NAM37 Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 130 Content Count: 1,867 Reputation: 218 Days Won: 2 Joined: 08/07/2003 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Just now, MMW said: Is this an discussion between the lawyers? Contract talk is ALWAYS a discussion between lawyers at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajusf16 Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 110 Content Count: 2,558 Reputation: 86 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Share Posted December 9, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowers4Heisman Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 571 Content Count: 2,816 Reputation: 684 Days Won: 15 Joined: 12/08/2012 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Simple: you pay his wife! You sign him on as a volunteer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajusf16 Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 110 Content Count: 2,558 Reputation: 86 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/30/2009 Share Posted December 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, MMW said: Is this an discussion between the lawyers? I'm not sure what you're asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDYZR Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 486 Content Count: 12,475 Reputation: 2,855 Days Won: 25 Joined: 12/14/2005 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Who decides what's reasonable? Highest? Every effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaisingFenix Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 4 Content Count: 433 Reputation: 64 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/13/2012 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Orlando Bull said: $11M to them is like $2M to us. How hard did we fight Holtz's buyout? Heath's? Sometimes the bad publicity is worth just letting it go. Sure, and if the Texas buyout weren't in play, the most wet could pay for Strong would be, what, 2M per year? So Texas would be protecting a 2M gain - maybe not worth the bad PR possibility. But sometimes you don't need to swing the hammer, you just have to hold it over someone's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azmodi Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 12 Content Count: 3,233 Reputation: 1,169 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/17/2013 Share Posted December 9, 2016 23 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said: Section 7B of previously linked contract. Strong must give Texas 50% of any new contract in order to get his full buyout. That does not specify what teams he can or can't work for which is what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gismo Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 417 Content Count: 9,688 Reputation: 1,237 Days Won: 8 Joined: 09/24/2009 Share Posted December 9, 2016 **** Texas. They used USF as a realignment pawn to leverage more money out of TV partners. If they are now somehow involved in USFs negotiations with Strong, tell them they can go **** themselves. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBullies Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 95 Content Count: 2,461 Reputation: 86 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/14/2006 Share Posted December 9, 2016 1 minute ago, ajusf16 said: The only thing is I haven't seen a good faith clause. Have you found one? Negative... but the cornerstone of all contracts is the intent of the parties when they entered the contract... unfortunately.... that would be an issue litigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fold FB Invest in BB Posted December 9, 2016 Group: Member Topic Count: 76 Content Count: 6,712 Reputation: 1,131 Days Won: 17 Joined: 09/07/2009 Share Posted December 9, 2016 I don't see anything that would require him to seek a contract at full market value. Technically, minimizing Texas's payments by $100 is still minimizing. Our wishful interpretation of this contraction is part of what makes him so appealing as a coach. I say we go for the back-loaded deal and throw in smazza for legal representation when Texas goes after him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now