Quickzips Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 What is the upside for Can't? $1.2 million dollars. That makes an impact in a MAC Athletic Department budget. Just to clarify, Can't State is highly, HIGHLY unlikely to see a $1.2 million dollar payout on this. Even if the case eventually does go to court, which in all likelihood it will be settled for a much smaller dollar amount well before it ever sniffs a jury, these types of liquidated damages clauses are just not favored much in the courts. The courts will likely look at that big, $1.2 million dollar figure and say you are essentially trying to put a barrier in front of the guy ever leaving his position. They will likely look at it as a loose form of indentured servitude (we've got a big problem with that in this country) and would be very hesitant to issue a judgment anywhere close to that amount. It really is puzzling to me why Can't State is continuing to push this. They are unlikely to receive a payout that is going to cover their costs, it is going to have a deterrent effect on future coaching hires, it isn't going to bring Geno Ford back. It just seems like leftover bitterness and animocity is clouding their judgment to the point where they are making a bad decision just to try and screw with Ford and Bradley. This is pretty good. I touched on some of this earlier. Just because it's written in a part of a contract may not mean much. Some other part of the contract may negate it, the law may not support it, the details may be interpreted differently by different people, or a jury could find the breach penalties to be extremely excessive. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking that this is likely a clear issue. As I said, in most cases this is merely an attempt to push for a settlement. If they pursue this all the way to the end to try to get some portion of that amount as a judgement in their favor in a courtroom, it may not even be worth their time and expense. I also agree with those who have stated that Ken+ is a good enough job for an up and coming coach that this won't be a deterent. In fact, I think this kind of thing happens more often than we ever hear about. The thing you really have to remember is that Can't is going to have to have to prove an actual dollar amount for their damages related to this. They are going to have to prove what they lost out of pocket. I have a difficult time believing they will be able to prove $1.2 million out of pocket as a result of this. The most I could see them getting would be the cost related to their new coaching search along with the difference between Ford's old salary and Senderoff's salary as the new coach. I don't know the details of either contract, but I doubt that comes out to $1.2 million. Can't isn't going to get enough money out of this to buy a home game with Bradley when this is all said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachTheZip Posted May 15, 2011 Report Share Posted May 15, 2011 It's going to be hard to prove a high dollar amount lost because of this. Ford didn't improve their attendance and he didn't make it to the NCAA tournament while his main rival did twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted May 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Terry Pluto weighs in. It appears that Can't State have been using the coaches who left early to finance the salary of their replacement. There's nothing new about how these deals work. I checked with former Can't State athletic director Laing Kennedy, who negotiated Ford's contract. He said it's the same protection clause that was in the contracts of previous coaches who left before their deals expired. According to Kennedy, when Gary Waters went to Rutgers in 2001, Can't State received about $200,000. When Stan Heath departed after a single season for Arkansas in 2002, it was a $750,000 buyout. For Jim Christian to Texas Christian in 2008, it was about $350,000. "It was never a problem being paid," said Kennedy. "We usually got the checks in a week or two." Can't State used much of the buyout money to pay the salaries of their new coaches, according to Kennedy. It looks like they have a good precedent to argue for getting paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 It seems to me that Brad thinks they are in the right as well. We seem to be omitting those quotes in the posts in this tread. These coaches get very good legal representation when they sign contracts. Words like "buyout" are nothing new to the coaches or lawyers. It was probably the first thing they looked at. I'd be highly surprised is Ford has to take a dime out of his own pocket to pay the amount. The previous coaches probably didn't have their buyout money sitting in their checking accounts when their buyouts were paid within two weeks. Brad is doing the right thing by going to court. In fact, they claim to be in the right. If they lose, they pay the buyout, which may not bother them. Less than the buyout is even better if they can settle out of court. All I know is this. I hope this case goes on for a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipmeister Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 What is the upside for Can't? $1.2 million dollars. That makes an impact in a MAC Athletic Department budget. Just to clarify, Can't State is highly, HIGHLY unlikely to see a $1.2 million dollar payout on this. Even if the case eventually does go to court, which in all likelihood it will be settled for a much smaller dollar amount well before it ever sniffs a jury, these types of liquidated damages clauses are just not favored much in the courts. The courts will likely look at that big, $1.2 million dollar figure and say you are essentially trying to put a barrier in front of the guy ever leaving his position. They will likely look at it as a loose form of indentured servitude (we've got a big problem with that in this country) and would be very hesitant to issue a judgment anywhere close to that amount. It really is puzzling to me why Can't State is continuing to push this. They are unlikely to receive a payout that is going to cover their costs, it is going to have a deterrent effect on future coaching hires, it isn't going to bring Geno Ford back. It just seems like leftover bitterness and animocity is clouding their judgment to the point where they are making a bad decision just to try and screw with Ford and Bradley. This is pretty good. I touched on some of this earlier. Just because it's written in a part of a contract may not mean much. Some other part of the contract may negate it, the law may not support it, the details may be interpreted differently by different people, or a jury could find the breach penalties to be extremely excessive. Please don't fool yourselves into thinking that this is likely a clear issue. As I said, in most cases this is merely an attempt to push for a settlement. If they pursue this all the way to the end to try to get some portion of that amount as a judgement in their favor in a courtroom, it may not even be worth their time and expense. I also agree with those who have stated that Ken+ is a good enough job for an up and coming coach that this won't be a deterent. In fact, I think this kind of thing happens more often than we ever hear about. The thing you really have to remember is that Can't is going to have to have to prove an actual dollar amount for their damages related to this. They are going to have to prove what they lost out of pocket. I have a difficult time believing they will be able to prove $1.2 million out of pocket as a result of this. The most I could see them getting would be the cost related to their new coaching search along with the difference between Ford's old salary and Senderoff's salary as the new coach. I don't know the details of either contract, but I doubt that comes out to $1.2 million. Can't isn't going to get enough money out of this to buy a home game with Bradley when this is all said and done. Your command of contract law is impressively modest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Kangaroo Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Terry Pluto weighs in. It appears that Can't State have been using the coaches who left early to finance the salary of their replacement. There's nothing new about how these deals work. I checked with former Can't State athletic director Laing Kennedy, who negotiated Ford's contract. He said it's the same protection clause that was in the contracts of previous coaches who left before their deals expired. According to Kennedy, when Gary Waters went to Rutgers in 2001, Can't State received about $200,000. When Stan Heath departed after a single season for Arkansas in 2002, it was a $750,000 buyout. For Jim Christian to Texas Christian in 2008, it was about $350,000. "It was never a problem being paid," said Kennedy. "We usually got the checks in a week or two." Can't State used much of the buyout money to pay the salaries of their new coaches, according to Kennedy. It looks like they have a good precedent to argue for getting paid. Bradley has sent no check yet. And there appears precedent that K.e.n.t. is due at least $400k. With the full 1.2 million a distinct possibility due to the contract's remaining years. If you poo poo $400k, ask YouTube Tom how easy it is to find a $400k donor. Or if $400k makes an impact on his budget. $400k pays for a couple golf coaches, a tennis coach, the track coach, and maybe a baseball and softball coach too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 If you poo poo $400k, ask YouTube Tom how easy it is to find a $400k donor. Or if $400k makes an impact on his budget. I didn't get the memo on when we should start calling taxpayers "donors". Isn't this sort of like calling taxes "contributions"? One point nobody has brought up yet is the fact the case is filed in Portage County. Does anyone think an elected judge in Portage County is going to do anything other than side with Can't on this issue? I don't think it will go to any type of trial, but if it did, Bradley would lose badly (sort of rhymes...channeling my inner Jesse Jackson today I guess). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Green Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The previous coaches signed legal, binding contracts with Can't similar to the one signed by Ford. Those previous contracts were strong enough that multi-hundred-thousand-dollar payoffs were generated in all cases. If there was any chance of the other coaches/schools getting out of paying those hundreds of thousands of dollars to Can't, they would have at least tried. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent. Parties involved in contracts do not set legal precedent. Judges do that when they decide cases and case law is established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Watcher Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent. Parties involved in contracts do not set legal precedent. Judges do that when they decide cases and case law is established. +1 Also, it's all in the definitions, terms and conditions. Perhaps there were conditions on the buyout that aren't in the public eye (yet). If Can't didn't support Geno's efforts or make good on the university's commitments to Geno or the program, it may be that the buyout is not enforceable. Without any visibility of the contract and the inner workings of the athletics department there .. this is all idle speculation. With all the focus on FB going on in their budgets and spending .. this starts to sound like Huggins / Faust a little to me. What the previous coaches did or didn't do when they escaped left Portage county is 100% irrelevant to the current case. Go Zips! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Green Posted May 16, 2011 Report Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent. Parties involved in contracts do not set legal precedent. Judges do that when they decide cases and case law is established. Hey, I watch Law & Order. You can't tell me anything I don't know about the legal system. I said that Kennedy's comments to Pluto suggest a legal precedent may have been involved. That is, no one in the past chose to dispute similar contract buyout agreements between Can't and its coaches. If their attorneys thought legal precedent favored them, they would have been foolish to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars in buyout money that they weren't legally obligated to pay. Of course it's possible that there are differences this time around that could swing things the other way. We long-range observers can only guess at details to which we don't have access. I only note from the information available to date that, whether or not technical legal precedent was involved, actual precedent is that previous contractual buyout situations at Can't all went in their favor without having to go to court. In the absence of further information, I give the advantage to Can't this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipmeister Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Hilltopper nailed it when he pointed out that Kennedy's description to Pluto about the previous coaching payoffs to Can't suggest a legal precedent. The attorneys representing Bradley and Ford will have to be pretty clever fellows to reverse that precedent. Parties involved in contracts do not set legal precedent. Judges do that when they decide cases and case law is established. Hey, I watch Law & Order. You can't tell me anything I don't know about the legal system. I said that Kennedy's comments to Pluto suggest a legal precedent may have been involved. That is, no one in the past chose to dispute similar contract buyout agreements between Can't and its coaches. If their attorneys thought legal precedent favored them, they would have been foolish to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars in buyout money that they weren't legally obligated to pay. Of course it's possible that there are differences this time around that could swing things the other way. We long-range observers can only guess at details to which we don't have access. I only note from the information available to date that, whether or not technical legal precedent was involved, actual precedent is that previous contractual buyout situations at Can't all went in their favor without having to go to court. In the absence of further information, I give the advantage to Can't this time around. I missed the Law and Order episode where they distinguished technical legal precedent from nontechnical legal precedent,and actual precedent from nonactual precedent. I also missed the one where they explained that legal precedent only applies when one of the parties to the present suit was also a party to the precedent setting suit. Specifically, I did not realize that Ken+ couldn't use the outcome of a similar case involving any university and contract breaching coach as precedent. I have got to start watching that show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted May 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I missed the Law and Order episode where they distinguished technical legal precedent from nontechnical legal precedent,and actual precedent from nonactual precedent. I also missed the one where they explained that legal precedent only applies when one of the parties to the present suit was also a party to the precedent setting suit. Specifically, I did not realize that Ken+ couldn't use the outcome of a similar case involving any university and contract breaching coach as precedent. I have got to start watching that show. Did you stay at Holiday Inn Express last night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZZips Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 A current review of the Can't State vs Ford/Bradley case: http://bit.ly/iTEMEE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted June 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 A current review of the Can't State vs Ford/Bradley case: http://bit.ly/iTEMEE Looks like Geno is gonna pay. Maybe Can't has hired Tim Misny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72 Roo Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Does it make you feel as wierd as it does to me to be actually rooting for Can't State in this one? Ford will lose and he should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Zip Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Judgment against Gene A. Ford for $1.2 million for breach of his employment contract and damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GP1 Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Interesting to me that the Ohio Attorney General is as involved as he is. I stand by what I said a couple of years ago. This is a short sighted move. In addition, the involvement of the Attorney General may make it a short sighted move for every Ohio public university hiring a coach. Unless, all the other coaches are on to this game and watching for it in contracts with schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachTheZip Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 Unless, all the other coaches are on to this game and watching for it in contracts with schools. Any agent worth his salt is aware of this and watching for it if his client is up for a coaching job in Ohio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDZip Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 I don't like it for this particular case - puts more money in Can't State's coffers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxpayer Posted July 18, 2013 Report Share Posted July 18, 2013 Congratulations to our competitors in Cant! A contract is a contract; words have meanings. I do not see why this action and decision is bad for Ohio public universities and Cant in particular. Coaches are no different than anyone else in a contractual relationship. I'm not an attorney nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. However, I can read. If you don't like the terms of a contract, either negotiate different wording/conditions or don't sign it. The NCAA lets the coaches move without penalty. Why not the players? Both have signed contracts, one group of people get to ignore contractual language and the other group gets penalized severely. I'm really glad to see at least one court has not caved in to special interests. Again, congratulations to Can't State for taking action and to the Ohio court system for simply enforcing contractual language. I don't care if Geno or a big booster of his new university pays this bill; should his new employer pay, I pray the taxpayers go after that decision maker(s) legally as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zipmeister Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 One of the best moves KS.U ever made pretending that they were upset to lose Ford. About 2.5 years into his gig at Bradley, Geno is rapidly closing in on 60 losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Green Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Can't scores $1.2 million, which may or may not help slow its downward drift in competitiveness on the basketball court.Court upholds ruling vs. Geno Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glib Shanley Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Dewey, Cheatem & Howe must have written this contract and Howard, Howard & Fine Esq, LLC must have represented him in court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkwgriswold Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 I wonder if between this and his lack of success whether old Geno has any regrets. I would hope that his contract with Bradley puts them on the hook for this. If not, it is another layer of bad lawyering on behalf of Geno. I hope this sends a message to programs about poaching other schools' coaching talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.