Super Secret Secondary Contract

[USFBULL_08]

13 hours ago, FazaUSF said:

Mine too. Theta. I may or may not have the sign that was on the front of the building from right before they bulldozed it....

kappa - glad they tore that **** hole down.

[puc86]

On 11/19/2022 at 12:21 PM, Bull94 said:

of course he could have said no.

He also could have asked for increased bonuses for his assistants (they were already getting an increase in pay) or a yearly employment bonus for himself

Hell he could have asked for Kelly's parking space.

you just assume the only thing that could have had him sign was an increased buyout.

the extension to me looks like a public show of confidence. nothing more. it was done for every coach in the athletic department at the same time I believe.

 

My personal belief is that the change in years increased they buyout by having more time owed on it and that was the perceived benefit. So I think people get to say nothing changed but that is not to say that the change in dates did not result in more money being paid out.

On 11/19/2022 at 11:43 AM, Bull94 said:

so the salary decrease was $100k for 3 years that went to assistant coaches pool. 

You see contracts get reworked all the time at the professional level that don't benefit the employee.

Players in the NFL take pay cuts instead of losing their job. Even without more guaranteed money.

Maybe they put a clause in there that said if you are employed by USF as of January 1 2023 then you get a $500k bonus. Maybe there was a bonus for every year

Scott had no leverage at all. You assume he was able to negotiate a higher buyout.

Maybe Kelly came to him and said I'm going to fire you today and you get the buyout money minus anything your future employer pays you or we do an extension with no increased buyout but employment bonuses every year

 

 

I have never seen anyone in life negotiate down their guaranteed money without a more immediate cash payment, not once. If a player has nothing guaranteed and can be cut effectively for free that day that is not the same thing as someone having many more years left and a portion of it that will be greater than a year still guaranteed. Scotts leverage is the other contract and the lack of a need to perform an action for no reason to himself.

On 11/19/2022 at 11:45 AM, Brad said:

Great speculation on your behalf, but I doubt if Scott makes a concession he has to pay his lawyer for it.  He can simply fire his lawyer.  We don’t hire lawyers to be manhandled by them.  
 

Can you do me a favor and continue this on a topic-correct existing or new thread? Thanks.  

Thanks for moving it for me, I know it is entirely my fault that it was in the wrong place. I thought it was just going to be a small aside that would not merit this much conversation

On 11/19/2022 at 11:47 AM, Bull94 said:

I wonder if the players in the NFL that have to take pay cuts on reworked contracts have to pay their agents the difference?

No because they are not giving up money in that example as NFL contracts are not guaranteed and they pretty much universally do so in exchange for signing bonuses that are guaranteed

On 11/19/2022 at 11:50 AM, Rocky Style said:

Self interests can be not only limited to money too.

Nope if Wu-Tang taught me anything it is Cash Rules Everything Around Me. 

On 11/20/2022 at 4:50 PM, FazaUSF said:

I feel like something terrible must have happened in your USF past to cause you to foment so much vitriol. Did you get a 3.99 GPA at USF? Did you get a 2nd place finish for Homecoming King? Did they bulldoze your dorm after you left so you can't visit anymore? Did you lose a campaign for student body president by 1 vote? Whatever it is, mate, we'll get through it together. I've got a bottle of Jack with your name on it.

No I love USF, the Students, the Alumni and the fans which is not to say I have to love every mercenary we hire or every ill fated decision that they make at the cost of what I see as actually being USF.  

[Bull94]

55 minutes ago, puc86 said:

My personal belief is that the change in years increased they buyout by having more time owed on it and that was the perceived benefit. So I think people get to say nothing changed but that is not to say that the change in dates did not result in more money being paid out.

I have never seen anyone in life negotiate down their guaranteed money without a more immediate cash payment, not once. If a player has nothing guaranteed and can be cut effectively for free that day that is not the same thing as someone having many more years left and a portion of it that will be greater than a year still guaranteed. Scotts leverage is the other contract and the lack of a need to perform an action for no reason to himself.

Thanks for moving it for me, I know it is entirely my fault that it was in the wrong place. I thought it was just going to be a small aside that would not merit this much conversation

No because they are not giving up money in that example as NFL contracts are not guaranteed and they pretty much universally do so in exchange for signing bonuses that are guaranteed

Nope if Wu-Tang taught me anything it is Cash Rules Everything Around Me. 

No I love USF, the Students, the Alumni and the fans which is not to say I have to love every mercenary we hire or every ill fated decision that they make at the cost of what I see as actually being USF.  

Apparently you've never heard of Tom Brady. He did it all the time. So have many others

 

Scott took a $100k pay cut. It went straight to his coaches and staff. I'm sure you've never heard of anyone doing anything altruistic either.

Scott could have asked for a lifetime of peanut m&ms to sign the deal. It's his prerogative. He probably didn't have to take the 15% pay cut during covid but he did.

Sounds like the two people closest to the program don't believe he got a higher buyout.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Bull94

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Bull94 said:

Apparently you've never heard of Tom Brady. He did it all the time. So have many others

 

Scott took a $100k pay cut. It went straight to his coaches and staff. I'm sure you've never heard of anyone doing anything altruistic either.

Scott could have asked for a lifetime of peanut m&ms to sign the deal. It's his prerogative. He probably didn't have to take the 15% pay cut during covid but he did.

Sounds like the two people closest to the program don't believe he got a higher buyout.

This is actually a good example but countless articles are written about how no one ever does that and how he didn’t actually do it until later on in his career and at most times he was making up 15-20 percent of their payroll. This decision to laugh in the face of the G-D’S and not follow their rules on money are why the had no choice but to smite him with the FTX collapse as no good deed can go unpunished.

[Bull94]

38 minutes ago, puc86 said:

This is actually a good example but countless articles are written about how no one ever does that and how he didn’t actually do it until later on in his career and at most times he was making up 15-20 percent of their payroll. This decision to laugh in the face of the G-D’S and not follow their rules on money are why the had no choice but to smite him with the FTX collapse as no good deed can go unpunished.

FTX is nothing but a minor headache for him. He probably didn't put a dime of his own money into it.

What about  Jim Leavitt?

Deion Sanders gets paid no where near market value. $300k per year and he donates half of it back to the school for facilities.

Not everyone is like Skip Holtz who floats bogus job interest (Arkansas) in order to get more money

 

"It's not all about the money for me," South Florida Coach Jim Leavitt said. "And if I ever do leave, it won't be because of money."

Careful. With that kind of attitude, Leavitt may get kicked out of the coaches union. He interviewed at Alabama. The job wasn't offered, though that's beside the point.

Leavitt might have gotten it if he'd really tried. He has had other offers and plenty of feelers the past couple of years. All of them would have doubled or tripled his salary. But Leavitt stayed in his USF Taj Mahal, which for six years has consisted of three trailers sitting by a practice field. Be it ever so humble.

"This is home," he said. "And there's no place like home."

Six years after starting from scratch, Leavitt's program just finished a 9-2 season. If ever there was a time to leave, this was it. But Leavitt just signed a five-year, $3 million contract.

He'll be the first to tell you that's a ton of money. But it's a lot less than Leavitt could get if he wanted to play the career-move game.

USF'S LEAVITT PASSES THE BUCK AND STAYS PUT

 

[puc86]

15 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

FTX is nothing but a minor headache for him. He probably didn't put a dime of his own money into it.

What about  Jim Leavitt?

Deion Sanders gets paid no where near market value. $300k per year and he donates half of it back to the school for facilities.

Not everyone is like Skip Holtz who floats bogus job interest (Arkansas) in order to get more money

 

"It's not all about the money for me," South Florida Coach Jim Leavitt said. "And if I ever do leave, it won't be because of money."

Careful. With that kind of attitude, Leavitt may get kicked out of the coaches union. He interviewed at Alabama. The job wasn't offered, though that's beside the point.

Leavitt might have gotten it if he'd really tried. He has had other offers and plenty of feelers the past couple of years. All of them would have doubled or tripled his salary. But Leavitt stayed in his USF Taj Mahal, which for six years has consisted of three trailers sitting by a practice field. Be it ever so humble.

"This is home," he said. "And there's no place like home."

Six years after starting from scratch, Leavitt's program just finished a 9-2 season. If ever there was a time to leave, this was it. But Leavitt just signed a five-year, $3 million contract.

He'll be the first to tell you that's a ton of money. But it's a lot less than Leavitt could get if he wanted to play the career-move game.

USF'S LEAVITT PASSES THE BUCK AND STAYS PUT

 

Leavitt didn’t negotiate down a current contract, he didn’t go to a higher paying job that was down, firing their coach and looked like a tough place to go. He wrongly decided that loyalty gave him a lifetime gig and for that wrong decision the G-D’s had no choice but to smite him too.

[Bull94]

Just now, puc86 said:

Leavitt didn’t negotiate down a current contract, he didn’t go to a higher paying job that was down, firing their coach and looked like a tough place to go. He wrongly decided that loyalty gave him a lifetime gig and for that wrong decision the G-D’s had no choice but to smite him too.

Your argument is that Scott (or anyone for that matter) would not pass up on the opportunity to improve his position financially if given the chance.

That's not always the case. People have all sorts of reasons for doing things that don't make economic self interest sense.

[Rocky Style]

28 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Your argument is that Scott (or anyone for that matter) would not pass up on the opportunity to improve his position financially if given the chance.

That's not always the case. People have all sorts of reasons for doing things that don't make economic self interest sense.

It's hard to explain this to people.  

[BDYZR]

36 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Your argument is that Scott (or anyone for that matter) would not pass up on the opportunity to improve his, or her, position financially if given the chance.

That's not always the case. People have all sorts of reasons for doing things that don't make economic self interest sense.

FACT ↑ A couple times in my family.

[puc86]

41 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Your argument is that Scott (or anyone for that matter) would not pass up on the opportunity to improve his position financially if given the chance.

That's not always the case. People have all sorts of reasons for doing things that don't make economic self interest sense.

No my argument is that no one would give up their contract that is in every way better and has guaranteed money for a contract with the same organization that would only reduce their expected intake from that company