CSNbbs

I have heard Matt C.'s buyout clause is only $200,00. Is this true, it seems really low?

(11-28-2015 09:00 PM)thetachihuskie Wrote: [ -> ]I have heard Matt C.'s buyout clause is only $200,00. Is this true, it seems really low?

That's the story. Not sure what a buyout clause really accomplish for a Toledo. It's not going to stop a deal from happening.

To have a high buyout clause, you'd had to have to have a high salary too. Otherwise why would the coach agree to it?

The way I see it is that these buyout clauses are not going to deter the BIG BOYS from hiring your coach, but if they are willing to pay your coach a salary of $2-4 million per year on a multi-year contract they not likely to quibble very much about also having to pay a one time buyout penalty of $1 million and thus soften the blow of losing the coach a bit.

Many board complaints on that very topic when the contract was made public. Not sure the reasoning from the AD's office but if a MAC school is basically nothing more than a way station, time to consider creating coaches for the next level a profit making position.

UT must not be very good at getting buyout clauses. Coach Cullop has NO buyout clause (yes, NO BUYOUT).

Might be O'Brien finds them cheesy. I can see that perspective too.

Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

(11-28-2015 10:35 PM)falconplucker Wrote: [ -> ]Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

Not really look at Arkansas states last 5 coaches..all had decent buyouts and all have moved to bigger gigs really. Andersons buyout us 3 Million. Then 2 million after year 3

Buyout clauses keep the coach from job hopping on a whim. They served a good purpose. Any P5 school will pay the buyout on the coach's behalf. UT needs to keep utilizing buyout clauses. This makes it hard for a P5 school to take your coach away for an OC or DC position as well.

(11-28-2015 10:35 PM)falconplucker Wrote: [ -> ]Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

A contract protects the employee with a buyout if he is fired prematurely while under contract in order to hire a better coach so why not a buyout penalty clause to protect the employer's interests as well in the case of the coach quits prematurely to take a better job? What exactly is cheesy about having the rights of both parties protected? How is that penalizing some poor impoverished rising coach who was given the chance to become a rising coach by his current employer? I wouldn't call it a penalty, I would call it a debt of gratitude.

(11-29-2015 12:05 AM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2015 10:35 PM)falconplucker Wrote: [ -> ]Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

A contract protects the employee with a buyout if he is fired so why no a buyout penalty clause to protect the employer? What exactly is cheesy about having the rights of both parties protected?

Yep. I bet if UT fired MC without cause, he would be owed his entire base salary (or close to it) of what his left on his contract. But if he leaves early, he owes not even half of 1 years salary. That gives the coach everything, without UT taking anything.

(11-29-2015 12:05 AM)T-Town Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2015 10:35 PM)falconplucker Wrote: [ -> ]Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

A contract protects the employee with a buyout if he is fired prematurely while under contract in order to hire a better coach so why not a buyout penalty clause to protect the employer's interests as well in the case of the coach quits prematurely to take a better job? What exactly is cheesy about having the rights of both parties protected? How is that penalizing some poor impoverished rising coach who was given the chance to become a rising coach by his current employer? I wouldn't call it a penalty, I would call it a debt of gratitude.

A poor impoverished rising coach making 6 figures?

(11-29-2015 12:01 AM)RustonCAT Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2015 10:35 PM)falconplucker Wrote: [ -> ]Buyout clauses, especially at this level are cheesy. Do you really want to penalize rising coaches with a petty buyout clause? All you will end up with is old has beens.

Not really look at Arkansas states last 5 coaches..all had decent buyouts and all have moved to bigger gigs really. Andersons buyout us 3 Million. Then 2 million after year 3

Wow, 3 Million Dollar bars? Not sure we even get a Snickers.