Todge, I owe you an apology. I was right about UT initiating the negotiations, but I was wrong about why.

Background: http://www.greenberglawoffice.com/buyout...ee-agency/

The most interesting treatment of the tax issue is found in the documents accompanying (Charlie) Strong’s move to the University of Texas (“Texas”), in which Strong’s Louisville contract is assigned to Texas, with Texas paying an “assignment fee” as consideration for the assignment.[93] By Texas’ assumption of the Louisville contract, the buyout clause is never triggered (or at least never invoked), and the payment by Texas to Louisville is clearly a Texas business expense that does not flow through Strong. Accordingly, there should be no tax liability for Strong because technically no buyout payment was ever made—at least not one that Strong was obligated to pay under his Louisville contract. By removing the applicability of the buyout clause altogether, Texas and Strong appear to have arranged the strongest position for claiming no tax liability for Strong.

Fast forward to a week ago. Houston Chronicle beat writer Joseph Duarte stated in an article that Texas was seeking to have Herman's contract with UH assigned to them (presumably for the same reason Texas sought to do so when hiring Strong). It seems clear now that the conversation must have gone something like this:

Y: What's in it for us?
P: What did you have in mind?
Y: How about we reduce the assignment (buyout) fee by an amount agreeable to both parties in return for a scheduling agreement?
P: Not happening.

We know that UH is going to receive the $2.5 million no later than 60 days from the date of Herman's resignation. We don't know whether or not UH agreed to the reassignment of Herman's contract. If the answer was no, UT will probably have to provide Herman with an interest-free loan so that he can pay us.