Strong Contract

[charsibb]

7 hours ago, BullyPulpit said:

He had to use best efforts to find employment. Part of that, presumably, would be to use best efforts to get a fair contract. Any argument that Texas would make against his new contract would be very difficult. First, there didn't appear to be any better offers out there. Second, they had just fired the guy themselves based upon his performance. It is hard to argue that he is worth more than $1,000,000 annually at this point given Texas's desire to rid him from their program. 

"best efforts" is notoriously hard to define

[DELdaBull]

Back loaded contract. I like that. 

Don't like the assistant coach pool being backloaded. Seems like a foregone conclusion that the Texas staff is coming here. 

[slowdown]

8 hours ago, charsibb said:

"best efforts" is notoriously hard to define

Yep.  I was laughing at all the people who thought Texas had a strong say in the contract talks.  All we had to do was be Strong's best overall offer and then be close to his best offer the first two years. Texas wanted a deal to happen and besides USF, only Temple and a bunch of DC jobs were open.

 

 

[BullyPulpit]

10 hours ago, charsibb said:

"best efforts" is notoriously hard to define

It is hard to say what is,  but easy to say what isn't.  

[RaisingFenix]

2 hours ago, slowdown said:

Yep.  I was laughing at all the people who thought Texas had a strong say in the contract talks.  All we had to do was be Strong's best overall offer and then be close to his best offer the first two years. Texas wanted a deal to happen and besides USF, only Temple and a bunch of DC jobs were open.

 

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Texas had a  strong say in the contract talks, but that they may have requested to have a representative oversee the negotiations to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. If we had offered Strong $100k for two years, and he had no other offers - would he be obligated to take it? The way I read that section of the contract, there were two clauses that required a "best effort": to find a new job, and to minimize Texas's financial obligation. All of that is gray area, and whether Texas would have standing to bring a suit in the event that we significantly underpaid, I don't know. I am pretty sure that none of the three parties wanted to go down that potential road, so it was in everyone's best interest to make sure they were all on the same page before the new contract was signed.

[MMW]

2 hours ago, slowdown said:

Yep.  I was laughing at all the people who thought Texas had a strong say in the contract talks.  All we had to do was be Strong's best overall offer and then be close to his best offer the first two years. Texas wanted a deal to happen and besides USF, only Temple and a bunch of DC jobs were open.

 

 

I guess you were right, and more importantly Harlan knew that too.

We weren't in the room and heard there was a snag.  We did not know what CCS's interest was in coaching this year and at what level DC/HC,  or for a non-P5 school.  For all we knew he was reluctant on all fronts and was just fulfilling his contractual obligation.

The only party that appears to be getting the short end of the deal is UT and I never would have guessed that to be the case. 

[MMW]

2 minutes ago, RaisingFenix said:

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Texas had a  strong say in the contract talks, but that they may have requested to have a representative oversee the negotiations to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. If we had offered Strong $100k for two years, and he had no other offers - would he be obligated to take it? The way I read that section of the contract, there were two clauses that required a "best effort": to find a new job, and to minimize Texas's financial obligation. All of that is gray area, and whether Texas would have standing to bring a suit in the event that we significantly underpaid, I don't know. I am pretty sure that none of the three parties wanted to go down that potential road, so it was in everyone's best interest to make sure they were all on the same page before the new contract was signed.

They fired him and by doing so reduced his market value.  It is hard for them to argue that he is worth more if they are letting him go even though it is costing them $10 million to do so.  Consider that for a moment.

The DC offers were less that what we were offering and the same is true for Temple I am guessing.

[Bull Dozer]

Guys, we're screwed! 

 

[Who'sYourData?]

20 hours ago, BullsFanInTX said:

One this is for sure, if Willie had stayed another year at USF, the Bulls would have won 11-13 games.  

And how do we know that?  You are making as big an assumption as those that believe Strong is an upgrade.

[RaisingFenix]

4 minutes ago, MMW said:

They fired him and by doing so reduced his market value.  It is hard for them to argue that he is worth more if they are letting him go even though it is costing them $10 million to do so.  Consider that for a moment.

The DC offers were less that what we were offering and the same is true for Temple I am guessing.

That's true. All I'm saying is that there were two extreme possibilities: we offer $1 and leave the whole obligation on Texas, or we offer $10M+, and thereby completely eliminate Texas's obligation. Anything in the middle is gray area and carries the possibility of litigation based on interpretation of the contract. If I were involved, I'd rather have buy-in from the third party before proceeding, as a CYA measure.