Coach Huesman question
- Thread starter I-M-UR
- Start date
No answers? it just seems odd, did he list UR as an exclusion to any buyout clause? did he simply not have one ( wouldn't that be odd)? did we or will we pay one? I know the problem UR has with buying out contracts so I'm just curious as to how this worked out.
he is here and personally don't care how it happened but understand the curiosity. possibly the BOT took the money out of their own pockets to pay any buy out.
His prior contract (2008) is online (Memorandum of Understanding).
It does include the buyout provision and there is no exclusion as to UR. Not sure what the subsequent contract or extension signed contains, but I doubt that it would be any different other than the amount of salary and bonuses with respect to him and his assistants.
'If Coach leaves the University to accept another coaching position or return to his former coaching position after execution of the Employment Agreement, he shall be deemed to have breached the Employment Agreement and the Coach agrees to pay the University, as liquidated damages, the total sum of his annual base salary times the number of years remaining in the term of the Employment Agreement at the time of his departure." from the memorandum of understanding.
Sounds like a termination penalty to me. I'm excited Huesman is coming. My curiosity is mainly two fold; why do we struggle with these things, remember Wainwright, in both directions coaches leaving and coaches we can't remove. Also did we have to pay Huesman's, probably a good investment, but if money is so tight how did we do that but not the locker rooms.
Sounds like a termination penalty to me. I'm excited Huesman is coming. My curiosity is mainly two fold; why do we struggle with these things, remember Wainwright, in both directions coaches leaving and coaches we can't remove. Also did we have to pay Huesman's, probably a good investment, but if money is so tight how did we do that but not the locker rooms.
well, we have to have a coach, that is a must, the other things are what we want, what we would like but things will still go on but not without a coach. would assume that coaching situations are like this everywhere, at least see it everyday whether here locally in houston or on espn. in real life, most employment situations do not play out on message boards, radio and tv, pretty private. coaching situations are very public and very personal to lots of people so always seems like an earthquake when behind the scenes probably not as crazy as we assume since we know nothing or what we do know is probably false.
I read somewhere online in the last 4-5 days that addressed this specifically. It was before we named Huesman as coach.I believe it was on the Chattanooga paper's website. If I can find it again I'll post a link. It stated that if Huesman left, someone was going to have to pay UT-C $125k or $150k. The article was specific with the figure, I just can't remember which it is. Obviously much less than was reported earlier about his buyout.
Both UTC and UD are public schools, so there will be a money trail as it relates to any buyouts here. We'll know eventually.
Here's the article I referenced above and I was wrong. I misread it the first time. It says in the last paragraph that someone is responsible for paying UT-C 145k per YEAR until 2020.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...uesmweighing-richmond-offer-utc-raise/402934/
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...uesmweighing-richmond-offer-utc-raise/402934/
There was a thread on this elsewhere where i said the buyout wasn't going to be a detriment. But Wolf that cost you allude to was over 4 years. I saw that report, it said either he or Richmond will be responsible for paying UTC 80 percent of his base salary, which amounts to about $145,000 a year until 2020 (really Feb 2021). So call it $580k. But like Moliva stated we got some $$ coming due from Rocco, we kick that towards the buyout, maybe a little more. But imo we will not physically be cutting UTC any check, that's a personal obligation on Huesman. We instead compensate Huesman and he handles it. He would probably negotiate a structured settlement. Even the schools don't pay these buyouts upfront when they owe coaches after firing them, they all pay them over time. OPex vs. CAPex. Nobody would be expected to here either. I have no personal knowledge into this situation specifically, just describing in general what can occur. & if a donor just said F it we'll take care of it straight away, then that's great too.
**Sorry Wolf as I was writing I see you posted the article in question, thx.
**Sorry Wolf as I was writing I see you posted the article in question, thx.
Yup. School's may "pay" the buyout for a coach but almost certainly not directly. The obligation is 100% on the departing Coach The new school is no part of that the contract between coach and his old school. This actually makes the coaches burden even bigger because he gets taxed on what he receives (and thus ends up with after-tax dollars) and ends up having to pay the buyout in pre-tax dollars.
What really happens as noted is all this stuff is negotiated. The contract certainly provides leverage, but its rarely followed to the letter.
One note - - you usually see "special" buyout terms that run both ways. For example, a coach frequently gets a short list of schools for which there is a reduced or no buyout and the school usually gets a list (most often all schools in the same conference!!) of places the coach either CAN'T go or for which the buyout escalates.
I suspect we learned something here and have language protecting us from the in-conference lateral move going forward!
What really happens as noted is all this stuff is negotiated. The contract certainly provides leverage, but its rarely followed to the letter.
One note - - you usually see "special" buyout terms that run both ways. For example, a coach frequently gets a short list of schools for which there is a reduced or no buyout and the school usually gets a list (most often all schools in the same conference!!) of places the coach either CAN'T go or for which the buyout escalates.
I suspect we learned something here and have language protecting us from the in-conference lateral move going forward!
I don't know why Gill would lie about the extensions. Reports on here indicated he got automatic one-year extensions each time he made the playoffs, so he would have been extended to 2020. UR changed their policy on announcing contracts a few years ago, so it was never publicly stated.
Got a link? I don't think JOC unequivocally stated that at all, only that the only public UR announcement from many years ago had it through end of 17'. They changed the policy on announcing those. He did later report what Gill said about the extensions.
JOC is fairly solid but he also doesn't seem to dig too much, at times. He was reporting this week a few times that Rocco made "about $425,000" and that UR doesn't release coaches' salaries – true, but he could have cited the 990 form that showed Rocco earned $437,500 a couple years ago, just as an official reference point.
I believe he did write that Rocco's contract was up after next year, but he might have said that that was the original length and that UR doesn't disclose contract extensions. So technically, both he and Gill could be correct in that case. I had heard that the deal got extended by a year for each playoff appearance, but who knows.
I believe he did write that Rocco's contract was up after next year, but he might have said that that was the original length and that UR doesn't disclose contract extensions. So technically, both he and Gill could be correct in that case. I had heard that the deal got extended by a year for each playoff appearance, but who knows.
I understand that as a private university UR does not need to publicly disclose any contract extensions. In the case of a football or basketball head coach though, doesn't it make sense to make these extensions public so that rivals cannot use the lack of a long term contract as a potential recruiting advantage? What am I missing here?
UTC has had pretty good success with Braithwaite running the defense. Several times in the Top 20 in the FCS in defense under his watch, including 4th in nation in 2014. I would think Huesman is more involved on this side of the ball given his background.
Love the background.
I have a feeling this staff will be more like Clawson's where they viewed the academics as a recruiting advantage rather than a hindrance.
I have a feeling this staff will be more like Clawson's where they viewed the academics as a recruiting advantage rather than a hindrance.
Shame RH couldnt be at BBall game today for introduction (we got a video segment by RH instead) but certainly understand why he wasn't.
