Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    15,119
    I'm more concerned that FSU did not approve the increase, and they characterized the increased buyout as 'punitive'. They are setting themselves up for a defense against paying punitive damages should FSU decide to leave. Every year they remain under those terms probably weakens that defense, however.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    November 29, 2009
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    I'm more concerned that FSU did not approve the increase, and they characterized the increased buyout as 'punitive'. They are setting themselves up for a defense against paying punitive damages should FSU decide to leave. Every year they remain under those terms probably weakens that defense, however.
    Agreed. I would think then at the very least they would still have to pay the old $20 million fee they agreed to originally. Then again, Clemson agreed to the $50 mm and the chatter had always been FSU and Clemson as a package. Maybe there is no need for concern then.

    I actually agree that $50 million is outrageous and punitive. I can't imagine any school putting itself under those terms.
    Last edited by Hateful Hokie; Thu Sep 13 2012 at 02:12 PM.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    December 28, 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    9,675
    3 x Operating Budget, not payout.


    Quote Originally Posted by RTFC View Post
    Everything I've read indicates exit fee is 3x payout, or approx. 50M last year...but that includes football payout which ND does not share...they only get share on non-rev sports...would their exit fee be less than others??? based on THEIR payout?

  4. #14
    Hokerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    Manassas, VA
    Posts
    5,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Hateful Hokie View Post
    I actually agree that $50 million is outrageous and punitive. I can't imagine any school putting itself under those terms.
    Didn't 14 schools just yesterday put themselves under those terms?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    December 28, 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    9,675
    That's per F$U BOT Chair. I suspect their contract with the ACC binds them to the Council of Presidents actions.



    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    I'm more concerned that FSU did not approve the increase, and they characterized the increased buyout as 'punitive'. They are setting themselves up for a defense against paying punitive damages should FSU decide to leave. Every year they remain under those terms probably weakens that defense, however.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    November 29, 2009
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokerer View Post
    Didn't 14 schools just yesterday put themselves under those terms?
    Not sure if Syracuse or Pitt voted on that--I don't think they were able to vote on inviting Notre Dame. FSU and Maryland voted against the new exit fee.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    November 29, 2009
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by East Cobb Hokie View Post
    That's per F$U BOT Chair. I suspect their contract with the ACC binds them to the Council of Presidents actions.
    It binds everyone, but it at least gives FSU a legal argument to say that they didn't agree to the exit fee. It's not an argument they would necessarily win, but it might be leverage for a negotiated settlement.

  8. #18
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Hokerer View Post
    Didn't 14 schools just yesterday put themselves under those terms?
    15
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  9. #19
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Hateful Hokie View Post
    It binds everyone, but it at least gives FSU a legal argument to say that they didn't agree to the exit fee. It's not an argument they would necessarily win, but it might be leverage for a negotiated settlement.
    FSU didn't agree to the fee initially, but the fee was a part of the same vote for ND inclusion, and FSU did vote for that. the fee was ultimately unanimous although umd and FSU opposed its inclusion in the ND vote.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  10. #20

    Join Date
    January 03, 2003
    Posts
    10,660
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    FSU didn't agree to the fee initially, but the fee was a part of the same vote for ND inclusion, and FSU did vote for that. the fee was ultimately unanimous although umd and FSU opposed its inclusion in the ND vote.
    Correct, which would be the basis for a legal argument they could put forth with the intent of a achieving a negotiated settled for a lower amount.

    I've said it in another thread and I'll say it hear. I seriously doubt anybody would ever pay 3x. That should be viewed as the ceiling. Anyone wanting to leave is going to be getting legal advice on steps to take to best position themselves for a lower negotiated settlement. The phrase "punitive" coming from certain quarters of FSU as well as their initial vote against the increased exit fee is legal positioning to give them a less onerous out should they want one in the near future.

    Contracts aren't laws. They aren't "binding" in the sense that you must comply with every word in the contract regardless of its implications. Contracts are agreements between parties, but those agreements themselves must not be afoul of any actual laws and are subject to interpretation. The word "punitive" in the context being used by FSU is legal speak for saying the fee isn't "fair" or "legal".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •