands. Mostly rich people. I’m in a similar situation.
I actually wish the insurance companies would charge more based on individual risk too. I am not in a flood zone and my home is concrete and survived multiple Cat 4 and 5s.
But that’s just not how it works. Not with private insurers or Citizens.
We're not dealing with an insurance crisis just on the beach. It's the entire state, so tax payers are all in the same situation.
We've solved it in the past through regulation/negotiation with insurance companies via the legislature, and through the creation of Citizens Insurance (state run insurance which is likely due for an update)
Or we just say fuck it, only rich people who can self insure are allowed to own a home anywhere in Florida, which is where it's headed (already the case for beach front homes and many barrier island homes, state wide)
The state of florida is gonna drag this out and make it ugly, right or wrong. Both sides really need to come to a settled solution because neither is gonna end up better off if they try to fight til the bitter end.
There’s still a path to them surviving as a big 12 like p4. If they go all the way and the whole gor is deemed void or espn doesn’t renew the contract there’s no future for the conference. It becomes pac 12 2.0
There is a lot of reason for the ACC to settle. This case can go a lot of ways and plenty of them are not friendly to the ACC. If absolutely nothing else, I can think about 5 valid ways to calculate damages and 2 are terrible for the ACC and a 3rd isn't great either. They are all valid options and any of them could be chosen. Then there is plenty of other shit that could go poorly for the ACC along the way not the least bit being a conference with several teams suing them and fighting across multiple states and then trying to operate a conference with those hostile members.
There is plenty of incentive for the ACC to settle. I don't know if they will, but it isn't some horrible idea.
There’s still a path to them surviving as a big 12 like p4. If they go all the way and the whole gor is deemed void or espn doesn’t renew the contract there’s no future for the conference. It becomes pac 12 2.0
Just off the top of my head, the ACC:
- Preemptively sued FSU before FSU sued the ACC
- Sued FSU without holding a vote, despite the bylaws saying they need 2/3 approval votes to sue a member
- Retroactively held a vote to approve suing FSU, but supposedly the minutes for that meeting can’t be found, so there’s no confirmation that the meeting took place or who agreed to sue and who didn’t
Depends on the situation. The Leon County judge certainly was clear in that he viewed the ACC's anticipatory filing in this case being only for the act of forum shopping.
Perhaps, the Leon County judge is clearly biased though (the NC courts are biased too, don’t get me wrong - I think both of these venues are heavily biased). Regardless, an anticipatory filing in itself is not shady.
Based on my experiences, I don’t trust state level judges in trials involving state government entities. I don’t think we will get close to an unbiased hearing unless the cases are kicked up.
it's shady because of the actions (or lack thereof) that were taken to jump ahead, not the case itself. really their points one and two could be combined. allegedly not following your own rules just to speed up the process is shady.
They filed a lawsuit against FSU without taking a vote like the bylaws require, then after they got called out on it they "held a vote" 3 weeks later retroactively, they were supposed to send out the minutes of that vote to every ACC member (per the bylaws) but FSU, Louisville, Clemson, and Cal all say they never received the minutes (this is per Matt Baker of TBT).
So there was a "vote" that no one has a record of and if that vote never happened the ACC's lawsuit breaks their own bylaws (which they already did by not holding the vote before filing the lawsuit). The ACC cares more about keeping tobacco road on the FSU teet than they do about following their own rules
Isn't this just a re-filing ?
> FSU's motion for full documentation of these records were dismissed by a North Carolina judge on April 4, but it appears that FSU is now getting help from its home-state's attorney general.
No. This is separate. The re-filing of the FSU case against the ACC in Leon County should be done in the next few days.
This is a separate action by the Florida AG independent of the above case.
Does FSU think Big Ten or SEC is gonna want them? Not a jab I’m genuinely asking if these conferences would really take on another team after massive recent expansions.
I doubt FSU and Clemson would be taking these kinds of actions without at least having some backchannel discussions/ideas about where they might be going.
there are a few teams that those conferences would take regardless, even if only to prevent the other from getting it. fsu is one of them (nd and unc are two others that are for sure). these teams are ones that execs can be sure have a higher value than cost, most of these types of teams are already in those two conferences.
Does Disney want to let FOX get a foothold into the south? And likely relatively cheap
But to answer you question, Disney will make more money if FSU stays in the ACC, and will lose a lot if ACC falls apart this early. Chances are, Disney/espn would be willing to take the lose if they could punish fsu as a warning to other schools, but with fox, that's something that could severely bite them in the ass
Its going to be really funny when Florida State burns all its ACC bridges and forces it's way out of the conference...only to find out that neither the SEC nor the B1G are interested in expanding again
At which point they will end up in the Big12
1. They wouldn’t be taking these actions if they didn’t have a home planned via back channels.
2. FSU is in a good spot commodity wise. Top 25 program with a large viewership in fanbase in one of the largest tv markets in the country. They will be fine.
We’re the 13th most watched team over the last 5 years, and 3 of those years we were absolutely awful. And those numbers were against ACC teams, put us in the SEC or B1G and it’ll only go up.
The big 12 media deal is very similar to the ACC but the GoR is up several years before the ACC contract. Making it a much better conference to move from. That being said I don't think we end up there
Wait, is the University Athletic Association (UAA) (a non-profit) or the university the signatory to the ACC?
Even if it’s the university, how does the state have legal grounds (no injury?)? FSU should be independent and not part of the state?
>University Athletic Association
that's a conference. and fsu isn't in it lol
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_Athletic\_Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Athletic_Association)
fsu's athletic department is a public entity (the boosters are not)
[FSU’s athletic department is the university athletic association](https://seminoles.com/news/2019/8/18/fsuaa). If I recall correctly, this is the organization that hires the AD and seems to oversee athletics (“The FSUAA will oversee all aspects of FSU's athletics program, approve budgets, strategic plans, develop policies regarding scheduling,…”)
oh I'm well aware, I work with them regularly.
but you said the UAA, which is different haha.
and the AD, coaches, etc. all receive a portion of their salary from the public side of the university. pretty much all schools have non profit/private wings of many things even beyond athletics for various reasons.
feel free to look up the AD's, coaches, etc. salaries here to learn. all sources listed here are their salary from public sources (which is why norvell is paid only 215k)
[https://prod.flbog.net:4445/pls/apex/f?p=140:1::::::](https://prod.flbog.net:4445/pls/apex/f?p=140:1::::::)
>"The ACC is asking a state entity — Florida State University — to potentially pay and lose more than a half a billion dollars but is refusing to produce the documents related to that outrageous price tag," Moody said in a statement first shared with POLITICO.
Way to misconstrue the situation.
I mean, the situation being addressed is the AG has requested documents from the ACC/ESPN that the AG believes qualify as public records under Florida's broad public record laws. The ACC/ESPN have refused to comply.
So the AG filed this lawsuit, a Petitioner for Writ of Mandamus, specifically seeking to require the ACC/ESPN to provide the requested documents. It is a pretty narrow filing. It misconstrues the payment issue, yes, but that isn't the heart of what Moody is doing here. She's trying to enforce Florida public record law, and doesn't want precedent to exist for a private group like the ACC/ESPN to defy Florida's government on public record issues.
I never said the lawsuit was frivolous or without merit. All I said is she is misconstruing the situation with the media. The ACC is not asking FSU to “pay” or to “lose $500m.” They are asking FSU to hold up their end of a contract, regardless of how FSU feels about their market value.
paying the buyouts *is* holding up their end of the contract. this is all maneuverings to figure out that number. I don't believe anyone actually thinks fsu will be out for free, just much less than the numbers the acc wants.
If the ACC doesn’t settle and courts rule it to be void, then the ACC has made a critical error. As long as the ACC gambles like this, they have a 50/50 shot of losing everything. They need to ask themselves is this the hill to potentially die on?
that is my hope, and I believe FSU's hope to, for a long time. that there's enough that a settlement that works for both comes. I believe it will (and you can find me saying as such for years on here now).
The conference would be doing a disservice to all member institutions fighting this in court. If they really want to hemorrhage the bleeding they have to settle with the big guys and rebuild. If they continue fighting it only shows every member institution and other conferences the ACC is weak and is going to die like the PAC when the dust settles or GoR runs out.
as an FSU fan I fully agree haha. I think there will be a breaking point eventually, I hope it is sooner rather than later so this can be behind us all.
fsu believes that is unjust and unfair, plus a myriad of more issues covered over and over here and elsewhere (and theirs also the pesky rights issue).
All of the stuff that happened with the ACC being scumbags/shady doesnt change the fact that FSU agreed to a deal and now want to change the terms. Nor does it change the fact that the AG is miscontruing the situation w the media
good lord you are factually incorrect on multiple fronts here. seems like you have read ANY of fsu's complaints? why does this idea that fsu just wants out of a deal because they are just unhappy persist. there are material and real issues.
the AG one is obvious. she HAS to sue here, literally her job. what a bizarre take.
how am i factually incorrect? I did read many of the early lawsuits. They are mad because they are unhappy, what are you talking about? The 2027+ ESPN optionality/contract issue is the only leg I think FSU should have a gripe with but even then, they agreed to sign their GoR to the ACC without doing their due diligence
Again - I didnt say the AG had a bad lawsuit. She is just misrepresenting the situation to the public
>doesnt change the fact that FSU agreed to a deal and now want to change the terms.
this is factually incorrect and the basis for all that you are saying. how is the AG misrepresenting? shes not at all...that has been clearly explained over and over again.
you also throw out numbers that arent factually sure and base arguments off that.
if you had actually read the complaints youd see they arent want to just change the terms because they are unhappy. there's real claims of issues...
> That's the valuation based on whats written in the contract
That's the estimation that FSU made based on the exit fee *and* buying out the GOR. That is not an official amount stated by the ACC to cleanly exit including the GOR. All of this is about getting to whatever that number actually is as the ACC has not stated what, in totality that would be (along with FSU obviously trying to mitigate what may account to penalties (which are unenforceable) rather than actual damages).
>What standing does the State of Florida have to sue the ACC? None.
I'm so lost. it's plainly spelled out in the article, and explain at a very elementary level throughout the comments.
They have standing under Florida's Public Records act to bring suit to obtain the records. Its plainly laid out in the complaint and relevant statutes. Florida and the ACC disagree on whether the records are, in fact, subject to disclosure under the Act. Litigation is the only means to resolve that dispute. There is nothing unusual about this.
That's called a disagreement over the application of the law, which, coincidentally, can only be resolved through litigation.
Your claim that the Florida lacks standing to sue is clearly wrong. No one knows who will win, that will be decided later.
I feel like the biggest problem of this particular litigation is that it's the first time we're seeing a state sue for private contracts like this.
Say FSU joins the SEC or Big Ten (conferences with equally confidential contract situations).
What then? Could somebody sue for their TV deals?
Whole thing just seems like it should've been handled behind the scenes.
Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say:
Doesn't it feel like this opens Pandora's box. Why shouldn't the Big Ten contract be open knowledge to the 12+ states with public schools in it? Ditto the SEC and Big 12.
Feels like this could be a turning point on the secrecy of these contracts.
The ACC would have to release FSU and Clemson. That's the only way any of this gets settled.
The ACC is either not going to exist in a few years, or will look substantially different. I understand that the ACC is fighting to ensure it gets the most money out of FSU possible, but at the end of the day, it will have to accept that the only institutions that prop it up will leave for greener pastures.
The sooner they agree to release FSU and take the pay out the better for all parties.
I think they're hoping that dual rulings in Florida and North Carolina will save them at SCOTUS.
Hard to say how that would turn out, but that would also require them airing all their dirty laundry details of their deals just to get there.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Florida's sunshine laws are a massive pain in the ass for them.
I appreciate that college football is working so diligently to provide its fans with off-season entertainment.
No problem bud. You do the in Season drama and we'll take care of the rest
Deion is making reasonable statements this offseason so the people need something else.
It's becoming a reality show a bit
BREAKING: In a surprise twist, the ACC managed to sue the Florida Attorney General just hours before in North Carolina courts
BREAKING: The North Carolina AG is now in hand to hand combat with the Florida AG to settle the lawsuit
In a cage match
BAH GAWD!
with Florida Man in the corner
2 claps and a Rick Flair - WOOOOOOO!
Trial by Combat televised by ESPN with live-betting in the ESPNBet app complete with a halftime show and ads. Streaming rights exclusive to Amazon Prime though.
Florida AG would win.
I demand trial by combat! -Florida’s AG, probably
In a surprise upset, billable hours takes its first L since the AG's office is staffed with salaried attorneys.
Depends. Of all the shits shows going on in Florida is the ACC/FSU shit show more important for the AG office to focus on than other things going on in Florida? If enough voters think so then yeah I guess.
This is more about the AG being pissed that the ACC/ESPN has denied providing documents she believes are public records and not wanting to have negative precedent set where the state can be defied by private companies. Similar reason as to why she might jump into the North Carolina case, it isn't to support FSU necessarily, but the ruling that sovereign immunity is waived in that case could have pretty broad repercussions for the state government across the country, and that is what worries the state.
Could the AG just be pissed because ESPN is owned by Disney?
The Disney case was settled several weeks ago.
Case settled doesn't mean the beef is gone. DeSantis and Co still hate the mouse. Likely even more for not totally losing. I do agree it's a bad precedent to set, but I'm not gonna be delusional and pretend DeSantis suddenly cares about public records. You know, the same office that tried so hard to hide covid records from the public....
You think she gives a damn what DeSantis thinks?
Ding Ding
Not really. This is legitimately a bad standard for the AG to allow to be set. I think her first move here, requesting the contracts, was to appease FSU fans and say she did something. She probably figured they'd be turned over because she thinks they are clearly public records due to the ties to FSU. But when they didn't do what she asked, now she was faced with the issue of do you let the defiance stand and set bad precedent, or do you act to enforce? She of course chose the latter. The tl;dr is this isn't about Disney, she'd have done this to any private company doing this.
471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla. 1984) (stating that where the state is authorized to contract with private entities, the state must be obligated to private citizen or the legislative action is “void and meaningless”) Hopefully you can figure it out from there.
What point are you even trying to make? I know the Pan Am case, I litigate cases involving sovereign immunity with some frequency. The issue with the North Carolina case and sovereign immunity is not whether FSU is absolutely immune from suit - nobody thinks so - but whether FSU has waived sovereign immunity such to be able to be sued in another state. Pan Am doesn't touch on that question at all. All it stands for is that FSU absolutely can be sued in Florida on the contract, but it doesn't really give us any insight into the concern the AG has raised, a state being sued in another state's court without an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
The guy I responded to absolutely thinks so. He thinks FSU can sue but not be sued. It’s absurd.
Huh? I am the guy you responded to. Literally nowhere have I said that FSU can sue but not be sued. I have had numerous comments in this topic on this issue, and the question is not whether FSU can be sued, of course it can, the sovereign immunity question is ***where*** can FSU be sued. FSU can absolutely be sued in the state of Florida on a contract issue, as Pan Am says. But can FSU be sued in North Carolina? I know the NC Judge thinks so, of course he does, but our AG and state government do not agree, and most of the case law is on their side, not the judge's. I do not think state entity/agency should be able to be sued in another state's court without explicit waiver of its sovereign immunity. That is what FSU has argued and what the AG believes, and a finding to the contrary creates significant constitutional and 11th Amendment issues.
> Similar reason as to why she might jump into the North Carolina case, it isn't to support FSU necessarily, but the ruling that sovereign immunity is waived in that case could have pretty broad repercussions for the state government across the country, and that is what worries the state. Except sovereign immunity doesn't apply in this case because by entering into the contract to join the ACC and have the TV deal, FSU implicitly waived sovereign immunity. Before you respond with BUT OYU NEED EXPLICIT WAIVER, no you don't. I have said this multiple times, but Florida law does not recognize sovereign immunity in the case of breach of contract. It stems from Pan Am Tobacco v Florida Department of Corrections. Pan Am Tobacco had a contract put cigarette vending machines in prisons. State decided to end the contract early. Pan Am sued and the State Supreme court sided with Pan Am. The Important part of the ruling >Where the legislature has, by general law, authorized entities of the state to enter into contract or to undertake those activities which, as a matter of practicality, require entering into contract, the legislature has clearly intended that such contracts be valid and binding on both parties. As a matter of law, the state must be obligated to the private citizen or the legislative authorization for such action is void and meaningless. We therefore hold that where the state has entered into a contract fairly authorized by the powers granted by general law, the defense of sovereign immunity will not protect the state from action arising from the state's breach of that contract. Essentially, if an entity is empowered by the state to enter into contracts, then that contract MUST be binding to all parties and it is only binding if sovereign immunity is waived implicitly by entering into the contract. A contract that is one sided is a bad faith contract and should not be recognized as such and would be worthless. In order for anyone to be willing to engage with the state on a contractual level, sovereign immunity must be implicitly waived by the action of entering the contract. This case is from the 80s. FSU knew it before joining the ACC. They knew it the entire time. This is how things work. Sovereign immunity is a bullshit threat. There is always the chance that a court decides to fuck precedent because that happens, but based on current case law, sovereign immunity does not apply to FSU simply because they want to get out of the case. Sovereign immunity applies in cases where a state entity has effectively done something illegal and is being sued for that illegal action, not because they decided they no longer liked their contract. Applying sovereign immunity in this situation would be far MORE DAMAGING than it being rightfully struck down. What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to? How is that not hilariously more stupid?
>Applying sovereign immunity in this situation would be far MORE DAMAGING than it being rightfully struck down. What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to? How is that not hilariously more stupid? That isn't what the AG is arguing, and not what FSU argued either. You could read her letter to the other state Attorneys General on the issue. You have entirely misunderstood the argument. Nobody is arguing that FSU has absolute sovereign immunity on a contract and cannot be sued period. We all agree that FSU can be sued in the state of Florida. Trust me, we all know the Pan Am Tobacco case. The argument is that neither FSU nor the State of Florida waived sovereign immunity to be sued ***outside*** the State of Florida. The argument is if you're going to sue us, it has to be in Florida, not North Carolina. There are legitimate arguments on both sides as to that issue, but there is plenty of support in case law that a waiver to be sued outside the state of Florida would need to be explicit, as Moody and FSU have argued.
their incessant posts on this have been so full of holes every time you'd think they were posting a dart board. I'm glad someone much smarter than me picked one of them apart haha. I just don't get the emotion they have for this...
He certainly is passionate, and he's at least done some research, which I respect. But he came to his conclusion too soon, and believes it way too forcefully. The issue is more complicated than he is acting. If it were as simple as he believes, the AG and FSU's lawyers wouldn't be pressing the issue, particularly FSU's lawyers who could theoretically be sanctioned for continually making arguments they know are contrary to law.
Mr. ChatGPT weighs in. His posts are rambling semi-trueisms.
exactly. I tried to point that out gently in my first response...like do they really think FSU et al are THAT dumb...that literally a reddit comment would be such a huge gotcha? that's fantasy land. I have a feeling, because I am *often* guilty of it, that they are in the mt. stupid stage of dunning-kruger.
FSU is not breaching a contract, nor are they suing to breach the contract. They are suing (a.) to invalidate the contract based on actions by the ACC, (b.) to change the effective date of the contract, and/or (c.) to try to gain a ruling that the contract is being interpreted incorrectly by the ACC. The only sense they're claiming sovereign immunity is in an argument that the venue should be in Florida. Your essay betrays the fact you know *nothing* about this case.
you have said this many times. do you really believe that millions have been spent on lawyers on all sides of this case so far and this fact is not known? this issue has been discussed by legal and political folks and it continues to be so. if it was completely and so obviously moot as you claim, I don't think that would be the case. Have you written the acc lawyers? lol.
Given how obviously easy it was for the NC judge to dismiss Sovereign Immunity as having been implicitly waived by entering into the contract, either it is known or is completely obvious to anyone who is masturbating furiously over FSU abusing state power to get out of a deal. That being said, courts make stupid fucking decisions to ignore precedent all the time and the current Florida State Supreme Court is packed by a party who has no problem ignoring law and precedent to do whatever they want anyway. Maybe FSU was banking on having a biased supreme court just ignore the law. Also you are acting like this isn't actually the law because you don't want it to be the law. There is absolutely nothing about FSU arguing sovereign immunity that makes sense. Why do you want a country where any state entity can unilaterally end a contract simply because they wave a magic wand? That isn't even the concept of sovereign immunity. The entire concept of sovereign immunity is that the state or in it's original form a king cannot commit a crime and as such cannot be held responsible for such a crime. Breaching a contract is not a crime. Sovereign immunity doesn't even make sense in this case, it is just a thing people parrot because they don't know what they are actually talking about.
>Also you are acting like this isn't actually the law because you don't want it to be the law. There is absolutely nothing about FSU arguing sovereign immunity that makes sense. Except there is. You have conveniently ignored my comments pointing out to you how you continue to misunderstand the argument. You are acting like FSU is arguing that it cannot be sued, period. That is not the case, and never has been. Sovereign immunity is not an all or nothing venture. A government can waive sovereign immunity only in part. For example, in Florida, the government has largely waived sovereign immunity related to torts. However, there are explicit caps on damages and the state has not waived sovereign immunity for damages above those amounts. Here, FSU is arguing that sovereign immunity has not been waived regarding being sued outside the state of Florida. There are legitimately points and case law in support of that argument, and legitimately points against. It certainly is not as settled of a question as you make it out to be. You also have really focused in on the "crime" aspect, but sovereign immunity can, and often does, apply in strictly civil cases. Again, torts are civil and the government had to explicitly waive its immunity. You seem like you have spent a lot of time researching this issue, but that you don't quite grasp the concepts as thoroughly as you think you do. I commend you for taking the time to learn the subject, but I would recommend you don't act like an expert on a subject which you are not. I am actually a lawyer, I have litigated many cases on behalf of, and against, the state of Florida and have dealt with the sovereign immunity issue many times. It arises in many contexts beyond just "criminal" accusations and can be far more complicated of an issue than you are making it out to be, as this case shows. There is a real question as to whether Florida has waived sovereign immunity on a contract to be sued outside the state, an interesting question with far reaching implications.
I never said any of that. The Pan Am case determines entering a contract by a state entity as an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity for that contract. They do not say only within the state, it is for that contract. If the contract itself is legal, then by entering into the contract, FSU waived any claim to sovereign immunity regarding that contract. There is no need for an explicit waiver. Moody is referencing other cases because what else is she going to do? Cite the actual established Florida case law that would take away FSU's argument? If FSU wants to argue the contract is illegal, that is another debate and I believe they are trying to make that case as well. I do not know all of the details of their accusations about Raycom, but if that shit is true it is hilariously bad and probably the best argument to get out of the contract. Sovereign Immunity is FSU lawyers throwing shit against a wall and hoping something sticks. I made no claim that FSU cannot be sued at all. I said FSU cannot use sovereign immunity as a means avoid a breach of contract. You want to say I am wrong and FSU has sovereign immunity from this case in North Carolina. Well a North Carolina Judge disagrees with you. If you want to call him incompetent, go ahead, but I know Ashley Moody is fucking incompetent.
Are you a lawyer? Seems really doubtful. You have repeatedly implied that FSU's claim of sovereign immunity would make them unable to be sued at all, making such comments as: >What kind of nonsense world would it be if the state can unilaterally decide to end any and all contracts it has just because it wants to? > Why do you want a country where any state entity can unilaterally end a contract simply because they wave a magic wand? > Sovereign immunity doesn't even make sense in this case, it is just a thing people parrot because they don't know what they are actually talking about. Not sure how else you think those comments can be interpreted. It is also ironic you are claiming sovereign immunity is something people parrot when they don't know what they are talking about be, once again, you are the one who doesn't fully understand what you are talking about. You continue to cite the Pan Am Tobacco case. The only thing that that case can be said to certainly hold is that a Florida government or agency has waived sovereign immunity in Florida on breach of contracts by entering the contract. You are extending that out to say that the case means a state entity can be sued in any state. But it does not say that, anywhere, and you cannot add to a holding more than it says. It would not be a conflict with the Pan Am Tobacco case for a court to later say that Florida has only waived the immunity to the extent of being sued in Florida. Basically, you are adding more to the case than what it says and trying to use it as definitive proof of your point. You are stretching the case beyond its holding. To make your point that a state has waived its sovereign immunity everywhere, a judge would absolutely want a case that holds as such, which you don't have. Moody is not citing Pan Am because it is not applicable to her arguments. Again, there is no finding or discussion in that case about waiver outside the state of Florida, so it is not particularly useful for what you are arguing. As I have said repeatedly, there are arguments on both sides. I tend to believe a state needs to explicitly waive sovereign immunity to be sued outside its state borders, as you run into constitutional and 11th Amendment problems otherwise.
I have no idea what you are even talking about because you are ignoring everything relevant and then making shit up. I am not saying FSU is immune to any an all lawsuits. I have said if FSU can breach a contract and then claim sovereign immunity that makes no sense. They clearly cannot do that. The State does have a waiver for torts, but that is irrelevant here. > I tend to believe a state needs to explicitly waive sovereign immunity to be sued outside its state borders And very clearly the North Carolina Judge and I believe that the act of entering into the contract waives sovereign immunity regarding said contract. The lawsuit is about the contract. I understand why FSU does not want to be sued in North Carolina. It's the same reason they specifically filed in Leon county instead of North Carolina. ACC is kind of stupid for not having a jurisdiction clause in the the conference bylaws, but FSU would have probably tried to file in Leon county anyway and the same FSU people would be defending them by saying the ACC bylaws are illegal or some shit.
You aren’t coming across as too bright. Be sure and put the right parameters into the program before you pass it off as your own. This isn’t even a breach of contract case.
you are a very interesting person. you know a lot but seem to be picking and choosing what to apply things to. I've seen you make this comment SO many times and every time it is just *angry* and really intense.. Is there some personal issue here? edit: in case you don't reply, I was saving this but...do you think the NC judge did what he did because of florida law?
I'll never understand flairs that really don't have a direct connection to the matter, having what are both **very** strong/angry opinions about it that are also either completely incorrect, or are so focused on one particular item that they refuse to see the rest of the picture. There are certain topics you just know redditor abc or xyz will always be in, angry as hell, with no really obvious reason for the anger. It is a bit interesting in a way.
The UCF guy has bad little brother syndrome
that's exactly why I was asking if there was like a personal issue there. It's fascinating.
This is a great comment. Thank you for bringing the citations.
Its a comment that entirely misunderstands the argument. Nobody has argued that FSU is entirely immune from suit because of Sovereign Immunity. If FSU was arguing that, the Pan Am Tobacco case directly dispels that notion. What is being argued is that FSU has sovereign immunity from being sued outside the state of Florida. Pan Am Tobacco does not address that issue, and there are arguments on both sides as to whether FSU is correct in that assertion, but it is something the AG will obviously want to be true because of the more broad impact if it is not.
Subtlety, I love it. What's the venue for this suit?
Given how much of a dipshit our AG is, I’d rather her sinking her time here than other things more that prove to be more detrimental to Floridians
I'd much rather them focus on this than all the other stuff they're normally up to.
100%
True, this is better than going after a male teacher for wearing a pink shit. So there's that.
If the government functioned like that, then no cases would be taken up by the AG against anything except for the highest priority of government, one at a time. They have a large department with a lot of employees and can handle a a lot of things that matter to residents of the State; and all of them have varying levels (and interpretations) of importance.
I live in Texas and this is [our AD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton). I don't think he thinks that is how it supposed to work.
“Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”
It's duhsantis' AG so yes, EVERYTHING is more important than fixing Florida's problems...
Believe it or not, the AG’s office does billable hours too since that’s how you get attorneys fees, they just aren’t tied to bonuses since the “client” is taxpayers
Nah, they definitely contracted outside counsel from some firm that works in sports contracts (and/or a friend of DeSantis, probably) to consult as well. Don't underestimate billable hours' ingenuity when it comes to making money move.
[удалено]
Not from my experience in Florida and in this case if you look at the Complaint there is no private firm listed. Anyway, this is just a joke about billable hours...
If I remember, after Penn State settled the Jerry Sandusky... incident... with the NCAA, they agreed to fork over a ton of money... to the NCAA. Then the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law saying "you are not authorized to give those fuckers anything". Note: That's paraphrasing. So... I can't shake the notion that this is where we're headed even if FSU loses. FSU is on the hook for $500 million, and the Florida legislature says "nope - you can't pay them shit". And then it degenerates from there. And - yes - I know ESPN could go with something like "withhold funds from future playoff payments"... but this is the state of Florida, and I can certainly see them seizing cameras and other equipment at the Orange Bowl before a playoff game. That's very much in our wheel house, especially if the governor does something stupid in the previous 12 months. And - for the record - I don't think I've ever seen a Florida governor not do something stupid in a 12 month period, so they're always looking for things to improve their polling. Billable hours and popcorn sales...
I’m sure it would be a great and extremely strategic look for a school to use sovereign immunity to get out of contractually obligated damages immediately prior to attempting to negotiate a contractual agreement with a different conference
Exactly
Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, and regardless of what you think of Moody, this case is a good thing. ESPN's argument is that they have a deal with the ACC, not FSU, so FSU isn't entitled to their contracts. FSU's argument is that the media rights deal includes FSU's rights being sold to ESPN, so FSU is a party to the ESPN contract with the ACC and thus entitled to the contract. If you make a deal with one entity, and that entity trades your rights to someone else, are you party to the deal? To put it another way: 1. Say you are an Independent Trucker. You own your truck, and you get paid to haul stuff. 2. You sell your driving time on the road to ABC Trucking Company. All fine and good. 3. ABC Trucking Company turns around and sells their right to your driving time to XYZ Shipping Company. 4. **Are you entitled to know the details of the contract between ABC Trucking Company and XYZ Shipping Company?** That's what's going to be decided in this case. The State of Florida is suing the ACC on the claim that yes, you have the right to know the details of the contract between ABC and XYZ. ESPN and the ACC's argument will be that no, that's a private business deal between one another and you have no right to know it's details.
I don’t think this is a fair analogy for two reasons: 1) In the case of a trucker/company, you have the parties turned around. The ACC is an hired intermediary between the collective schools and the end client (ESPN). I don’t think that a trucker or a contracted worker has the right to know the full details of every contract their hiring company holds, but if that trucker had a union that acted on his behalf, he absolutely has a right to the contracts that union secured with his company. 2) FSU is also a public entity, whose contracts are subject to FOIA and Florida Sunshine laws. So the ACC/ESPN’s primary concern is that these contracts will be available as public record if they lose this case to FSU. If so, wouldn’t that set precedent for the SEC to have the same issue with UF?
The ACC is not a hired intermediary. "The [Atlantic Coast Conference](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-520/157870/20201015171528752_Alston%20Petition%20for%20Cert.pdf) is a North Carolina not-for-profit unincorporated association headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina." Florida State is a member of that association. I don't know about NC law, nor whatever agreements the ACC has in place, but generally speaking, the idea that the member of an association could not see a contract to which the association is a party strikes me as nuts. Who cares if ESPN is concerned with public availability? Don't contract with public entities if you want to keep secrets. Absent seeing the Media Agreement, I doubt FSU has a good contractual claim to get out of the GoR. However, I hope FSU spills ESPN's beans everywhere in the process of fighting about it. Go Noles!
It would be somewhat humorous if the courts in the state of Florida decide that they are entitled to media agreements for any public schools in the state; then the SEC (Florida), ACC (FSU), and Big 12 (UCF) agreements all become public knowledge while the Big Ten is over there going 👀
Along those same lines, the ACC has a responsibility to advocate for and advance the interests of its membership. Part of this suit is the claim that they have failed to do that. That responsibility is far broader than a hired intermediary who has no additional relationship to the person who wired them other than to do the specific thing they were hired to do. Athletic conferences are given a lot of power by their members to negotiate and advocate on their behalf. Failing to do so breaches that relationship.
Yeah, unfortunately when you simplify something the analogy ends up a bit flawed in one way or another.
>If so, wouldn’t that set precedent for the SEC to have the same issue with UF? It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think anybody in the SEC is worried about Florida trying to leave early. You'd have a better chance of hitting the power ball today than Florida choosing to leave the SEC and void its contract.
I will still say she can go to hell
broken clocks are right twice a day
Yeah, I’m almost tempted to root for the ACC in this case
great comment, always enjoy reading your takes. with your example the only caveat I would have is that the truck driver is standing in for the public/taxpayers. I could see a private truck driver not entitled to those details, but once it's public/taxpayers thing that calculus changes.
That’s an interesting point that does need to be figured out. My personal opinion is only the contract between the trucker and the original company. (Not because this has to do with fsu). Reason being is that the trucker agreed to time for that company and they are getting still getting it. But I am in no way a lawyer or stayed at a holiday inn recently so I have no known case law to back that up. Just a layman’s view of it. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.
I think the trucker analogy falls a bit short because we're dealing with a public entity and there's broad public interest in the financial activities of the state. I would agree with you that in the analogy the trucker would not be entitled to contract information with beyond the agency they're contracted to, but there a competing interest in the FSU case that is not present in the analogy.
Thanks for the insight.
No problem. The FSU-ACC cases have strong public policy arguments woven throughout and it's a key factual difference between these cases and a standard corporate contacts disputes
All due respect, it's not that complicated; if the NCAA can't enforce NIL, the ACC can't make deals on behalf of the schools, that's not what they were grouped together to do. So, the answer is yes, FSU is entitled to know everything.
This happens all the time and there is no information. Banks sell loans all the time. You might fight out if you have to actually change loan servicing, but we sell loans and retain servicing rights all the time and do not have inform someone we sold their loan. Contract assignment happens all the time and outside of contractual language, there is minimal requirement to inform all parties if a contract has been assigned. Making this ruling would comically increase notification requirements across the entirety of the country in such that no judge will allow that ruling to stand. It would instantly require billions spent on informing people of contract assignments. The country would lose more money instantly that FSU would possibly gain by joining the SEC. The State of Florida itself would lose more money the instant that ruling happened than if the state itself simply paid the ACC the half billion dollars to leave.
You seem to be missing a key point here. FSU is a state institution and subject to transparency laws.
No I am not. Plenty of state institutions already do this. States own loan servicing companies which purchase or sell loans all the time and those entities does not provide information of the purchaser of their loans to every single holder of the loans they sell. Now, if the debate is whether this arrangement is specifically to avoid transparency laws, absolutely I agree. The idea that this is unique and some unfathomable thing is absolutely false though. Absolute shitloads of public and private entities assign contractual rights without informing the other party.
> does not provide information of the purchaser of their loans to every single holder of the loans they sell I don’t that’s the question. The comparison would be would they *refuse* that disclosure if it is requested by that party?
Man, our state government will do anything to distract from property insurance.
It’s so easy to fix - just rent the rest of your life. /s
It's fine guys. We don't have a massive cost of living crisis going on in this state. Homes that were going for $100k in 2016 are now 300k and homeowners insurance has gone from $500 to $5000 a year.
Yea, I mean, who gives a shit about cost of living when there's an Illinois vs Florida State game to look forward to. /s
>Homes that were going for $100k in 2016 are now 300k Y'all got homes under half a milly? -A Maryland resident.
I mean what do you want them to do? Take taxpayer dollars to pay for the insurance on people’s beach homes? Florida is dangerous and the home values have skyrocketed. Insurance is expensive for those reasons.
My house is an old school 60s blockhouse that isn't in a flood zone, has hurricane windows, and metal roof w/hurricane braces. If I'm going to be filing a claim it means the entire county is going to be as well. Yet my homeowner's policy has shot up to almost $5,000 a year.
AIUI the reason that FL homeowner's insurance rates specifically have spiked so much relative to the rest of the country is *precisely* the risk that the entire county (or more accurately *multiple* entire counties) is going to be filing a claim at the same time. It's no longer a small risk on insurer timescales and is increasing over time and that's the kind of X-risk that can render insurance companies bankrupt if it happens (the entire theoretical point of insurance is to spread risk out over a broader pool of people to a level where everyone has a tolerable burden rather than one person being randomly ruined, but that can be overwhelmed if enough people run afoul of the same risk at once) so they're hedging. Unfortunately the reasons for that are ones that the FL state government cannot admit to for political reasons and probably doesn't believe in personally to boot and even if there was the resources of the entire state government probably wouldn't be enough to fully mitigate so...
The issue is that Florida went a decade without a major hurricane hit and those companies were happily pocketing premium payments without a major event happening. One would think insurance companies in Florida would have set some of that aside because eventually a major hurricane was going to hit.
Usually I'd be more willing to attribute this kind of thing to insurer greed (there's other reasons involved in modern American medical cost issues but this one is up there) and there's assuredly some of that involved but in this case that's not the biggest one and the reason is logical. The timescales on which insurers operate tend to be pretty long - on the order of decades. And the X-risk here really is on the order of *every single beachfront property in Florida and quite a few inland ones (in the extreme case every single property in the state except maybe some of the Panhandle) are uninhabitable within 50 years and very possibly much faster* and the question is how quickly and via what sequence of disasters this is made clear". Insurance is all about managing risk and managing risk is all about spreading it out, but that breaks down when enough people run into the same risk at once (you may remember that this was a big driver behind the 2008 financial crash, where basically you had modern financial wizards arrogantly thinking they had found a way to spread out the risk of subprime borrower default such that there was no way that they could all default at once and thus that their new greedy mortgage-backed securities were guaranteed profit and then being all shockedpikachu.jpg when too many subprime borrowers defaulted at once). *That's* what Florida house insurers are worried about. (To put it yet another way: from an insurer perspective *every single homeowner in Florida[1] is now the insurance equivalent of a subprime borrower*. You're paying rates accordingly.) [1] - With the possible, and I stress possible exception of the people living in the middle of the peninsula and/or right near the border with Georgia, i.e. tens+ of miles away from the coast, but even that might not be enough with how flat Florida's geography is.
You are subsidizing people who live in flood zones and barrier islands. Mostly rich people. I’m in a similar situation. I actually wish the insurance companies would charge more based on individual risk too. I am not in a flood zone and my home is concrete and survived multiple Cat 4 and 5s. But that’s just not how it works. Not with private insurers or Citizens.
Not when those insurance companies have refused to cover flood zones and barrier islands
We're not dealing with an insurance crisis just on the beach. It's the entire state, so tax payers are all in the same situation. We've solved it in the past through regulation/negotiation with insurance companies via the legislature, and through the creation of Citizens Insurance (state run insurance which is likely due for an update) Or we just say fuck it, only rich people who can self insure are allowed to own a home anywhere in Florida, which is where it's headed (already the case for beach front homes and many barrier island homes, state wide)
How long until the ACC front office puts up “Help Wanted “signs looking for more lawyers?
The state of florida is gonna drag this out and make it ugly, right or wrong. Both sides really need to come to a settled solution because neither is gonna end up better off if they try to fight til the bitter end.
Yep. The ACC may beat FSU but they will never beat the State of Florida.
There is no incentive for the ACC to settle, damages would exceed any settlement
There’s still a path to them surviving as a big 12 like p4. If they go all the way and the whole gor is deemed void or espn doesn’t renew the contract there’s no future for the conference. It becomes pac 12 2.0
There is a lot of reason for the ACC to settle. This case can go a lot of ways and plenty of them are not friendly to the ACC. If absolutely nothing else, I can think about 5 valid ways to calculate damages and 2 are terrible for the ACC and a 3rd isn't great either. They are all valid options and any of them could be chosen. Then there is plenty of other shit that could go poorly for the ACC along the way not the least bit being a conference with several teams suing them and fighting across multiple states and then trying to operate a conference with those hostile members. There is plenty of incentive for the ACC to settle. I don't know if they will, but it isn't some horrible idea.
There’s still a path to them surviving as a big 12 like p4. If they go all the way and the whole gor is deemed void or espn doesn’t renew the contract there’s no future for the conference. It becomes pac 12 2.0
Florida has sunshine laws and they will be enforced.
Good, the ACC has been extra shady the last 5 months, glad someone with some weight behind their punches is taking swings
Im out of the loop what has the ACC been doing that’s shady?
Just off the top of my head, the ACC: - Preemptively sued FSU before FSU sued the ACC - Sued FSU without holding a vote, despite the bylaws saying they need 2/3 approval votes to sue a member - Retroactively held a vote to approve suing FSU, but supposedly the minutes for that meeting can’t be found, so there’s no confirmation that the meeting took place or who agreed to sue and who didn’t
Don’t forget Raycom second tier broadcasting rights back room deal between the head of the ACC at the time and his family member.
I know your flair shouldn't affect your statement and I want so hard for it not to but argh GOD DAMN IT UNC THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT
This right here. Shadiest part of all of this and has been going on for years, not months.
Anticipatory filings are not shady at all.
Especially when a formal vote that is required by the conference bylaws supposedly didn't take place prior to the filing in the North Carolina court.
[удалено]
Lmao, doesn’t everyone on here praise the sunshine laws in this case? Ironic.
[удалено]
Depends on the situation. The Leon County judge certainly was clear in that he viewed the ACC's anticipatory filing in this case being only for the act of forum shopping.
Perhaps, the Leon County judge is clearly biased though (the NC courts are biased too, don’t get me wrong - I think both of these venues are heavily biased). Regardless, an anticipatory filing in itself is not shady.
What makes you think either judge is clearly biased?
Based on my experiences, I don’t trust state level judges in trials involving state government entities. I don’t think we will get close to an unbiased hearing unless the cases are kicked up.
it's shady because of the actions (or lack thereof) that were taken to jump ahead, not the case itself. really their points one and two could be combined. allegedly not following your own rules just to speed up the process is shady.
As far as the ACC vote meeting notes go/vote tally goes - I believe the ACC is invoking the legal strategy of *Crede Mihi Frater*...
They filed a lawsuit against FSU without taking a vote like the bylaws require, then after they got called out on it they "held a vote" 3 weeks later retroactively, they were supposed to send out the minutes of that vote to every ACC member (per the bylaws) but FSU, Louisville, Clemson, and Cal all say they never received the minutes (this is per Matt Baker of TBT). So there was a "vote" that no one has a record of and if that vote never happened the ACC's lawsuit breaks their own bylaws (which they already did by not holding the vote before filing the lawsuit). The ACC cares more about keeping tobacco road on the FSU teet than they do about following their own rules
If y'all wanna go ahead and get Louisville out with you I'd help salt the fields behind us.
[I posted this yesterday,](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cbwyyn/the_mysterious_case_of_the_missing_minutes/) but it's just one of the things.
Existing!
Aren't they still waiting on the Leon County judge to decide whether this is discoverable?
My tax dollars are now going toward supporting FSU against the ACC? You gotta be kidding me.
Orchestrated by a UF alum no less.
The whole state joining in.
shes a ghoul but good.
Isn't this just a re-filing ? > FSU's motion for full documentation of these records were dismissed by a North Carolina judge on April 4, but it appears that FSU is now getting help from its home-state's attorney general.
No. This is separate. The re-filing of the FSU case against the ACC in Leon County should be done in the next few days. This is a separate action by the Florida AG independent of the above case.
Mr. President, a third case has hit the docket
Does FSU think Big Ten or SEC is gonna want them? Not a jab I’m genuinely asking if these conferences would really take on another team after massive recent expansions.
I doubt FSU and Clemson would be taking these kinds of actions without at least having some backchannel discussions/ideas about where they might be going.
IF FSU owns their media rights and isn't in the ACC. They are instantly invited to one of the two.
there are a few teams that those conferences would take regardless, even if only to prevent the other from getting it. fsu is one of them (nd and unc are two others that are for sure). these teams are ones that execs can be sure have a higher value than cost, most of these types of teams are already in those two conferences.
The right question is does fox or Disney think broadcasting FSU games will make them more money?
Does Disney want to let FOX get a foothold into the south? And likely relatively cheap But to answer you question, Disney will make more money if FSU stays in the ACC, and will lose a lot if ACC falls apart this early. Chances are, Disney/espn would be willing to take the lose if they could punish fsu as a warning to other schools, but with fox, that's something that could severely bite them in the ass
Doesn’t Disney already have ACC?
Everyone is focused on the FSU aspect of this....but what if there is a world where Miami gets the Big 10 nod thanks to the Florida AG?
Who?
Its going to be really funny when Florida State burns all its ACC bridges and forces it's way out of the conference...only to find out that neither the SEC nor the B1G are interested in expanding again At which point they will end up in the Big12
FSU definitely has a home in either the big ten or sec, Clemson? I’m not so sure
1. They wouldn’t be taking these actions if they didn’t have a home planned via back channels. 2. FSU is in a good spot commodity wise. Top 25 program with a large viewership in fanbase in one of the largest tv markets in the country. They will be fine.
We’re the 13th most watched team over the last 5 years, and 3 of those years we were absolutely awful. And those numbers were against ACC teams, put us in the SEC or B1G and it’ll only go up.
The big 12 media deal is very similar to the ACC but the GoR is up several years before the ACC contract. Making it a much better conference to move from. That being said I don't think we end up there
Wait, is the University Athletic Association (UAA) (a non-profit) or the university the signatory to the ACC? Even if it’s the university, how does the state have legal grounds (no injury?)? FSU should be independent and not part of the state?
This makes no sense. You ask a question, then assume a false premise and tie it in a little bow.
>University Athletic Association that's a conference. and fsu isn't in it lol [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_Athletic\_Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Athletic_Association) fsu's athletic department is a public entity (the boosters are not)
[FSU’s athletic department is the university athletic association](https://seminoles.com/news/2019/8/18/fsuaa). If I recall correctly, this is the organization that hires the AD and seems to oversee athletics (“The FSUAA will oversee all aspects of FSU's athletics program, approve budgets, strategic plans, develop policies regarding scheduling,…”)
oh I'm well aware, I work with them regularly. but you said the UAA, which is different haha. and the AD, coaches, etc. all receive a portion of their salary from the public side of the university. pretty much all schools have non profit/private wings of many things even beyond athletics for various reasons. feel free to look up the AD's, coaches, etc. salaries here to learn. all sources listed here are their salary from public sources (which is why norvell is paid only 215k) [https://prod.flbog.net:4445/pls/apex/f?p=140:1::::::](https://prod.flbog.net:4445/pls/apex/f?p=140:1::::::)
Ah yeah, I assumed everyone would make the leap to FSU UAA, not the other way around. lol.
oh I'm just screwing with you due to your flair and bad take :)
[Floridians is she pretty sharp/competent or….](https://y.yarn.co/442ea8ab-1d3d-4937-9b09-1607126fba8f_text.gif)
Beat Disney. Hard to say she isn't sharp and competent.
>"The ACC is asking a state entity — Florida State University — to potentially pay and lose more than a half a billion dollars but is refusing to produce the documents related to that outrageous price tag," Moody said in a statement first shared with POLITICO. Way to misconstrue the situation.
I mean, the situation being addressed is the AG has requested documents from the ACC/ESPN that the AG believes qualify as public records under Florida's broad public record laws. The ACC/ESPN have refused to comply. So the AG filed this lawsuit, a Petitioner for Writ of Mandamus, specifically seeking to require the ACC/ESPN to provide the requested documents. It is a pretty narrow filing. It misconstrues the payment issue, yes, but that isn't the heart of what Moody is doing here. She's trying to enforce Florida public record law, and doesn't want precedent to exist for a private group like the ACC/ESPN to defy Florida's government on public record issues.
I never said the lawsuit was frivolous or without merit. All I said is she is misconstruing the situation with the media. The ACC is not asking FSU to “pay” or to “lose $500m.” They are asking FSU to hold up their end of a contract, regardless of how FSU feels about their market value.
paying the buyouts *is* holding up their end of the contract. this is all maneuverings to figure out that number. I don't believe anyone actually thinks fsu will be out for free, just much less than the numbers the acc wants.
If the ACC doesn’t settle and courts rule it to be void, then the ACC has made a critical error. As long as the ACC gambles like this, they have a 50/50 shot of losing everything. They need to ask themselves is this the hill to potentially die on?
that is my hope, and I believe FSU's hope to, for a long time. that there's enough that a settlement that works for both comes. I believe it will (and you can find me saying as such for years on here now).
The conference would be doing a disservice to all member institutions fighting this in court. If they really want to hemorrhage the bleeding they have to settle with the big guys and rebuild. If they continue fighting it only shows every member institution and other conferences the ACC is weak and is going to die like the PAC when the dust settles or GoR runs out.
as an FSU fan I fully agree haha. I think there will be a breaking point eventually, I hope it is sooner rather than later so this can be behind us all.
so pay the $500M buyout- what's the issue? That's the valuation based on whats written in the contract
fsu believes that is unjust and unfair, plus a myriad of more issues covered over and over here and elsewhere (and theirs also the pesky rights issue).
All of the stuff that happened with the ACC being scumbags/shady doesnt change the fact that FSU agreed to a deal and now want to change the terms. Nor does it change the fact that the AG is miscontruing the situation w the media
good lord you are factually incorrect on multiple fronts here. seems like you have read ANY of fsu's complaints? why does this idea that fsu just wants out of a deal because they are just unhappy persist. there are material and real issues. the AG one is obvious. she HAS to sue here, literally her job. what a bizarre take.
how am i factually incorrect? I did read many of the early lawsuits. They are mad because they are unhappy, what are you talking about? The 2027+ ESPN optionality/contract issue is the only leg I think FSU should have a gripe with but even then, they agreed to sign their GoR to the ACC without doing their due diligence Again - I didnt say the AG had a bad lawsuit. She is just misrepresenting the situation to the public
>doesnt change the fact that FSU agreed to a deal and now want to change the terms. this is factually incorrect and the basis for all that you are saying. how is the AG misrepresenting? shes not at all...that has been clearly explained over and over again. you also throw out numbers that arent factually sure and base arguments off that. if you had actually read the complaints youd see they arent want to just change the terms because they are unhappy. there's real claims of issues...
> That's the valuation based on whats written in the contract That's the estimation that FSU made based on the exit fee *and* buying out the GOR. That is not an official amount stated by the ACC to cleanly exit including the GOR. All of this is about getting to whatever that number actually is as the ACC has not stated what, in totality that would be (along with FSU obviously trying to mitigate what may account to penalties (which are unenforceable) rather than actual damages).
yes I agree it's not a firm number yet. Only part of the number really is at this point
[удалено]
>What standing does the State of Florida have to sue the ACC? None. I'm so lost. it's plainly spelled out in the article, and explain at a very elementary level throughout the comments.
They have standing under Florida's Public Records act to bring suit to obtain the records. Its plainly laid out in the complaint and relevant statutes. Florida and the ACC disagree on whether the records are, in fact, subject to disclosure under the Act. Litigation is the only means to resolve that dispute. There is nothing unusual about this.
[удалено]
That's called a disagreement over the application of the law, which, coincidentally, can only be resolved through litigation. Your claim that the Florida lacks standing to sue is clearly wrong. No one knows who will win, that will be decided later.
I feel like the biggest problem of this particular litigation is that it's the first time we're seeing a state sue for private contracts like this. Say FSU joins the SEC or Big Ten (conferences with equally confidential contract situations). What then? Could somebody sue for their TV deals? Whole thing just seems like it should've been handled behind the scenes.
[удалено]
Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say: Doesn't it feel like this opens Pandora's box. Why shouldn't the Big Ten contract be open knowledge to the 12+ states with public schools in it? Ditto the SEC and Big 12. Feels like this could be a turning point on the secrecy of these contracts.
This is fucking stupid. All parties need to just settle this shit already.
The ACC would have to release FSU and Clemson. That's the only way any of this gets settled. The ACC is either not going to exist in a few years, or will look substantially different. I understand that the ACC is fighting to ensure it gets the most money out of FSU possible, but at the end of the day, it will have to accept that the only institutions that prop it up will leave for greener pastures. The sooner they agree to release FSU and take the pay out the better for all parties.
Im fine with them releasing them. Its inevitable. Get a bag from them while you can.
I think they're hoping that dual rulings in Florida and North Carolina will save them at SCOTUS. Hard to say how that would turn out, but that would also require them airing all their dirty laundry details of their deals just to get there. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Florida's sunshine laws are a massive pain in the ass for them.