I think it will please some folks around these parts that KSU has filed a lawsuit seeking the entire $1.2 million buyout.
As it happens, I agree that someone should be held liable to pay it. Bradley knew what they were getting when they offered Geno a contract and he knew what his KSU contract said.
We will see in due time how this plays out, but I am happy we aren't just letting either of them off the hook.
At least now there is something interesting happening on this board. It has been pretty trivial lately. Personally, I am glad that KSU is not allowing Geno to step on us. Go for more.
GF wrote it first. This new deal may not be that great for Geno once all of the dollars are paid out.
Sorry this had to come to a lawsuit, but glad KSU is sticking to its principles.
I’ll make a prediction now. There will be some appeal that KSU “should have known” that Geno could not afford a $1.1 buy out, so therefore it’s “unreasonable” to expect him to honor a contract he signed.
Don’t shoot the messenger. I think it’s B.S., too. Just be prepared for the argument. And, don’t try it with your mortgage holder or anyplace that holds your car note. They won’t get it, either.
(05-11-2011 11:13 PM)FlashFan Wrote: [ -> ]I’ll make a prediction now. There will be some appeal that KSU “should have known” that Geno could not afford a $1.1 buy out, so therefore it’s “unreasonable” to expect him to honor a contract he signed.
Don’t shoot the messenger. I think it’s B.S., too. Just be prepared for the argument. And, don’t try it with your mortgage holder or anyplace that holds your car note. They won’t get it, either.
Not saying you are wrong, but Bradley University can afford it and they knew the buyout in his contract when they came calling. If Geno would have expected to be paid, he should expect to pay.
I've been doing a lot of research and I've talked to a few contacts who know something about contract law ... here's what I keep finding...
FlashFan is right ... the argument probably will be made and it may have merit ... that's one reason why I would favor just working it out over a lawsuit if I were Kent State. It would look bad if the buyout can't be enforced in court, and KSU comes away with less than they may have received if both parties just met and worked out something fair...
This is from a story written by Dan Fitzgerald in March on Connecticut Sports Law ... and it jibes with what I've been hearing from people I've talked with tonight....
http://ctsportslaw.com/2011/03/15/from-t...h-madness/
Here is the quote that covers the big question:
A buyout clause is less a deterrent than a price tag for voiding a contract. And for a large, Division I school, paying the buyout clause for a new coach is not especially difficult. If the school doesn’t want to pay the buyout, a booster club may be willing to do so. But that isn’t the only issue with buyout clauses.
Enforcement can also pose a challenge. A buyout clause is essentially a liquidated damages clause. A liquidated damages clause is only enforceable if the clause requires the coach to reimburse the school for the reasonable damages caused by the coach’s departure. The clause cannot be punitive. It is unlikely that a multi-million dollar buyout clause at a mid-major would be considered reasonable. Accordingly, a school could attempt to negotiate a large buyout for a talented coach like Stevens, but the courts may not honor it.
A retention clause may be more useful. Similar to a roster bonus in professional sports, a retention clause rewards a coach for remaining at the school on a given date (after the hiring season has come and gone). Unlike buyout clauses, enforcement is not an issue. Moreover, some schools prefer the concept of rewarding a coach for staying put rather than punishing the coach for leaving while under contract.
....
My worry is that Kent State could lose this kind of a lawsuit and come away with less. This athletic department is cash-srapped and needs the money now. If it gets dragged out in court, KSU could get less than what they deserve, which would be embarrassing and bad for the department. And it may take years. It just seems very risky to me.
Not saying you are wrong, but Bradley University can afford it and they knew the buyout in his contract when they came calling. If Geno would have expected to be paid, he should expect to pay.
[/quote]
And Geno knew it too. From what my source has shared with me he personally contacted other MAC coaches last season before signing the extension looking for advice. It seems he was advised against signing the deal because the buyout was seen as an astronomical rate for a "mid-major" program however he eventually signed the deal.
Also, Geno may have been looking for other opportunities more then we were lead to believe.
GO KENT
(05-11-2011 11:51 PM)DavidCarducci Wrote: [ -> ]I've been doing a lot of research and I've talked to a few contacts who know something about contract law ... here's what I keep finding...
FlashFan is right ... the argument probably will be made and it may have merit ... that's one reason why I would favor just working it out over a lawsuit if I were Kent State. It would look bad if the buyout can't be enforced in court, and KSU comes away with less than they may have received if both parties just met and worked out something fair...
This is from a story written by Dan Fitzgerald in March on Connecticut Sports Law ... and it jibes with what I've been hearing from people I've talked with tonight....
http://ctsportslaw.com/2011/03/15/from-t...h-madness/
Here is the quote that covers the big question:
A buyout clause is less a deterrent than a price tag for voiding a contract. And for a large, Division I school, paying the buyout clause for a new coach is not especially difficult. If the school doesn’t want to pay the buyout, a booster club may be willing to do so. But that isn’t the only issue with buyout clauses.
Enforcement can also pose a challenge. A buyout clause is essentially a liquidated damages clause. A liquidated damages clause is only enforceable if the clause requires the coach to reimburse the school for the reasonable damages caused by the coach’s departure. The clause cannot be punitive. It is unlikely that a multi-million dollar buyout clause at a mid-major would be considered reasonable. Accordingly, a school could attempt to negotiate a large buyout for a talented coach like Stevens, but the courts may not honor it.
A retention clause may be more useful. Similar to a roster bonus in professional sports, a retention clause rewards a coach for remaining at the school on a given date (after the hiring season has come and gone). Unlike buyout clauses, enforcement is not an issue. Moreover, some schools prefer the concept of rewarding a coach for staying put rather than punishing the coach for leaving while under contract.
....
My worry is that Kent State could lose this kind of a lawsuit and come away with less. This athletic department is cash-srapped and needs the money now. If it gets dragged out in court, KSU could get less than what they deserve, which would be embarrassing and bad for the department. And it may take years. It just seems very risky to me.
David,
Clearly I am not a lawyer, but to me a buyout clause is placed in a contract in case a coach wants to take a different job. It is just that. He/They are buying their way out of the contract. I am not sure I understand the article as posted above. Is that someone's interpretation of the wording or has there actually been precedent set in other cases because there were no reasonable damages? Universities lose appeals and lawsuits all the time. This is KSU sticking up for what they are rightfully owed and fighting for the little guys.
I know you are friends with Geno and probably have more information than you want to share, which is fine. I am of the opinion that Kent State was planning on honoring the contract to him and I see no reason why I should cut him or Bradley University any slack in their efforts to do the same. As for the time involved in settling this through the courts or a mediator, I don't care. The money will be the money. Today or in 3 years.
Hi Danny,
I actually don't have any other information other than what I'm hearing from the people I talk to here.
Geno and I have a good relationship, but he is only talking through his lawyer, which makes sense.
I'm not asking for anyone to cut anyone any slack.
While i have a good relationship with Geno, I also have a good working relationship with Kent State.
My worry is if a judge rules that the buyout is punitive, KSU could get significantly less than what they might if the two sides just sat down and worked out something fair for both sides.
I can appreciate the idea of standing up for the little guy and fighting for what they believe is right, if that's what Kent State is doing. But these are tough times, especially with next year's budget cuts. I'm worried about the risk of this actually going to court. Unfortunately, in this case, what matters is what holds up in court.
The link I shared above explains better than I could (with my poor legal mind) what I've been told by a few people I reached out to today to try to understand this whole thing better. Fitzgerald is a lawyer and his website has some pretty good stuff.
By the way, I was going to call you the other night ... I hope you and your family are ok with the flooding in Memphis!!! Scary time!
(05-12-2011 12:06 AM)dlFLASH Wrote: [ -> ]Not saying you are wrong, but Bradley University can afford it and they knew the buyout in his contract when they came calling. If Geno would have expected to be paid, he should expect to pay.
And Geno knew it too. From what my source has shared with me he personally contacted other MAC coaches last season before signing the extension looking for advice. It seems he was advised against signing the deal because the buyout at it was seen as an astronomical rate for a "mid-major" program however he eventually signed the deal.
Also, Geno may have been looking for other opportunities more then we were lead to believe.
GO KENT
[/quote]
I agree. I thought it was too big a buyout at the time. In fact, I told him so.
Like you said, most saw it as an astronomical rate for a "mid-major," and that's what scares me with the lawsuit. I had never heard of such a huge buyout at this level, and that's why I'm worried a court could rule that it is punitive. To me it's risky.
David's right. A contract is a contract...except when it isn't. If it were as simple as what was written down when both parties signed it, you could have a minimum wage worker arbitrate disagreements. Instead, that is why there is the whole lucrative field of contract law. If Kent State ends up getting substantially less than the contract calls for, it would be yet another example of a mid-major getting the shaft, even if it is by another mid-major. As I stated a long time ago, I would just like to see the NCAA have a rule stipulating that all coaching contracts are for only one year. That way, nobody would be at a competitive advantage over anyone else, recruiting-wise.
Of course Geno Ford was looking to move on. He's a good, young coach and there is more prestige and hundreds of thousands of more dollars to be had by moving up in his profession. Nothing wrong or unusual with that. I would just like to see, however, coaches be upfront about it from the outset, say something to the effect of, "I'm really happy I got hired here and I like it here, but of course I will move on as soon as the right opportunity presents itself." I mean, except in the most egregious of situations (e.g. Charlie Coles because of his age and health status) everyone knows it anyway! And as I stated, there's nothing wrong with it!
Interesting read from an outcome of a coach breach of contract case. Marist sued Matt Brady over bolting for James Madison and
won. Article cites how ruling will have implications through college athletics.
Marist Sues Matt Brady and Wins
Personally, think our most likely outcome is a settlement. The court will push both sides to talk. Doubt we’ll get the full $1.2M, but also doubt we walk away with nothing. But, even if we do lose, still glad we made the point.
I assume bopol hasn't commented because his head exploded.
Appreciate David C. chiming in here. A few thoughts:
- Surely, Geno's contract with KSU was reviewed by our lawyers. While the buyout clause might be seen as unreasonable, there is obviously a reason they came up with that number. I'd love to know what their logic is. Apparently, they feel confident enough in that logic to move forward with it.
- I wonder if KSU set the bar so high knowing that these things always get negotiated down. If the buyout clause was $300K, Bradley still wouldn't have paid it. They would've negotiated it down to $50K and a box of popcorn.
- Last, Geno can go to hell. I'll never begrudge anyone for leaving a place for a better job, but the way in which he did it speaks volumes about his lack of character (hi, LeBron!). Letting his players learn about it through Twitter, and then never releasing a follow-up statement or making it public that he came back to meet the players to apologize says everything I need to know about his character. I hope he loses every game at Bradley.
I was a huge Geno fan while he was here. IMO, he was the best all around coach that we have had since I have been a season ticket holder. (more than 30 years) Let me clarify, he was the best all around from recruiting, preparation, to in game, to end of game coach during that time. Hopefully, most of that success was due to our current coach, RS, and I hope that we and Bradley will experience that. Because of Geno's character flaw, I am with kyflash in my wishes for Geno's future.
Again, IMO, KSU should take this to the end. Here is why. On the KSU side, the entire process will now be in the hands of the already salaried legal staff. It takes very little BB program resources, time, or attention on the KSU side. On the other hand, good legal work will cause the Bradley athletic staff, and more importantly their BB coach, much attention and diversion from their true jobs, building a winning BB program. I am sure that Bradley, after contracting to pay a coach $700,000 per year, wants the full attention of their coach and program to be on coaching with a clear mind and not diverted due to depositions galore. As an example, you can bet that the contract dispute that Rodriguez had with WVU affected his beginning years at Michigan. Michigan's first position was that it was between their coach and WVU only. WVU was smart and the legal process became a big time diversion of the coach and it was daily in the Ann Arbor press. It did not affect the WVU FB program at all. In the end, Michigan stepped up and paid part of the settlement and Rodriguez paid part to get rid of it. The damage was already done and Rodriguez was not given time to recover. If Bradley is smart, and this remains to be seen, they will take Geno into that high pressure office, and propose to pay half with Geno paying half and get this off the docket before if affects the Geno start. KSU really is in the catbird seat, and they should use it. I just hope that the KSU attorneys are not flunkies.
Is all there built up Lebron anger being vented in this thread? I get a little anger with Geno but come on. Geno won for us, continued to enhance the program, left a stocked roster and developed some darn good asst coaches.
In your profession whatever it might be say you did a great job on a project and a competitor offered you a 150% raise, you have young kids and you knew that your employer thought you did a great job but was investing in a different project (football). I would bet 95% of the posters on this board would have a hard time saying no to that.
Could he have handled the exit differently. Absolutely and according to Dave C he has openly admitted that. But remember during the days around his hire Dayton was also looking for a coach and Geno's name was in the mix so if you're Bradley no way in hell are you letting him leave without a signed contract if a school from his home state in on his trail.
So lets not focus solely on the exit but the full body of work. And any success Geno has only helps KSU as we gave him his start.
This case could establish a very important precedent for future cases. If KSU wins, what would Coach Senderoff do if a bigger school comes calling?
(05-12-2011 11:49 AM)ksu315 Wrote: [ -> ]Is all there built up Lebron anger being vented in this thread? I get a little anger with Geno but come on. Geno won for us, continued to enhance the program, left a stocked roster and developed some darn good asst coaches.
In your profession whatever it might be say you did a great job on a project and a competitor offered you a 150% raise, you have young kids and you knew that your employer thought you did a great job but was investing in a different project (football). I would bet 95% of the posters on this board would have a hard time saying no to that.
Could he have handled the exit differently. Absolutely and according to Dave C he has openly admitted that. But remember during the days around his hire Dayton was also looking for a coach and Geno's name was in the mix so if you're Bradley no way in hell are you letting him leave without a signed contract if a school from his home state in on his trail.
So lets not focus solely on the exit but the full body of work. And any success Geno has only helps KSU as we gave him his start.
You miss the point. Agree with your initial statement, but this is not an appreciation issue. It is a contract issue and Geno is an adult who was not forced to agree with anything. It now becomes a character issue also. No one is criticizing the moving on. We do criticize Geno's lack of character in the way he left and the disregard for his players who busted but for him. He should be a man and live up to the terms of his agreement. Case closed.
(05-12-2011 12:19 PM)thanksjim Wrote: [ -> ]This case could establish a very important precedent for future cases. If KSU wins, what would Coach Senderoff do if a bigger school comes calling?
Yes, he will leave also. That is not the issue. Hopefully he will do it properly when it happens, and I bet that he will.
(05-12-2011 11:49 AM)ksu315 Wrote: [ -> ]Is all there built up Lebron anger being vented in this thread?
Hey man, this is a family board no need for using that kind of language.