HearForGrumors
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 274
- Likes
- 1,271
If its true (as has been rumored here) that Butch and the University have already negotiated a buyout, then looking at the version of Butchs original contract that is widely available online could very well be a waste of time. A negotiated buyout would, by definition, be a re-negotiation of that original contract, and we would have no way of knowing how the for cause (or any other) provisions of the original agreement might be affected. In fact, they could have outright terminated the original contract and entered into an entirely new, short-term agreement.
Negotiating a buyout, while at the same time allowing Butch to continue coaching, presents some fairly tricky problems. This current scenario highlights that very well. For example, if Butch agreed to a reduced, lump sum buyout payment, would the for cause provisions apply, such that they could nullify that payment (in the event Butch screwed up during the short-term agreement)? When would the payment be made? Tricky to negotiate, tricky to draft - for both sides.
We may well find out whether the Universitys lawyers are worth a damn.
This is all accurate, I agree. I'm not sure that it would be a new short term agreement, or just a modification of the original agreement.
One troubling thing in either case is that contracts are a matter of public record. I haven't bothered to look up what the mandatory timeline for releasing those documents is, but it is very doable.
If I was more invested, a FOIA request for copies of any signed agreements in the last 90 days would be interesting. I'm sure the University would push back and stall (as is their legal right) long enough that it would become moot.
Either way, I cannot imagine a situation where a contract would absolve a duty to act in a certain and expected way (for cause conditions). That would be mindblowingly incompetent on the part of the UT attorneys. So much so that I refuse to acknowledge that possibility.