ajusf16

9 minutes ago, Mizzou said:

A question for you great legal scholars (of course this qualifier would exclude smazza);

What if Strong took a salary of say $100K per year and deferred a payment of $2.4 million 5 years from now?

Would that that be a thin veil that would easily be pieced?

Maybe. 

2 minutes ago, namuh-bull said:

He needs to get some legal opinions regarding how much any new contract would affect his Texas pay out.

If we offer a small amount like 500,000 UT might have grounds to say that was in bad faith and violated the termination agreement.

  Charlie Strong has a lot of money at stake and the last thing he wants to do is make a hasty decision and jeopardize that.  

If  I had a guaranteed $11 million or so in the next two years  I know that I would take my time. 

Go Bulls!

 

 

Problem with this is there is not a good faith clause. The only clause I see is the 7b one discussed ad nauseaum earlier 

3 minutes ago, 206BULL said:

Can't we just get one of Charlie's Angels to take over?

Maybe the sun dolls?

Just now, TheUpperHand said:

We're moving on to from Charlie Strong. We're now in talks with Charlie Murphy.

*Sheen

3 minutes ago, bullsmeanbusiness said:

Has his plane left yet?

No

Just now, George_Bullnard_Shaw said:

Strong, his agent and his lawyer should have had that figured out before he got on the plane.

It's not always that simple. Initially could have been a small concern that was "no problem, we can iron that out in person" and proven to be a much larger concern in the long run. 

Just now, El_Toro_86 said:

Are these negotiations over or is there still a chance a deal can get done?

Opportunity is there but doesn't look like all our intentions will be with pursuing Strong

Remains the same. Unable to come to terms on the buyout concerns. 

6 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

I am astounded.  CWT is a Western Kentucky alum that never went to USF.

WE HIRED HIM AWAY FROM WKU!!!

And people really expected him to be loyal to USF? 

Really?

People let emotions cloud their business sense. 

3 minutes ago, jasonb56 said:

Personally i think Briles is guilty or at least negligent of oversight, but I don't get to make the hiring decisions... I wouldn't do it personally, but i have spoke to others who were open to the idea.

He filed suit to argue he didn't. It's clear he lost out on positions because of what they said about him. So there will need to be some proof he knew. And if he did know, why file the case?

3 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

Does that have something to do with Brazil? 

I laughed

4 minutes ago, TheBullies said:

I don't think smazza is licensed in Florida, but there are a few attorneys on this board that are...

2 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

the hearings would be in texas I suspect.

Yes. Says so in the contract. In state court but UT could change to Federal and Strong agreed to this

5 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

Who decides what's reasonable? Highest? Every effort?

Very vague clause. 

Just now, JTrue said:

What if my current employer was paying me to screw around on TBP all day...

Then you would be like the majority of today's posters. 

3 minutes ago, MMW said:

Is this an discussion between the lawyers?  

I'm not sure what you're asking 

Just now, TheBullies said:

Let's be honest, the intent of the parties when they signed the UT deal was probably that he wouldn't try to circumvent a reimbursement to UT by taking a backloaded employment deal... as much as I hate to say it.

The only thing is I haven't seen a good faith clause. Have you found one? 

7 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

Legal... yes

Ethical... debatable

What if I were negotiating a contract with a client and decided to go to another firm before the deal was inked. Is it ethical for me to try and bring them over to my new company? Even if that new company had no interest in their business previously?

Depends on your employment agreement 

13 minutes ago, George Jenkins said:

Section 7B seems pretty straight forward to me.

https://hkm.com/football/wp-content/uploads/coach-contracts/charliestrong-uta-employment-contract.pdf

I actually would strongly disagree that it's straight forward. Open to interpretation in my opinion. Was not clearly conveyed and would be a point that is muddying up the conversations. 

1 minute ago, thatboykane said:

My source is telling me that those are the terms he just agreed to for being the HC at USF.

Sounds similar 

16 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

To an extent yes, but, he can also sit at home doing nothing and they have to pay him. Even under a back-loaded contract, they get out of some of that liability. Again, he could just say... you know what... I will take 2 years off and Texas has to pay him every dime. Anyone hiring Strong is a favor to them.

 

 

Has to make an effort to find employment 

3 minutes ago, TheUpperHand said:

Depends whether or not Charlie wants to see the dessert menu.

It's catered. Foods there. Just need to eat

I just don't know that Woodie walks into another program and is DC immediately. He is from the area and short of WT taking him. If given the opportunity to stay here and learn, if they work Strong out, I feel career wise it's his best option 

2 minutes ago, BullsFan2819 said:

Curious what their influence could be on this. The buyout clause is set, so all they could do is say "hey don't do that.", right? 

Ok. What I am hearing is the buyout issue is two fold. Part of it is an issue with what happens because of TX but also what terms are acceptable on the new contract. So the answer is yes it does in part have to do with what he asked.