Super Secret Secondary Contract

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

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.

His year 1 base salary was negotiated to be less  in the new contract that’s the very simple part that you are missing, I’m not saying he would or should expect a raise but he isn’t going to negotiate himself down at a time when his value is plateaued when he can just as easily stay with his already existing contract. To take the deduction on one would require a perceived increase in the other and no one is going to think a ceremonial year was that value. Even if they were that dumb their team isn’t going to be and they aren’t going to let him sign it without financially guaranteeing them the difference.

[Brad]

13 minutes ago, puc86 said:

His year 1 base salary was negotiated to be less  in the new contract that’s the very simple part that you are missing, I’m not saying he would or should expect a raise but he isn’t going to negotiate himself down at a time when his value is plateaued when he can just as easily stay with his already existing contract. To take the deduction on one would require a perceived increase in the other and no one is going to think a ceremonial year was that value. Even if they were that dumb their team isn’t going to be and they aren’t going to let him sign it without financially guaranteeing them the difference.

You assume everyone acts only and entirely in their own self interest.  Great for theory, but not always true.  

[puc86]

6 minutes ago, Brad said:

You assume everyone acts only and entirely in their own self interest.  Great for theory, but not always true.  

All lawyers that aren’t working at unicef or some other do good making the world a better place so I can be poor type place do in fact only act in their own self interest. If you send them a birthday card you will get 15 minutes of billable hours for them having had an intern open and read it. CJS has someone many someones that handle his contracts and they have an incentive in place that ties to compensation they can get, if CJS wants to buck them in order to be nice he would not only receive less money but he would have to also pay them for the difference.

[Bull94]

12 minutes ago, puc86 said:

His year 1 base salary was negotiated to be less  in the new contract that’s the very simple part that you are missing, I’m not saying he would or should expect a raise but he isn’t going to negotiate himself down at a time when his value is plateaued when he can just as easily stay with his already existing contract. To take the deduction on one would require a perceived increase in the other and no one is going to think a ceremonial year was that value. Even if they were that dumb their team isn’t going to be and they aren’t going to let him sign it without financially guaranteeing them the difference.

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

 

 

[Brad]

11 minutes ago, puc86 said:

All lawyers that aren’t working at unicef or some other do good making the world a better place so I can be poor type place do in fact only act in their own self interest. If you send them a birthday card you will get 15 minutes of billable hours for them having had an intern open and read it. CJS has someone many someones that handle his contracts and they have an incentive in place that ties to compensation they can get, if CJS wants to buck them in order to be nice he would not only receive less money but he would have to also pay them for the difference.

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.  

[puc86]

1 minute ago, 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 don’t assume that I know that he didn’t have to negotiate at all he could easily say we will explore this next year or my team said no, he wasn’t being fired at that moment and he had three years left you don’t need leverage to keep what’s already executed. 

[Bull94]

12 minutes ago, puc86 said:

All lawyers that aren’t working at unicef or some other do good making the world a better place so I can be poor type place do in fact only act in their own self interest. If you send them a birthday card you will get 15 minutes of billable hours for them having had an intern open and read it. CJS has someone many someones that handle his contracts and they have an incentive in place that ties to compensation they can get, if CJS wants to buck them in order to be nice he would not only receive less money but he would have to also pay them for the difference.

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

[puc86]

1 minute ago, 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.  

Can you move the parts so I can respond appropriately instead of a random new thread referencing as discussed in this thread?

[Rocky Style]

29 minutes ago, Brad said:

You assume everyone acts only and entirely in their own self interest.  Great for theory, but not always true.  

Self interests can be not only limited to money too.

[Bull94]

41 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I don’t assume that I know that he didn’t have to negotiate at all he could easily say we will explore this next year or my team said no, he wasn’t being fired at that moment and he had three years left you don’t need leverage to keep what’s already executed. 

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.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Bull94