Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Uhhh...Dixon to UCLA rumor/ news
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruin Steve" data-source="post: 2707878" data-attributes="member: 73731"><p>I guess I can take a stab at why one negotiates the buy-out clause.</p><p>First, the caveat that I have no idea how this one is written...and, likely, no one else here has seen it either. But, it might be written in several ways that don't make it an absolute single payment number.</p><p>You don't have a contract with the new employer--only a contract between the coach and current school...so, it is likely written as something other than a lump sum...More likely a payout in installments, paid out over several years--so, present value may be nowhere near that $8 million figure.</p><p>When the contract was agreed to, there was likely a penalty clause that reads both ways...If the school chose, instead, to fire the coach, the payout likely would be paid out over time--and discounted by any earnings by the coach in taking a new job--so, again, the present value would be not the stated value but a lesser amount that could be diminished beyond that...so, often those sorts of buyouts are negotiated...</p><p>But the penalty paid by the departing coach would have to be something equitable--you can't have a one-way contract or risk challenge in the courts...and, you can't really have an arbitrary liquidated damages provision--it can't just be pure penalty--it has to bear some relationship to the actual damages done by the breaking of the contract. </p><p>Also, note that you can't get "specific performance" on a personal services contract--You can't force someone to work for you (and you probably don't want a disgruntled employee in the job).</p><p>AND, neither side would want to go through the judicial system to litigate this...So, no matter what the contract says, a quick, easy negotiated truce is preferred.</p><p>You also don't want to deal with this issue when you negotiate a new contract with the next guy...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruin Steve, post: 2707878, member: 73731"] I guess I can take a stab at why one negotiates the buy-out clause. First, the caveat that I have no idea how this one is written...and, likely, no one else here has seen it either. But, it might be written in several ways that don't make it an absolute single payment number. You don't have a contract with the new employer--only a contract between the coach and current school...so, it is likely written as something other than a lump sum...More likely a payout in installments, paid out over several years--so, present value may be nowhere near that $8 million figure. When the contract was agreed to, there was likely a penalty clause that reads both ways...If the school chose, instead, to fire the coach, the payout likely would be paid out over time--and discounted by any earnings by the coach in taking a new job--so, again, the present value would be not the stated value but a lesser amount that could be diminished beyond that...so, often those sorts of buyouts are negotiated... But the penalty paid by the departing coach would have to be something equitable--you can't have a one-way contract or risk challenge in the courts...and, you can't really have an arbitrary liquidated damages provision--it can't just be pure penalty--it has to bear some relationship to the actual damages done by the breaking of the contract. Also, note that you can't get "specific performance" on a personal services contract--You can't force someone to work for you (and you probably don't want a disgruntled employee in the job). AND, neither side would want to go through the judicial system to litigate this...So, no matter what the contract says, a quick, easy negotiated truce is preferred. You also don't want to deal with this issue when you negotiate a new contract with the next guy... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Uhhh...Dixon to UCLA rumor/ news
Top