Did you catch my posts early this AM in Gruden 38?
I'd like your input on the MOU portion specifically. But feel free to give you input on the whole if you would like.
I did see it, but I was catching up and it was hours behind.
Things like a MOU, MOA, etc are not binding, so if you wanted to you could absolutely sign one and walk away with no penalty. However, they don't very often lead to walk always in this type of context.
In larger corporate deals, its more common. Thihs is because the MOU (etc) includes some type of due diligence access. (Company A wants to buy Company B. the parties sign a MOU for the basic terms, and Company B provides access to full accounting books, patents, etc. After a due diligence period, company B learns that there are 11 lawsuits on the patents, and the books are adjusted with huge goodwill allocations, etc. Company A comes back and says, "We'll give you 65% of the original price to deal with the issues that came up on DD review." Company B decides that they'd rather continue ownership, rather than sell.)
In the context of employment (admittedly less experienced in this area), I think it would be much more rare. You don't sign an MOU unless you have interest. You don't include terms in an MOU that you wouldn't agree to later (assuming no material change in the facts).
Thus, I believe that IF a MOU was signed, then it is likely a subsequent deal would be reached. Otherwise, its a lot of lawyer $$ for no reason (better believe we're billing just to sit in the room and listen).
As to the method of negotiation, such practices are the norm (as you described). However, in this case it sounds like the conspirators talkedd to Gruden to gauge interest/requirements prior to any involvement (officially) with the UT administrators. Thus, when JC got involved everyone already knew the ballpark figures they were talking about. At that point it gets down to nuance and detail, which can be just as dispositive in whether a deal gets done or not.