Help me remember about Mike Bianchi

[cornbread]

I'm an attorney

. I bet your a man, and 40

 

[divits]

Ugh, You again? Back for more embarrassment? OK. I can prove it pretty easily. Let's bet. If I win, you cancel your account. If you win, I cancel mine. Pretty even bet, right? Choose a neutral party to judge, and let's do it.

Oh, good Lord. As if you haven't shown your ass enough in one thread.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Just my two cents here, but a non-compete is enforceable even if the employee is fired. Now each item in that clause has to be reasonable, and if the judge finds it to be reasonable, then both the hiring employer and the offending employee could both be held accountable. In the normal world, a non-compete is used to protect the the former employers operating methods, marketing tactics, and customer base. It would be completely reasonable to add this clause, and it would definitely have a chance to be upheld, so long as the coach in this case was willing to sign it. Now the clause in this circumstance probably couldn't exceed restrictions beyond a year (2 max), any schools beyond conference/state, or personally recruiting a player from the previous school that the coach had direct interaction with. To say there is no way restrictions could be placed is inaccurate, and if you think these coaches that jump from Utah and CSU to have their shot at UF wouldn't sign them I believe you are mistaken. Most of these guys just got rewarded for winning and winning big at one or two other schools first, and are typically younger. They think they are world beaters and truly believe that they will not lose enough to be canned, especially in their first contract. An extension means (typically) that they have just accomplished something and, again, don't have any reason to think they will get fired.

 

[divits]

Just my two cents here, but a non-compete is enforceable even if the employee is fired. Now each item in that clause has to be reasonable, and if the judge finds it to be reasonable, then both the hiring employer and the offending employee could both be held accountable. In the normal world, a non-compete is used to protect the the former employers operating methods, marketing tactics, and customer base. It would be completely reasonable to add this clause, and it would definitely have a chance to be upheld, so long as the coach in this case was willing to sign it. Now the clause in this circumstance probably couldn't exceed restrictions beyond a year (2 max), any schools beyond conference/state, or personally recruiting a player from the previous school that the coach had direct interaction with. To say there is no way restrictions could be placed is inaccurate, and if you think these coaches that jump from Utah and CSU to have their shot at UF wouldn't sign them I believe you are mistaken. Most of these guys just got rewarded for winning and winning big at one or two other schools first, and are typically younger. They think they are world beaters and truly believe that they will not lose enough to be canned, especially in their first contract. An extension means (typically) that they have just accomplished something and, again, don't have any reason to think they will get fired.

Exactly. Case in point, MacElwain agreeing to pay $2 million of his buyout with his own money to come to UF.

 

[cornbread]

Just my two cents here, but a non-compete is enforceable even if the employee is fired. Now each item in that clause has to be reasonable, and if the judge finds it to be reasonable, then both the hiring employer and the offending employee could both be held accountable. In the normal world, a non-compete is used to protect the the former employers operating methods, marketing tactics, and customer base. It would be completely reasonable to add this clause, and it would definitely have a chance to be upheld, so long as the coach in this case was willing to sign it. Now the clause in this circumstance probably couldn't exceed restrictions beyond a year (2 max), any schools beyond conference/state, or personally recruiting a player from the previous school that the coach had direct interaction with. To say there is no way restrictions could be placed is inaccurate, and if you think these coaches that jump from Utah and CSU to have their shot at UF wouldn't sign them I believe you are mistaken. Most of these guys just got rewarded for winning and winning big at one or two other schools first, and are typically younger. They think they are world beaters and truly believe that they will not lose enough to be canned, especially in their first contract. An extension means (typically) that they have just accomplished something and, again, don't have any reason to think they will get fired.

kick his a$$ c bass

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Oh, good Lord. As if you haven't shown your ass enough in one thread.

So I guess more talk from you and no action. Thought so

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Exactly. Case in point, MacElwain agreeing to pay $2 million of his buyout with his own money to come to UF.

You keep bringing this up, and the two actions have no relation to each other. You are truly out of your element

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Just my two cents here, but a non-compete is enforceable even if the employee is fired. Now each item in that clause has to be reasonable, and if the judge finds it to be reasonable, then both the hiring employer and the offending employee could both be held accountable. In the normal world, a non-compete is used to protect the the former employers operating methods, marketing tactics, and customer base. It would be completely reasonable to add this clause, and it would definitely have a chance to be upheld, so long as the coach in this case was willing to sign it. Now the clause in this circumstance probably couldn't exceed restrictions beyond a year (2 max), any schools beyond conference/state, or personally recruiting a player from the previous school that the coach had direct interaction with. To say there is no way restrictions could be placed is inaccurate, and if you think these coaches that jump from Utah and CSU to have their shot at UF wouldn't sign them I believe you are mistaken. Most of these guys just got rewarded for winning and winning big at one or two other schools first, and are typically younger. They think they are world beaters and truly believe that they will not lose enough to be canned, especially in their first contract. An extension means (typically) that they have just accomplished something and, again, don't have any reason to think they will get fired.

Let's start there. This is a big point of mine. There is no evidence a coach in the SEC would sign this contract. '78 brought up the Bielma situation. I clearly pointed out that Bielma's contract was a non compete only if Bielma left on his own accord. Martindale even questioned whether that is enforceable, but whatever. I always tell attorneys to not negotiate against themselves. Allowing a clause like this would be negotiating against themselves. Coaches that are desired by an SEC team don't have to do this. People in this thread are now playing armchair attorney/athletic director. If it's so feasible, then it would have been done to death right now. It would seem feasible to make all sports contracts performance based, but that's not usually done either. As to your point about extensions, they often don't mean anybody has accomplished anything. They are often done because they look good to recruits or the university wants continuity. Case in point. Butch Jones has not done squat. He just received an extension because Tennessee can't bare the thought of hiring another coach in the next year or so. I guess people on this board now think they are smarter than the coaches who call plays, the athletic directors who hire, and the team of attorneys that negotiate and construct these contracts. Since there are 14 entities in the SEC who do not have this type of language with their coaches, we need to congratulate the members of this board, We have some pretty smart people.

 

[WobbleGator]

I was thinking more like somebody who mattered

Ok, I will help out. You lose now GTFO.

 

[Ray Finkle]

[Let's start there. This is a big point of mine. There is no evidence a coach in the SEC would sign this contract. '78 brought up the Bielma situation. I clearly pointed out that Bielma's contract was a non compete only if Bielma left on his own accord. Martindale even questioned whether that is enforceable, but whatever. I always tell attorneys to not negotiate against themselves. Allowing a clause like this would be negotiating against themselves. Coaches that are desired by an SEC team don't have to do this. People in this thread are now playing armchair attorney/athletic director. If it's so feasible, then it would have been done to death right now. It would seem feasible to make all sports contracts performance based, but that's not usually done either. As to your point about extensions, they often don't mean anybody has accomplished anything. They are often done because they look good to recruits or the university wants continuity. Case in point. Butch Jones has not done squat. He just received an extension because Tennessee can't bare the thought of hiring another coach in the next year or so. I guess people on this board now think they are smarter than the coaches who call plays, the athletic directors who hire, and the team of attorneys that negotiate and construct these contracts. Since there are 14 entities in the SEC who do not have this type of language with their coaches, we need to congratulate the members of this board, We have some pretty smart people.

Saying there is no evidence a coach would sign one of these, and then saying that BB had signed a similar clause makes your case of "nobody would ever sign one" very weak. With contracts rapidly rising, universities are slowly taking steps to protect themselves. Don't make absolutes PDS, exceptions to every rule exist. As someone said, your inability to stay calm during a discussion is not good for your profession.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Saying there is no evidence a coach would sign one of these, and then saying that BB had signed a similar clause makes your case of "nobody would ever sign one" very weak. With contracts rapidly rising, universities are slowly taking steps to protect themselves. Don't make absolutes PDS, exceptions to every rule exist. As someone said, your inability to stay calm during a discussion is not good for your profession.

Not similar at all. Apples and Oranges. I've pointed out that no coach in the SEC has this clause. It validates my point.

What do you mean by "contracts rapidly rising?" Are you saying contracting is becoming something new in college athletics? Or are you trying to say with salaries rapidly rising?

 

[Ray Finkle]

Sorry, forgot to add this. Schools put restrictions on where players can transfer to. This release agreement is essentially a non compete. If they do it to kids, they cab do it to paid coaches.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Sorry, forgot to add this. Schools put restrictions on where players can transfer to. This release agreement is essentially a non compete. If they do it to kids, they cab do it to paid coaches.

Hey as a side. I learned something interesting from our coaching search. Did you know Mississippi has put a statutory maximum for how long a coaching contract can be for in the State? Talk about a good first step. That's the legislature stepping in and saying that they are tired of ADs burning State money by their arms races with each other. Florida could use that.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Not similar at all. Apples and Oranges. I've pointed out that no coach in the SEC has this clause. It validates my point. What do you mean by "contracts rapidly rising?" Are you saying contracting is becoming something new in college athletics? Or are you trying to say with salaries rapidly rising?

Arkansas' contract with BB is a case for these contracts becoming more progressive to protect the university. I am not saying that one currently exists that is identical to the proposed clause, but to say you have evidence that this would never happen is absurd. If you need the second half of this clarified, there is no reason to continuer the debate.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Arkansas' contract with BB is a case for these contracts becoming more progressive to protect the university. I am not saying that one currently exists that is identical to the proposed clause, but to say you have evidence that this would never happen is absurd. If you need the second half of this clarified, there is no reason to continuer the debate.

We will see in time. So far nobody has signed one. I feel pretty confident based on the nature of sports contracting today that it won't happen. I suppose my evidence is the precedent out there, and the nature of the power being in the hands of the agents and players. Agents/Players can collude. GMs/Athletic Directors cannot. Therefore, the agents/players/coaches have the power. Agents/players/coaches are also bolstered by desperation from GMs/Athletic Directors. So I suppose my "evidence" is logic. I'm confident in it, but you are right that my only evidence is "negative" evidence. We shall see. Again though, I doubt the clause Arkansas has is even enforceable. In a prior paragraph you noted reasons courts look for upholding these clauses. Arkansas would have a tough time claiming one.

 

[78]

Let's make this simple. Dooley's simply pointing out it's highly unlikely an established coach is going to give the university the right to terminate the contract without cause AND determine where and when he can coach again. And I, for one, happen to agree. I wasn't fully aware of the terms of the Bielma contract when I first referenced it because I hadn't read it all. He can't coach in the SEC if he quits or is terminated with cause. Otherwise, he's free as a bird.

 

[PastyStoole]

Just my two cents here, but a non-compete is enforceable even if the employee is fired. Now each item in that clause has to be reasonable, and if the judge finds it to be reasonable, then both the hiring employer and the offending employee could both be held accountable. In the normal world, a non-compete is used to protect the the former employers operating methods, marketing tactics, and customer base. It would be completely reasonable to add this clause, and it would definitely have a chance to be upheld, so long as the coach in this case was willing to sign it. Now the clause in this circumstance probably couldn't exceed restrictions beyond a year (2 max), any schools beyond conference/state, or personally recruiting a player from the previous school that the coach had direct interaction with. To say there is no way restrictions could be placed is inaccurate, and if you think these coaches that jump from Utah and CSU to have their shot at UF wouldn't sign them I believe you are mistaken. Most of these guys just got rewarded for winning and winning big at one or two other schools first, and are typically younger. They think they are world beaters and truly believe that they will not lose enough to be canned, especially in their first contract. An extension means (typically) that they have just accomplished something and, again, don't have any reason to think they will get fired.

What the hell does all this have to do with pompous grammarians? Stay on topic please.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

[QUOTE='78;n172046]Let's make this simple. Dooley's simply pointing out it's highly unlikely an established coach is going to give the university the right to terminate the contract without cause AND determine where and when he can coach again. And I, for one, happen to agree. I wasn't fully aware of the terms of the Bielma contract when I first referenced it because I hadn't read it all. He can't coach in the SEC if he quits or is terminated with cause. Otherwise, he's free as a bird.[/QUOTE]

I have nothing more to add.

 

[WobbleGator]

What is this thread about again?