Interesting stuff.
Read the Motion.
“Clemson does not dispute the validity or enforceability of the GoR.”
They point out they assigned only rights needed for the conference to meet obligations under the media deal. I agree. This is something the ACC treats differently than it says. The ACC acts like it’s an unrestricted GoR.
And the rights include the right to produce and distribute events subject to the ESPN deal. I agree 100% with their assertion the ESPN deal is THE specific one referenced in the GoR. Then all the facts are redacted.I want to see that because Clemson seems to think it is really clear. “Based on the plain, unambiguous language of the Grant of Rights and the ESPN Agreements, Clemson is entitled to partial summary judgment granting declaratory relief on the first cause of action specifically, declaratory judgment affirming that the Grant of Rights does not include the right to produce and distribute games played by Clemson if and when it ceases to be a member of the ACC.”
SJ on this issue is a game ender. The argument really comes down to this claim – The rights to games played by Clemson after it leaves the ACC are not “necessary” to the ACC’s performance under the ESPN agreement because REDACTED. For now, we don't have any good way to evaluate the basis for the assertion. I suspect this comes down to some read of the comp clause and pro rata provisions.I like the motion a lot. However, I also realize that the entire contract claim basis is blacked out so we have no idea what the terms actually say. It does seem if it was so obvious we would not be here, but you never know.
I sure hope this goes forward, but it feels odd procedurally.
Read the Motion.
“Clemson does not dispute the validity or enforceability of the GoR.”
They point out they assigned only rights needed for the conference to meet obligations under the media deal. I agree. This is something the ACC treats differently than it says. The ACC acts like it’s an unrestricted GoR.
And the rights include the right to produce and distribute events subject to the ESPN deal. I agree 100% with their assertion the ESPN deal is THE specific one referenced in the GoR. Then all the facts are redacted.I want to see that because Clemson seems to think it is really clear. “Based on the plain, unambiguous language of the Grant of Rights and the ESPN Agreements, Clemson is entitled to partial summary judgment granting declaratory relief on the first cause of action specifically, declaratory judgment affirming that the Grant of Rights does not include the right to produce and distribute games played by Clemson if and when it ceases to be a member of the ACC.”
SJ on this issue is a game ender. The argument really comes down to this claim – The rights to games played by Clemson after it leaves the ACC are not “necessary” to the ACC’s performance under the ESPN agreement because REDACTED. For now, we don't have any good way to evaluate the basis for the assertion. I suspect this comes down to some read of the comp clause and pro rata provisions.I like the motion a lot. However, I also realize that the entire contract claim basis is blacked out so we have no idea what the terms actually say. It does seem if it was so obvious we would not be here, but you never know.
I sure hope this goes forward, but it feels odd procedurally.
