Super Secret Secondary Contract

[CousinRicky]

8 hours ago, puc86 said:

I’ve had people sign some pretty unconscionable contracts but anytime they said it had to go to legal and they weren’t in liquidation I knew exactly what parts are getting redlined because people can only sign contracts with some give and take and since we know the one contract was all give some part of the other contract has to have some take because multiple people aren’t taking money out of their own pocket for absolutely nothing in return. The idea doesn’t even pass the giggle test and there is absolutely no reason that grown men that have actually dealt in real life actually believe that many people would just say f it let’s screw ourselves over, people that buy houses like CJS as soon as they get their first payday do not give up money and people who’s payday are tied to your contract are only going to let you make it worse if you pay them in full for the previous contract plus extra for the time and effort to deal with your nonsense and then you are fired from being a client because you are too stupid to represent.

You keep saying saying that someone gave up money and someone lost money. Let's say you have a job that pays 100k.  Your buyout is "X".  Boss comes and says we'll extend the contract at 100k for one year and the buyout is "X".  You haven't performing well. You're going to demand more money? 

And we should keep in mind that all the coaches gave up money in the Covid year.  Football, MBB and WBB was 15% IIRC and the other sports were lesser percentages.

[Bull94]

12 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

You keep saying saying that someone gave up money and someone lost money. Let's say you have a job that pays 100k.  Your buyout is "X".  Boss comes and says we'll extend the contract at 100k for one year and the buyout is "X".  You haven't performing well. You're going to demand more money? 

And we should keep in mind that all the coaches gave up money in the Covid year.  Football, MBB and WBB was 15% IIRC and the other sports were lesser percentages.

Neither coach had any leverage. I think the "extensions" were probably a public show of faith more than anything. Just tacked on an extra year with no increase in buyout so it didn't affect recruiting.

[CousinRicky]

54 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Neither coach had any leverage. I think the "extensions" were probably a public show of faith more than anything. Just tacked on an extra year with no increase in buyout so it didn't affect recruiting.

Didn't the extensions happen around the time of Conference roulette was going on?  Maybe trying to show continuity? Not sure why that would matter if constantly losing but just a guess.

Edited November 19, 2022 by CousinRicky

[puc86]

52 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

You keep saying saying that someone gave up money and someone lost money. Let's say you have a job that pays 100k.  Your buyout is "X".  Boss comes and says we'll extend the contract at 100k for one year and the buyout is "X".  You haven't performing well. You're going to demand more money? 

And we should keep in mind that all the coaches gave up money in the Covid year.  Football, MBB and WBB was 15% IIRC and the other sports were lesser percentages.

The options aren’t only give me more money or I accept the extended contract that provides me less favorable terms. I also have the option to just say my team won’t let me sign this i like you and if it was just me i would gladly sign this no problem but I can’t let’s shelf this and we can revisit it again next year. I already have a contract for 3 years I have no reason to  proactively negotiate down my base this year in order to not get something additional in return that is guaranteed in some way. The reverse would also be true if I was offered a higher base for this year i would probably be willing to negotiate down the buyout in exchange. I do not think anyone thought that VPMK would do a midseason fire so the math is pretty simple but still would have ended up wrong. If base 1 + guaranteed money is not greater than it was in the original contract the answer is 

 
 

this contract looks a lot like you are trying to break it so I’ll do what’s the best for me in that scenario. To sign it when base 1 went down requires that to at least be balanced with the payout.

[puc86]

58 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Neither coach had any leverage. I think the "extensions" were probably a public show of faith more than anything. Just tacked on an extra year with no increase in buyout so it didn't affect recruiting.

CJS had all the leverage in the world, a three year contract he was already sitting on so he isn’t going to sign something that the immediate scenarios worse for something that’s just a ceremonial non benefit that is unlikely to happen 

[CousinRicky]

7 minutes ago, puc86 said:

The options aren’t only give me more money or I accept the extended contract that provides me less favorable terms. I also have the option to just say my team won’t let me sign this i like you and if it was just me i would gladly sign this no problem but I can’t let’s shelf this and we can revisit it again next year. I already have a contract for 3 years I have no reason to  proactively negotiate down my base this year in order to not get something additional in return that is guaranteed in some way. The reverse would also be true if I was offered a higher base for this year i would probably be willing to negotiate down the buyout in exchange. I do not think anyone thought that VPMK would do a midseason fire so the math is pretty simple but still would have ended up wrong. If base 1 + guaranteed money is not greater than it was in the original contract the answer is 

 
 

this contract looks a lot like you are trying to break it so I’ll do what’s the best for me in that scenario. To sign it when base 1 went down requires that to at least be balanced with the payout.

Jeezus that was hard to follow. 

[Bull94]

30 minutes ago, puc86 said:

CJS had all the leverage in the world, a three year contract he was already sitting on so he isn’t going to sign something that the immediate scenarios worse for something that’s just a ceremonial non benefit that is unlikely to happen 

Honestly I don't understand.

If Kelly came to him and said I'm going to tack on another year at say $5m  but I'm not going to raise the buyout amount then Scott had no reason not to sign it.

Scott had zero leverage to demand an increased buyout let alone an extension.

It was a show a faith that didn't cost us anything.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Bull94

[Bulls On Parade]

1 hour ago, CousinRicky said:

Didn't the extensions happen around the time of Conference roulette was going on?  Maybe trying to show continuity? Not sure why that would matter if constantly losing but just a guess.

No other program did the same...I would see no reason the Big 12 would care if we locked up bad coaches.  I thought I read it was just to lock in the coaches budget for another year while trying to build the stadium..could make sense I guess.  If the case should have sold it like that to public...easier pill to swallow than hey we love the losing some of these coaches are doing lets tack on another year. 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Bulls On Parade

[puc86]

9 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Jeezus that was hard to follow. 

Well I’ve said it every imaginable way. It’s really simple CJS had contract a1 and b1 which results in y1 (what you make in year 1 should it exercise its ours is all that matters since you have remaining years on the contract), a2 was less than a1 for y1 so no one signs it if it doesn’t improve b1 to some degree. 

[Bull94]

13 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Well I’ve said it every imaginable way. It’s really simple CJS had contract a1 and b1 which results in y1 (what you make in year 1 should it exercise its ours is all that matters since you have remaining years on the contract), a2 was less than a1 for y1 so no one signs it if it doesn’t improve b1 to some degree. 

your logic is impossible to follow.

clearly you see it's possible kelly went to scott and said "I'll give you a  50% raise for an extra year but I'm not going to increase the buyout".

That would benefit Scott without costing us anymore to buy him out.

If he miraculously turns things around then he gets a huge raise in that last year. If he doesn't then we cut him for the same amount it cost us without the extension.