The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-30-2014 02:54 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  We should be rewarded for taking a risk on him.

He does seem to talk about that a lot, how lucky he was to find people willing o take a chance on him. But, he took a chance on us too, coming to a school with a mediocre tradition and all and needing to change a lot of things. He dive bombs here and his career would take a huge hit. So he has a risk as well as an opportunity.

(12-30-2014 11:59 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  So if in year three he wins the MAC, and P5s come calling, what does WMU get in return for taking a chance on PJ Fleck? They get about 200k. Chump change in this era of buy outs.

Just trying to understand all of this correctly. From David Drew's article:

According to the contract...Fleck would owe the university $1 million if he terminated his contract before Nov. 30, 2015. The buyout clause decreases by $200,000 if he leaves on or after Dec.1 each year after that through Nov. 30, 2019 – If Fleck terminated his contract between Dec. 1, 2018 and Nov. 30, 2019 he would owe WMU $200,000.

Fleck's original contract required him to pay approximately $210,000 for each year left on the contract. If he would have left after the 2013 season he would have owed WMU $840,000.

Here's how I interpret this:

Under the old contract:
- Buyout after 2013: $840,000
- Buyout after 2014: $630,000
- Buyout after 2015: $420,000
- Buyout after 2016: $210,000

Under the new contract:
- Buyout after 11/30/2015: $800,000
- Buyout after 11/30/2016: $600,000
- Buyout after 11/30/2017: $400,000
- Buyout after 11/30/2018: $200,000

If I'm interpreting this correctly:
- The buyout after the 2015 season increased by $380,000.
- The buyout after the 2016 season increased by $390,000.
- The buyout after the 2017 season is established at $400,000.

Does this sound accurate? If it doesn't, what am I missing?

Looks right to me... I was sort of confused after reading the article title, and then reading the actual article... but didn't have enough time when I read it to break it down like that. Looks like the buyout is bigger?

(12-30-2014 04:53 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Looks right to me... I was sort of confused after reading the article title, and then reading the actual article... but didn't have enough time when I read it to break it down like that. Looks like the buyout is bigger?

The total number (if he left today) is larger because of the contract length, but how they get to that number is roughly the same. Regardless, it won't stop him from leaving (or getting fired), it's really a financial protection there to compensate the party on the losing end for the cost of the transition.

(12-29-2014 11:30 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  does anybody know buyouts on other G5 coaches with similar salaries?

With just a quick search Blake Anderson at Arkansas state who has lost a bunch of coaches makes 700 grand and has a 3 million dollar buyout the first 3 years then goes down a million a year till the end of the contract.

Bryan Harsin at Boise makes a million and his buyout starts at 2 million and works its way down.

Diaco at Uconn makes 1.5 and has a buyout that starts there and goes down to 400.

(12-30-2014 11:12 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  How does it keep him from pushing out feelers?

If he has an excessive buy out he's not in a great position to leave unless he is off the charts highly desirable.

In two years when his buy out is at either 400 or 600k, most P5s would pay that price to get him if he had a bango resume.

It doesn't keep him from pushing out feelers. It just makes WMU a more attractive option, as compared to lower lever BCS schools; particularly if he feels he has a committed administration here, and if he feels good about the foundation he is building. I think if Fleck senses he is close to completing his masterpiece, he may stay here for a little less money, rather than ditch for a Indiana type program. He needs to feel secure in the idea that the administration shares his long term vision, and I think this contract goes a long way to doing that.

(12-30-2014 11:40 AM)acer1 Wrote:  Bravo, Brovo. You have done an excellent job of analyzing this contract and its intent in my opinion. Well written and truthfully said. Did you have any hand in the negotiations?

Always proud to be a Bronco, RTB.

Thanks acer. I wish I had a hand in the negotiation. I love my job, but my dream job has always been legal council for WMU.

(12-30-2014 11:59 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 11:40 AM)acer1 Wrote:  Bravo, Brovo. You have done an excellent job of analyzing this contract and its intent in my opinion. Well written and truthfully said. Did you have any hand in the negotiations?

Always proud to be a Bronco, RTB.

So if in year three he wins the MAC, and P5s come calling, what does WMU get in return for taking a chance on PJ Fleck? They get about 200k. Chump change in this era of buy outs. Will barely pay for a search firm to look for the next coach, and won't make ANY school think twice about plucking him away. And if schools want PJ to pay for his buyout he won't have to think twice about it.

They DOUBLED his salary, and in return they got a handshake that he'll stick around, maybe, and if I leave WMU will get little in return. Sounds like a win win for PJ.

Frankly, many are missing the point that Fleck actually had the upper hand in negotiations, much in the same sence that a mlb pitcher in the second year of a three year contract has the upper hand if he just won 18 games, and the team wants to sign him before he reaches free agency. Not a perfect analogy, but it makes my point.

Whether all will acknowledge it or not, fleet is a recognized commodity right now, and if he has a solid year next season he will be even hotter. He is not going to lock himself into a situation where he can't escape should A better opportunity come around. It's the nature of the beast. Thus, the best chance at keeping him here is making him feel that wmu is still a very attractive option. The best way to do that in the case of Fleck is clearly defining our commitment and support to his vision. The $ helps do this.

This contract was never going to be about locking him in; but if we did nothing he surely would leave at the first opportunity, as do all other MAC coaches who get any BCS offer. wMU is now more attractive to fleck, for many reasons, than many BCS schools.

Bravol, as you know negotiations are tit for tat. I'll give you something if you give me something in return. They doubled his salary. What did he give them in return other than a verbal assurance that he'll continue to build the program.

No, you can't lock someone in. But a sizable buyout helps make the loss and transition more palatable for the party on the losing end of the transaction. It's a win win for Fleck, not so much for the folks who went out on a limb to hire him.

(12-31-2014 10:32 AM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  Bravol, as you know negotiations are tit for tat. I'll give you something if you give me something in return. They doubled his salary. What did he give them in return other than a verbal assurance that he'll continue to build the program.

No, you can't lock someone in. But a sizable buyout helps make the loss and transition more palatable for the party on the losing end of the transaction. It's a win win for Fleck, not so much for the folks who went out on a limb to hire him.

I won't argue that it wouldn't be nice if there was a sizeable buyout in the new contract in the event of early departure. Let's assume, at least hypothetically since none of us were part of the negotiations, that fleck said I won't agree to a big buyout, because I believe I am going to achieve my goals here at Western, and if so I don't want a buyout to dissuade a school from making an offer. So at that point wmu must assess: do we just tell him "no big buyout, no new contract?", or to we still proceed with the plan to increase flecks salary in order to make western as attractive as possible, and to take advantage of the money the donors are currently flashing at us (with a note saying get this guy bigger bucks)?

Can we agree that fleck is beginning at least to be a local rock star, and a few others outside of Kalamazoo are even noticing? And that he is doing well so far with building blocks, and establishing a foundation of excellence? Or that a real solid year in 2015 would bring the low lever bcs schools into perhaps making a pitch to fleck? If so, then put, as fleck would do, the offering school in one column, and wmu in another. Then asses the pros and con's. Money would be one category, but likelihood for relative success, and turning program into conference champ would be others, as would cost of living, and most important to fleck; positive results on the field in order to impress the mid to high level bcs schools who may have openings in the future. Wmu would stack up more favorably in this analysis now than we would if we didn't get him the $800,000, and more importantly, show him how committed we are to supporting what he wants to accomplish here.

.....just saying.

All good points. It's also a little bit easier not to play hard ball in negotiations when you're playing with someone else's money. Had they been negotiating with only their money I expect they may have asked for better conditions.

I think the argument about low P5 schools and Fleck's level of interest is a moot point in the negotiations. I've had the sense from the beginning that Fleck never intended to leave WMU for a low P5 offer. He seems to be more the "go big or go home" type.

(12-31-2014 10:05 AM)brovol Wrote:  It doesn't keep him from pushing out feelers. It just makes WMU a more attractive option, as compared to lower lever BCS schools; particularly if he feels he has a committed administration here, and if he feels good about the foundation he is building. I think if Fleck senses he is close to completing his masterpiece, he may stay here for a little less money, rather than ditch for a Indiana type program. He needs to feel secure in the idea that the administration shares his long term vision, and I think this contract goes a long way to doing that.

Based on everything I've seen from him / heard him say and some comments I've heard from people better connected to the athletic dep't than I am... I think this is spot-on.

(12-31-2014 10:05 AM)brovol Wrote:  It doesn't keep him from pushing out feelers. It just makes WMU a more attractive option, as compared to lower lever BCS schools; particularly if he feels he has a committed administration here, and if he feels good about the foundation he is building. I think if Fleck senses he is close to completing his masterpiece, he may stay here for a little less money, rather than ditch for a Indiana type program.

IMO the biggest losers in the Harbaugh-to-Michigan announcement yesterday were Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana. Those three schools get to deal with Harbaugh, Dantonio, Urban Meyer, and James Franklin every season for the next decade. Have fun with that.

Based on that alone, I can't imagine a head coaching opening at any of those three schools would be very appealing to any up-and-coming coach.