Help me remember about Mike Bianchi

[78]

I have nothing more to add.

You could add that I'm now your favorite poster.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

What is this thread about again?

It's about Will Muschamp leaving us with a roster filled with holes

 

[WobbleGator]

It's about Will Muschamp leaving us with a roster filled with holes

Was one of those holes called Mike Bianchi?

 

[PatDooleySucks]

[QUOTE='78;n172052]


You could add that I'm now your favorite poster.[/QUOTE]

I thought you wanted monetary compensation instead of recognition compensation.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Was one of those holes called Mike Bianchi?

No. Bianchi is more of a growth on one of the holes.

 

[78]

I thought you wanted monetary compensation instead of recognition compensation.

Ox would probably try 1099ing me.

 

[divits]

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

Oh, I thought you couldn't possibly understand it the first time I said it. :rolleyes:

You aren't very good at correlations, are you? The point of course is that if a coach is willing to give up $2 million of his own money to sign a contract to go to a school like Florida he may just as likely be willing to sign a non-compete stating that for one year he can't recruit any players he recruited while employed at Florida without forfeiting the remaining money on his contract.

The fact that you stated that a coach would never sign any type of non-compete contract in the first place was shown to be false. Apparently schools are wising up and realize that perhaps they don't have to leave themselves on the short end of the stick all the time when it comes to hiring coaches. So why should your statement that it's "not feasible" carry any weight? Things evolve all the time in the business world and just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean for a second that it can't be done. And as has been shown, there is legal precedent that non-competes can be upheld even when someone is fired.

I think I've made my arguments pretty clearly, but unfortunately your arrogance and the thought of someone not being impressed with your bona fides got you all in a tizzy. You've painted a pretty clear picture of yourself in this thread.

 

[divits]

Sorry to beat this horse again, but I just thought I'd point this out for those who said no school could possibly get away with putting a non-compete recruit clause in a coach's contract. It appears that a pretty big name school had already done it and low and behold, that school was none other than the University of Florida.

"Muschamp had a provision in his Florida contract that precluded him from recruiting against his former program - but only if his new school had not had any prior contact with those recruits. Auburn and Florida, both in the Southeastern Conference, have contact with hundreds of the same high school players every year."

Again, these contracts are ever changing and schools are not as willing to take it up the keester from coaches as much anymore. Maybe next time the contract stipulates that for a year coaches can't contact and recruit the same players they've had contact with while at their old school. But who knows?

Foley also said, ''I'm not really hung up on that,'' Foley said. ''I know some people are. If Will didn't work at all, we're still paying him the same amount of money. That's the world we live in. This is the big leagues. These coaches have a tough job. These coaches are in demand. When you're negotiating contracts with them. I'm not really worried about that.''

Give it a try next time Jer, see what happens. It just might save us $6.3 million.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/florida...33--ncaaf.html

This article also hits on a point in another thread about opening the vault to pay coaches whatever they ask for and lavishing players with whatever costly percs they want no matter the cost. The athletic program is currently $90 million in debt.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Not only did you manage to cite an article that disproved your point. You cited an article that bolstered my points about negotiating a non-compete contract stipulation in the SEC with a coach who could potentially be fired...

"This is the big leagues"

 

[divits]

Not only did you manage to cite an article that disproved your point. You cited an article that bolstered my points about negotiating a non-compete contract stipulation in the SEC with a coach who could potentially be fired...

"This is the big leagues"

I posted to show that not only can you negotiate non-competes, which you said could NEVER be done, but we in fact have already done it. That ice has been broken. I have no doubt why Foley would say what he said. He's the one who left us hanging for $6.3 million while Muschamp steals our recruits. Whether or not he attempted to negotiate a more restrictive non-compete is unknown. But we've gone from you stating that there are absolutely NO non-competes in the SEC and that Florida could never ask such a thing, to well, there are but they're none enforceable, to well, maybe they're enforceable but you can't ask for them because big boy league etc..

The point of course is who the hell knows what can and can't be negotiated? Things change all the time as we have seen with the implementation of these non-competes. Eventually you'll see some college team write a contract with the stipulations I've addressed.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

why not write something into the coach's contract that says, "You are forbidden from taking another job within the conference for at least one calendar year after your termination. Otherwise, you forfeit the buyout."

You'd have to be a minimally competent negotiator to do something like that.

Or at least hire a minimally competent negotiator to advise you.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

You guys and Bianchi are mixing up clauses for the firing of a coach and clauses for when a coach leaves voluntarily.

You're wrong. Noncomplete clauses are standard in most mid to high level contracts.

Nothing changes because you fire a guy. If he wants the rest of the contract, he complies with the provisions. If he fails to comply, you don't pay him. You may be able to sue him for previous amounts paid if he breaches.

Of course, you have some minimal amount of competence in the area, which our AD obviously doesn't.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

You can't guarantee some money to coach at your school, fire them, and then hold the money you promised to them over their head to control their job opportunities. Even if you put some clause in the contract, it's highly doubtful it would be enforceable.

Don't quit your day job.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

I posted to show that not only can you negotiate non-competes, which you said could NEVER be done, but we in fact have already done it. That ice has been broken. I have no doubt why Foley would say what he said. He's the one who left us hanging for $6.3 million while Muschamp steals our recruits. Whether or not he attempted to negotiate a more restrictive non-compete is unknown. But we've gone from you stating that there are absolutely NO non-competes in the SEC and that Florida could never ask such a thing, to well, there are but they're none enforceable, to well, maybe they're enforceable but you can't ask for them because big boy league etc..

The point of course is who the hell knows what can and can't be negotiated? Things change all the time as we have seen with the implementation of these non-competes. Eventually you'll see some college team write a contract with the stipulations I've addressed.

We have not negotiated a non compete clause for a fired coach. Like everything you've attempted to latch onto or cite, the language in that article is based on a coach leaving. If you can't grasp that there are different courses of action (or lack thereof) based on a coach being fired or a coach quitting, than there is nothing left to talk about.

But hey. Again, thanks for citing an article that perfectly illustrated that no SEC coaching candidate would ever accept such language.

"These coaches are in demand"

 

[PatDooleySucks]

You're wrong. Noncomplete clauses are standard in most mid to high level contracts.

Nothing changes because you fire a guy. If he wants the rest of the contract, he complies with the provisions. If he fails to comply, you don't pay him. You may be able to sue him for previous amounts paid if he breaches.

Of course, you have some minimal amount of competence in the area, which our AD obviously doesn't.

Everything changes because you fire a guy. I'm not doing this argument over a thread anymore. If you want to have this debate out over a PM, I'm happy to do it. I don't need to "quit my day job" to dispense of you rather quickly.

 

[divits]

Everything changes because you fire a guy. I'm not doing this argument over a thread anymore. If you want to have this debate out over a PM, I'm happy to do it. I don't need to "quit my day job" to dispense of you rather quickly.

That is just not true no matter how many times you say it. Each case is open to interpretation and if brought to litigation arguments can and have been made in support of the former employer.

I love the way you always try to bolster yourself by self declaring victory. Reeks of desperation. ;)

 

[oxrageous]

I declare myself the winner of this thread.

 

[NavetG8r]

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Everything changes because you fire a guy.

No... it doesnt. It's as simple as that.

 

[aka]

Yeah, I was hoping this would just die,.. and I started the thread. Bianchi couldn't possibly be worth eight pages without all the blathering back and forth about this other stuff.