yes the contract was being negotiated

dem coogs doh made an offer as that article states and Texas declined it

nowhere in that article does it state that Texas approached dem coogs doh to negotiate

someone saying that something is "being negotiated" does not also state they are the ones that initiated negotiations

what says that someone initiated negotiations is when the AD states that they made an offer to Texas as hunter upchuck has stated

or as is stated here

AD @HunterYurachek says Houston offered UT AD Perrin home & home football/hoops series to reduce $2.5 million Herman buyout. Perrin declined

when you OFFER something to someone that is starting a negotiation

again there is ZERO indication anywhere that Texas initiated the negotiations and Texas saying that there are negotiations is not saying that Texas started those negotiations

it makes no sense that Texas would ask to negotiate something and the get an offer and just immediately say "no thanks" and that is that

pretending as though Texas came to dem coogs doh and just started asking to drag out the payment for several years with nothing in return is just nonsense

and Texas knows their away schedule is full until 2025 for football and hunter upchuck makes ZERO indication that they even talked to Texas about available dates that would work for Texas and that it did not work out and those dates would have been Texas home game 2022 and Texas away 2025

hunter upchuck says that dem coogs doh offered and UT declined

Hey Todd, what's going with you
Who do you hate the most the university of Houston or the city of Houston or the people of Houston ?

(12-14-2016 02:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  dem coogs doh made an offer as that article states and Texas declined it

nowhere in that article does it state that Texas approached dem coogs doh to negotiate


pretending as though Texas came to dem coogs doh and just started asking to drag out the payment for several years with nothing in return is just nonsense


hunter upchuck says that dem coogs doh offered and UT declined

Why go racial?

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.