What JT's contract says about termination

2,394 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 12 yr ago by KoreAmBear
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have the 2002 version, with the 2007 addendum to it. I understand that there was another addendum in 2008, which I don't have, so I think the only real change was that the contract was through 2015 and that the total annual salary is $2.3M. The 2007 addendum has $1.8M as salary ($225,000 base, $1,575,000 talent fee) through 2013.

The parties to the contract are JT and the Regents of UC (signed in 2007 by Birgenau, Nathan Brostrom (Vice Chancellor of Admin), and Sandy, as officers of the Regents).

Paragraph 11 of the 2002 agreement states that JT could be terminated even WITHOUT CAUSE (that means even if there is no breach of the contract, bad behavior or wrong-doing) but the "University shall continue to pay Coach for the remainder of the term of this agreement, subject to reductions referenced below . . ." That means if he is fired at the end of the year, you have $2.3M x 3 (2013-2015), which is $6.9M.

What is "referenced below" is a duty on the part of JT to mitigate the pay that comes from Cal [my apologies to someone to whom I said mitigation does not come into play - it does under this contract, it would not if there is a buyout/reformation of the contract]. That means if JT gets another job, the money he gets from the college or pro team would reduce the Regents' obligation dollar for dollar:

Quote:

"The parties recognize that Coach has the duty to obtain other employment in mitigation of any damages he may sustain by virtue of the termination of this Employment Contract. It is expressly understood by the parties hereto that any payments so made to Coach will be reduced by any amounts received, or to be received at a later date, by Coach from other sources in and for rendition of services by Coach during the period of time in which Coach, pursuant to this Agreement would have been employed by the University if this contract had not been terminated. In the event Coach enters an employment agreement, or receives compensation during the period of time in which Coach, pursuant to this Agreement, would have been employed by the University if this contract had not been terminated, Coach shall promptly inform the University of the amounts of such compensation."


So in sum, the Regents (could be via Sandy as officer) can fire Jeff Tedford whenever they want and for whatever reason. However they will have to pay the salary he is owed through 2015 ($2.3M year). But if JT gets another job, whatever he makes will reduce the Regents' obligation dollar for dollar.

All that said, if the parties want to forgo the current agreement, the Regents could negotiate with JT a buyout for an agreed upon amount, where Cal gets a discount on the remainder of the contract, and where JT gets in exchange a more up-front lump sum payment and no offset on his payment from money made in his subsequent employment.

It saddens me to write this but I think it needs to be posted so more people know what is needed to get this done.
foradolla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Isn't firing Tedford for inability to meet performance standards cause for termination? And if this is the case wouldn't the contract then be voided and we wont have to pay him anything because we would be firing him with cause or no? Sorry I am not versed in contracts at all but I read over it and this is what I inferred. At least in regards to the one from 2007 which is the one that I read
alarsuel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
foradolla;841966257 said:

Isn't firing Tedford for inability to meet performance standards cause for termination? And if this is the case wouldn't the contract then be voided and we wont have to pay him anything because we would be firing him with cause or no? Sorry I am not versed in contracts at all but I read over it and this is what I inferred. At least in regards to the one from 2007 which is the one that I read


It'd be like Major League... Sandy rooting for JT to go 1-11 so she can fire him with cause.

"this guy here is dead"

"cross him off then"
maxer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
foradolla;841966257 said:

Isn't firing Tedford for inability to meet performance standards cause for termination? And if this is the case wouldn't the contract then be voided and we wont have to pay him anything because we would be firing him with cause or no? Sorry I am not versed in contracts at all but I read over it and this is what I inferred. At least in regards to the one from 2007 which is the one that I read


No. Termination for cause means express breach of the contract. If what you suggest were the case the contract would be completely worthless.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The "cause" section of the contract is in paragraph 8:

Quote:

Violation by Coach of the provisions hereinabove stated, violation of NCAA regulations, misconduct or failure to maintain appropriate standards of performance, shall constitute a breach of this Employment Contract and upon such breach the University may, at its discretion, administer disciplinary or corrective action or terminate this Employment Contract.



Of course the ambiguous clause here is "appropriate standards of performance." I am pretty sure this does not have anything to do with Ws and Ls, does it? For contracts, you are generally not allowed to introduce evidence of what was discussed as whatever is written in the four corners of the document is what you get (parol evidence rule). But if there are ambiguous terms and phrases, some evidence (discussions, perhaps even customary expectations) can be brought into litigation to clarify the true intent of the parties.

If there is a violation for cause, generally no monies are owed (there may be issues with already earned bonuses or other performance rewards) to the employee.
FCBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So 6.9 million?
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FCBear;841966295 said:

So 6.9 million?


$6.9M if terminated without cause (but JT has duty to mitigate and employer gets dollar for dollar reduction on its obligation on JT's next contract during the term of the Cal contract to 2015).

Nothing if terminated for cause.
bearsandgiants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anybody in the nfl interested in him? He really would be a good oc at that level, with guys who can "execute." Maybe all 3 parties would be amenable to that at year end. Everyone saves face, and we save maybe a couple million over the life of the contract.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearsandgiants;841966314 said:

Anybody in the nfl interested in him? He really would be a good oc at that level, with guys who can "execute." Maybe all 3 parties would be amenable to that at year end. Everyone saves face, and we save maybe a couple million over the life of the contract.


Well he and Belichick are buds.
txwharfrat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He actually be perfect as the Houston Texans offensive coordinator. Gary Kubiak is what JT wishes he was. The two are completely simpatico when it comes to offensive philosophy. The gripes that people here in Houaton have had about Kubiak durig hia first six years here are pretty much the same things people complain about JT .... Super-Duper conservative and old-school West Coast offense.
maxer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear;841966286 said:

The "cause" section of the contract is in paragraph 8:



Of course the ambiguous clause here is "appropriate standards of performance." I am pretty sure this does not have anything to do with Ws and Ls, does it?


No. That is stuff like not showing up to work, coming to work drunk, hiring your mistress as recruiting coordinator -- stuff like that.
SmellinRoses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear;841966145 said:

I have the 2002 version, with the 2007 addendum to it. I understand that there was another addendum in 2008, which I don't have, so I think the only real change was that the contract was through 2015 and that the total annual salary is $2.3M. The 2007 addendum has $1.8M as salary ($225,000 base, $1,575,000 talent fee) through 2013.

The parties to the contract are JT and the Regents of UC (signed in 2007 by Birgenau, Nathan Brostrom (Vice Chancellor of Admin), and Sandy, as officers of the Regents).

Paragraph 11 of the 2002 agreement states that JT could be terminated even WITHOUT CAUSE (that means even if there is no breach of the contract, bad behavior or wrong-doing) but the "University shall continue to pay Coach for the remainder of the term of this agreement, subject to reductions referenced below . . ." That means if he is fired at the end of the year, you have $2.3M x 3 (2013-2015), which is $6.9M.

What is "referenced below" is a duty on the part of JT to mitigate the pay that comes from Cal [my apologies to someone to whom I said mitigation does not come into play - it does under this contract, it would not if there is a buyout/reformation of the contract]. That means if JT gets another job, the money he gets from the college or pro team would reduce the Regents' obligation dollar for dollar:


So in sum, the Regents (could be via Sandy as officer) can fire Jeff Tedford whenever they want and for whatever reason. However they will have to pay the salary he is owed through 2015 ($2.3M year). But if JT gets another job, whatever he makes will reduce the Regents' obligation dollar for dollar.

All that said, if the parties want to forgo the current agreement, the Regents could negotiate with JT a buyout for an agreed upon amount, where Cal gets a discount on the remainder of the contract, and where JT gets in exchange a more up-front lump sum payment and no offset on his payment from money made in his subsequent employment.

It saddens me to write this but I think it needs to be posted so more people know what is needed to get this done.



A bit surprised that the mitigation section is particularly vague with references to lower case "amounts received" and alternatively "compensation received."

Does this include perqs and other fringe benefits as form of compensation? University needs every nickel back from Mr. Tedford.
Don'tDance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear;841966317 said:

Well he and Belichick are buds.


Why would he negotiate for a high payment as an OC? If anything, he would offer to start with a lower title and pay since he would be negotiating for payments to Cal not to himself. He could fulfill his obligation to seek employment, work as quality control for a couple of years for a HC/GM who likes him, then seriously look for an OC job in '15 or '16.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can Tedford be fired for letting a WR determine who is our QB?
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
maxer;841966432 said:

No. That is stuff like not showing up to work, coming to work drunk, hiring your mistress as recruiting coordinator -- stuff like that.


I thought so. Thanks.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.