I read the following and wanted to know if someone knew if USU has these types of clauses in their football (Gary's) coach's contracts.

http://www.footballscoop.com/the-scoop

Louisiana Tech: According to Greg Auman, Skip Holtz's contract (which will go in front of the board next week for approval) is a five year deal and calls for a base salary of $200,000 plus a $300,000 supplement each year. South Florida is still paying Holtz $500,000 per season. If he leaves before the end of the 2014 season he must pay LA Tech $1 million and if he leaves before the end of 2017, he has to pay back $500,000. Incentives include $25,000 for a bowl game, $25,000 for a conference title, and $100,000 for a BCS bowl.

USU definitely has similar clauses. Unfortunately, Gary's buyout to leave was not much at all.

Here is a good link that has PDFs of a lot of coaching contracts.

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm

Gary's buy out was a required donation to the BBC for what??? 100Kish? Can any guess as to why the buyout was allowed to be in the form of a donation instead of just Gary writing a check to the University?

ViAggie wrote:Gary's buy out was a required donation to the BBC for what??? 100Kish? Can any guess as to why the buyout was allowed to be in the form of a donation instead of just Gary writing a check to the University?

Tax write off for GA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gary's $100,000 went to the Merlin Olsen fund. Gary's name is there on the donation wall in the endzone complex.

ViAggie wrote:Gary's buy out was a required donation to the BBC for what??? 100Kish? Can any guess as to why the buyout was allowed to be in the form of a donation instead of just Gary writing a check to the University?

It makes GA look better. GA is very conscious of his public image.

He got out of his contract for 100k? That's it?

What genius wrote that contract???

Let's say you're writing that contract and the buyout is a sticking point, one that might cause the coach to decline signing, leave bad feelings about the negotiation and maybe lead to him looking elsewhere.
Would you stay firm on a high buyout figure or would you drop it down?

I love what Gary did for us and am over him leaving but we need to make sure we have some penalty when a coach wants to go to the another school before his contract is up.

USU was in no position to put a large buyout in Gary's contract.

Gary had all the leverage when the contract was reworked.

If Matt Wells has two great years and signs an extension and demands he have little to no buyout, USU will probably do that too. When a coach is good and in demand, he has all the power in negotiation.

If we're looking to get all the money out of the coaches as possible, we can hire much less qualified coaches with a lot higher buyout clauses. But I don't see that going well or being good for the program.

I wasn't surprised at all when I heard the buyout amount.

GA's buyout was paid by Wisconsin. The $100k donation was a donation given by GA as a donation, it was not his buyout.

Yeah, wasn't the buyout clause 35% of his salary per year left? Which would have added up to a little over a million.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... g/1785957/

Really good article on how Wisconsin did really well because Gary was so cheap. According to the article, Gary's buyout was $167,500 which of course Wisconsin had no problem paying.

Buyouts get paid by the new school a coach moves up to. Money is usually is not an issue for them. So I say we stick it to them with a higher buyout in the future.

Another interesting part from that article:

Northern Illinois is getting a $750,000 buyout from Dave Doeren's departure for North Carolina State and it replaced Doeren by promoting Rod Carey, who had been an assistant coach. Arkansas State is getting $700,000 because Gus Malzahn left for Auburn.

Based on those figures, USU lost out on a pile of money.

I would rather have a happy coach who is here, than a pile of money for a coach that's not here.

fballplayer137 wrote:GA's buyout was paid by Wisconsin. The $100k donation was a donation given by GA as a donation, it was not his buyout.

Well you seem to be in the know on a lot of things so I will trust that you are right, it just seemed that the timming was a bit odd, announces he's leavaing THEN gives a large "donation" (which is a tax write off). But then again, GA probably needed the write off anyway. Hey good for him! Like others have said, I would rather have coaches that ultimately get offered jobs with big 10 schools than some "Guy" we have to end up firing.

Why does the coach even care about the buyout? If they're so great that a bigger school wants them, that school will pay the buyout . Win-win - the coach gets to move to a better job but leaves a bunch of cash behind for the school he was it.

Also, if they demand it be super low, there's a reason ...they're planning to leave anyway.

You need to put in a decent buyout. Non-bcs schools need to milk whatever money they can from the rich.

Think the buyouts with the NBA and European players. The NBA is loaded and they can afford to pay most buyouts. But you see the impact of large buyouts all the time in the NBA. European players drop down draft boards because of them. European players are also often drafted and just left in Europe until their buyout expires or is less. NBA teams will often tell the player that if they want to come before the buyout expires then they, the player, must buyout the contract because the team isn't going to. Buyouts matter.

A large buyout could easily cause one team, torn between two choices, to choose the coach with the lower buyout. A low buyout makes a coach more marketable. This is important to them.

Good European players aren't going to sign European contracts with crappy European teams (which is all European teams when compared to the NBA) for large buyouts, unproven players who aren't established will sign those contracts. Same goes with buyouts for coaches. You can get crappy coaches to sign contracts with large buyouts but you're not going to get a good coach to do it.

Worrying about buyouts is a waste of time. It's like telling the coach you know you suck and they are going to leave your school and all you care about is getting compensated for it. Instead a school like USU should be doing everything to be attractive to a coach. So we should pay them as much as possible and not try to hamstring them with buyouts. USU shouldn't be in the business of trying to generate revenue with buyouts, USU should generate revenue with donations and ticket sales.

The thing I can't wrap my head around is why coaching contracts are so one-sided to begin with. The buyout should be exactly the same for both coach and employer. If the employer has to pay out the remainder of the contract to break it, the coach (or new school) should have to do the same. It's incredibly stupid.

3rdGenAggie wrote:The thing I can't wrap my head around is why coaching contracts are so one-sided to begin with. The buyout should be exactly the same for both coach and employer. If the employer has to pay out the remainder of the contract to break it, the coach (or new school) should have to do the same. It's incredibly stupid.

Leverage

AggieAddict wrote:

3rdGenAggie wrote:The thing I can't wrap my head around is why coaching contracts are so one-sided to begin with. The buyout should be exactly the same for both coach and employer. If the employer has to pay out the remainder of the contract to break it, the coach (or new school) should have to do the same. It's incredibly stupid.

Leverage

it is also easier for a school to find a coach when the old coach left than for a coach to find a new job when he was fired