Re: RichRod and WVU make nice

On Jul 10, 1:11 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:36 am, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:



James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

Alan Jones wrote:
I figured he would have to pay. Other schools have wimped out, but WVU
kept the pressure on. Good for them.
yes, the contract seemed good and RR's counter-claims bogus.

still, the precedent set is that if you are in the market for a coach
and want to lure one who has one of these big leave-penalty clauses,
you, not the coach, will have to fork over the lion's share of that
dough to the other school in addition to whatever you spend on the
coach's contract.

DickRod will have to pay income taxes on any portion of the amount that UM or
its boosters cough up.  It's figured by the IRS as "extra income."

yes, but that's still a whole lot better than having to pay that $2.5m
out of his pocket.

no way to spin this other than that RR is a big winner.

How about this:

If DickRod had been honorable about this from the beginning, and told
The University Of Michigan At Ann Arbor up front that he intended to
adhere to the terms of his contract like any honorable man would, that
he would have gotten at least as much relief as he did here, and
probably more, maybe even the whole four million, and without all the
headaches and bad feelings.



I disagree. I don't think Michigan would have hired him if they knew
there was an extra $2.5 or $4 million fee attached. But now that
they've committed to him and gotten dragged in, they have to pay the
money.

It's like buying a car that you really like, but if you knew before
buying that it would cost you an extra $5K for a new engine within the
first year you probably wouldn't buy it, but now that you've bought it
and are committed to it and THEN discovered it needs the new engine,
you'll pay the dambed $5K
.

Loading