Uhhh...Dixon to UCLA rumor/ news
- Thread starter Francis Xav
- Start date
TX_Krötenechse
Active Member
Typically will settle. See: Baylor and Art Briles
CryptoMiner
Active Member
Because if it becomes clear the coach wants to leave and keeping him is no longer an option due to the harm done you cut your losses and move on to keep everybody somewhat happy.
It is getting close to the stage where if UCLA can't afford the buyout that TCU would not want to keep Dixon.
Dogfrog
Active Member
I can see why it is normally negotiable but not when the coach’s salary is $3.5M
WIN
Active Member
Reminds me of Sullivan to lsu.
Eight
Member
pj fuller was asking what was going on
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
It is typically not settled but paid per the terms of the contract. Baylor was not typical because there was a decent question as to whether Briles was being fired for cause or without cause and the LAST thing Baylor wanted was to argue that in court and air their dirty laundry.
“Typical” is how TCU handled Trent Johnson’s exit: pay per the terms and say thanks and goodbye.
To answer the original question, buyouts are usually structured as a % of the remaining value of the contract. For example, it could say if the school fires without cause (ie, not winning enough games) the coach gets 50%. So if there were 5 yeas left at $3 M per year the school would owe the coach $7.5 M to fire him. If they were firing FOR cause it would likely be $0. But then the coach would threaten to sue and the school would have to decide if they want to fight or settle and move on.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Glad to see lots of contact law/buyout analysis. I've been itching for some of that.
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
For folks asking about "why negotiate," I've dealt with this in my line of work and things like Non-Compete clauses, clawbacks, and buyout penalties in employment contracts are hotly debated in legal circles, in both voluntary and involuntary termination situations.
As an example, Jamie could go to court and say it wasn't reasonable to ask him to pay an $8mm voluntary contract termination penalty when in his three years at TCU he probably only earned about $9.5-10mm in total compensation. An employer asking for 80-90% of your pay back as a penalty could be considered extreme and annulled by a court, or via forced arbitration which TCU likely wouldn't fair well in.
This has happened multiple times in my career, for some reasons most states legal systems look upon employment contracts with a nebulous "reasonability standard" that almost never favors the employer.
Without knowing Texas law explicitly, my guess is if Jamie wanted to fight legally to lower the buyout he would likely succeed.
As an example, Jamie could go to court and say it wasn't reasonable to ask him to pay an $8mm voluntary contract termination penalty when in his three years at TCU he probably only earned about $9.5-10mm in total compensation. An employer asking for 80-90% of your pay back as a penalty could be considered extreme and annulled by a court, or via forced arbitration which TCU likely wouldn't fair well in.
This has happened multiple times in my career, for some reasons most states legal systems look upon employment contracts with a nebulous "reasonability standard" that almost never favors the employer.
Without knowing Texas law explicitly, my guess is if Jamie wanted to fight legally to lower the buyout he would likely succeed.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Because recruiting to UCLA isn’t the same as TCU and what gets you NIT at TCU with a depleted team and a good coach doesn’t equate to a full squad of blue chippers?
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
They would most likely look at the life of the contract and not just the period of time elapsed. No idea what the term is, but the large buyout likely indicates it was around 7 years. If so, the buyout is around 1/3 (probably less) of the total contract value of $24+ M.
But practically what would the strategy be? Stay and sue? That’s career suicide. Breach and refuse to pay? That would draw UCLA in, and UCLA isn’t going to go and get itself drawn into a lawsuit with TCU for Dixon.
There could be reasons for TCU to negotiate it down a bit, but barring some unknown skeleton in the closet there’s little practical reason for TCU to negotiate this all that much. UCLA knew the buyout going in and is going to pay if they want him. If they don’t pay, then they didn’t want him all that much. The real “buyout negotiation” is between Dixon and UCLA — who’s going to bear that cost. Dixon and UCLA are obviously going to try to get TCU to come down while UCLA is looking for cash and Dixon is trying to keep that buyout from hitting his salary—LA is a lot more expensive than FW
Last edited:
TX_Krötenechse
Active Member
Dixon staying due to UCLA being unwilling or unable to pay his buyout seems like the worst result for all parties
BABYFACE
Full Member
Disagree. A buyout is a buyout. Don’t put one if you don’t intend to use it. UCLA can have him. They will have to cover the buy out, that simple. It isn’t ruining his life. He happily signed that contract with the big payday he got.
Realtorfrog
Full Member
I think we saw some of this last night. He looked like he cared but I’m sure the players sensed something was up and their minds really weren’t in the game.
I will say this. Nothing that has happened this year has inspired much confidence that he can take us to next level even if he stays. This is just the cherry on top of a whole bunch of factors. Were we better the previous years? Yes, but the program seems to be plateauing.
