Bob Shoop owes PSU $891,856

[interrobang]

Was Shoop's contract between him and Franklin? Was Franklin paying Shoop's salary?

In your scenario, half the evidence presented in the McQueary lawsuit would be moot

 

[ClarkstonMark]

Was Shoop's contract between him and Franklin? Was Franklin paying Shoop's salary?

no, but to P-K's point, surely Franklin has the authority to fire his DC.
He fired his OC.
I do disagree that the conversation as outlined in this thread constitutes termination.

 

[ChiTownLion]

It's a good debate. Franklin says interview with TN and we'll invalidate your employment contract. Shoop interviews with TN.

In my unqualified opinion, this doesn't constitute forfeiture of the buyout provision.

CJF presented a verbal if/then scenario. Interviewing with TN doesn't formally trigger termination language in Shoop's contract. Unless PSU presented Shoop with a letter of termination before signing his employment contract with Tennessee, there should be an expectation of execution on the buyout provision.

This isn't CJF saying, "If you interview with TN and get the job, we'll terminate your contract and waive your buyout agreement." It's CJF saying, "If you do interview, you better hope you get the job because you won't have one here. Oh, and don't forget about that little buyout provision." It's essentially a non-compete.

Further, at the time of his hire, Shoop acknowledged the existence of the buyout agreement and assured TN he would handle it himself. TN AD acknowledged likewise and expressed jubilation that Shoop would make such a sacrifice to join the UT staff. Nobody expressed any expectation of the buyout being invalidated or waived.

Now, maybe TN should've sat down with Bob and said something to the effect of, "Bob, is this going to be a problem?" To which Bob might've said, "No. You guys sold me on a veteran, championship-caliber defense. If I come in and get the job done on defense, you guys win a championship, I get a head-coaching gig, the buyout clause is waived and everybody wins except for PSU." Instead of following up with, "What happens in the event of XYZ..," TN said you're hired. Shoop and TN (and their lawyers) should've seen this coming. Now it's a big mess and somebody's going to have to pay. Tennessee boosters might've been willing to do it if Bob (out of desperation) didn't assure TN that he had it covered.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

It's a good debate. Franklin says interview with TN and we'll invalidate your employment contract. Shoop interviews with TN. In my unqualified opinion, this doesn't constitute forfeiture of buyout provision.

Actually, it sounds like Franklin/PSU granted him permission to speak with UTenn if he wanted to, but told him that if he did decide to speak with UTenn, he didn't need to come back because he no longer had a job at PSU if he did speak with them. That's a bit different than what you presented... It is also absurd to believe that the AD was not consulted when Shoop asked for permission to speak with UTenn when UTenn approached him. Of course Shoop would interpret the response coming from the AD given that his boss is a direct report to the AD and he did file his request to speak with UTenn through the appropriate HR Protocol, so it is absurd that he should not rely on the formal response he received from PSU regarding his properly filed HR Request.

 

[interrobang]

I'm speaking from a "your contract is formally terminated because we had a discussion about your interviewing therefore you don't have to pay your buyout" standpoint.

 

[getmyjive11]

Shoop will end up paying. It may not be for the full amount, but he will pay.

 

[AWS1022]

Actually, it sounds like Franklin/PSU granted him permission to speak with UTenn if he wanted to, but told him that if he did decide to speak with UTenn, he didn't need to come back because he no longer had a job at PSU if he did speak with them. That's a bit different than what you presented... It is also absurd to believe that the AD was not consulted when Shoop asked for permission to speak with UTenn when UTenn approached him. Of course Shoop would interpret the response coming from the AD given that his boss is a direct report to the AD and he did file his request to speak with UTenn through the appropriate HR Protocol, so it is absurd that he should not rely on the formal response he received from PSU regarding his properly filed HR Rrquest.

But did they process the paperwork to actually terminate his contract or did he come back and say he took the job? I think timing is important here. Threatening to terminate someone is not the same as actually terminating them. And I would also think it matters what exactly Franklin said to him. He may have said something like if you interview and they offer you the job, you better take it because you're not wanted back here. I would also think there needs to be something in writing otherwise it's one person's word against another and that doesn't override a contract.

 

[interrobang]

I heard there's an email that says "After talking it over with Coach..." that will doom Franklin in this suit.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Actually, it sounds like Franklin/PSU granted him permission to speak with UTenn if he wanted to, but told him that if he did decide to speak with UTenn, he didn't need to come back because he no longer had a job at PSU if he did speak with them. That's a bit different than what you presented... It is also absurd to believe that the AD was not consulted when Shoop asked for permission to speak with UTenn when UTenn approached him. Of course Shoop would interpret the response coming from the AD given that his boss is a direct report to the AD and he did file his request to speak with UTenn through the appropriate HR Protocol, so it is absurd that he should not rely on the formal response he received from PSU regarding his properly filed HR Request.

Made some revisions to my thoughts before reading your response. Here's the updated version:

It's a good debate. Franklin says interview with TN and we'll invalidate your employment contract. Shoop interviews with TN.

In my unqualified opinion, this doesn't constitute forfeiture of the buyout provision.

CJF presented a verbal if/then scenario. Interviewing with TN doesn't formally trigger termination language in Shoop's contract. Unless PSU presented Shoop with a letter of termination before signing his employment contract with Tennessee, there should be an expectation of execution on the buyout provision.

This isn't CJF saying, "If you interview with TN and get the job, we'll terminate your contract and waive your buyout agreement." It's CJF saying, "If you do interview, you better hope you get the job because you won't have one here. Oh, and don't forget about that little buyout provision." It's essentially a non-compete.

Further, at the time of his hire, Shoop acknowledged the existence of the buyout agreement and assured TN he would handle it himself. TN AD acknowledged likewise and expressed jubilation that Shoop would make such a sacrifice to join the UT staff. Nobody expressed any expectation of the buyout being invalidated or waived.

Now, maybe TN should've sat down with Bob and said something to the effect of, "Bob, is this going to be a problem?" To which Bob might've said, "No. You guys sold me on a veteran, championship-caliber defense. If I come in and get the job done on defense, you guys win a championship, I get a head-coaching gig, the buyout clause is waived and everybody wins except for PSU." Instead of following up with, "What happens in the event of XYZ..," TN said you're hired. Shoop and TN (and their lawyers) should've seen this coming. Now it's a big mess and somebody's going to have to pay. Tennessee boosters might've been willing to do it if Bob (out of desperation) didn't assure TN that he had it covered.

 

[sluggo72]

I heard there's an email that says "After talking it over with Coach..." that will doom Franklin in this suit.

LOL!! Good one!!

 

[psu7113]

How do you not get this figured out before making the jump?

Penn State sues ex-defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, claims he owes $891,856 for leaving
July 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM
BY JOHN BEAUGE

WILLIAMSPORT -- Penn State is seeking almost $900,000 from former defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, and the university doesn't expect him to pay up, according to court documents obtained by PennLive.

Shoop left the Nittany Lions in January 2016 to become the defensive coordinator for the Tennessee Vols.

A clause in his contract stated if Shoop resigned before his contract expired on Feb. 15, 2018, he had to pay Penn State liquidated damages of 50 percent "of his base pay" for the remainder of his contract, according to the court documents. The contract stated Shoop wouldn't have to pay PSU back, if he became the head coach at another university within one year of the date of his resignation.

The university claims that, with over two years remaining on his contract when Shoop resigned, he owes $891,856, the court records state.

According to the documents, Penn State requested, in writing, that Shoop make the payment required under the contract. The university, in the lawsuit, claims Shoop has not made any payment, and, through counsel, has indicated a refusal to make such a payment.

Penn State filed the breach of contract suit in Centre County court in early June, but Monday had it transferred to U.S. Middle District Court.

According to the contract that was included in the court documents, Shoop received an additional $150,000 on Feb. 15, 2015, and would have gotten similar amounts if still at Penn State on the same dates in 2016 and 2017. He also had the use of a car and cell phone, the contract stated.

Shoop's memorandum of understanding with Tennessee, also among the court documents, lists his base pay as $245,000 and supplemental pay of $905,000. It also states that Shoop "is solely responsible for satisfying any buyout or liquidation damages provision(s) between Coach and Pennsylvania State University and/or other prior institutions."

Vols athletic director David Hart said in January 2016 that Shoop's decision to keep Tennessee out of the buyout was "a very, very loud statement" about how bad he wanted to be a part of UT's program.

"He was willing to handle that," Hart told GoVols247. "and we were able to move forward then in a very rapid fashion to try to get something, which we were able to do."

Shoop's incentives at UT -- which have a cap of $500,000 -- are 8.33 percent if the Vols are in a bowl game, 12 percent if they're in a New Year's "Six" game, 16 percent if they're in the college playoff, and 4 percent each if they win SEC or college football championships.

The Lions' defense under Shoop was ranked No. 2 in the country in 2014 and No. 14 in 2015. Co-defensive coordinator Brent Pry replaced Shoop.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/07/penn_state_sues_ex-defensive_c.html

Awkward considering his son is a walk-on WR.

 

[Sproul]

Actually, it sounds like Franklin/PSU granted him permission to speak with UTenn if he wanted to, but told him that if he did decide to speak with UTenn, he didn't need to come back because he no longer had a job at PSU if he did speak with them. That's a bit different than what you presented... It is also absurd to believe that the AD was not consulted when Shoop asked for permission to speak with UTenn when UTenn approached him. Of course Shoop would interpret the response coming from the AD given that his boss is a direct report to the AD and he did file his request to speak with UTenn through the appropriate HR Protocol, so it is absurd that he should not rely on the formal response he received from PSU regarding his properly filed HR Request.

You haven't even been wrong about anything in your life, it sounds like. Keep digging that hole, man.

 

[canuckhal]

I love all the speculation on this board when we really don't know what was said to whom and what is actually in the contract. Makes for interesting reading. What we do know is that PSU believes that it is owed the buyback amount and Shoopie hasn't paid it. Either a settlement will be reached or one will be imposed eventually.

 

[psulax3]

I love all the speculation on this board when we really don't know what was said to whom and what is actually in the contract. Makes for interesting reading. What we do know is that PSU believes that are owed the buyback amount and Shoopie hasn't paid it. Either a settlement will be reached or one will be imposed eventually.

Not speculation. Pennsy Kraken was there when Franklin gave Shoop the ultimatum during a waffle house late breakfast. PK had the eggs over easy with a side of bacon.

 

[Lion84]

Where has it been shown that Franklin told Shoop if you interview you are fired. He may have said if you interview you are not showing loyalty to the program and I am not happy about that. Hey but another court case will be fun - I just hope we don't have to wait 10 years for it to go to trial.

 

[mn78psu83]

Where has it been shown that Franklin told Shoop if you interview you are fired. He may have said if you interview you are not showing loyalty to the program and I am not happy about that. Hey but another court case will be fun - I just hope we don't have to wait 10 years for it to go to trial.

Professor Bushwood had a spark of intuition that ignited.

 

[Art]

It's a good debate. Franklin says interview with TN and we'll invalidate your employment contract. Shoop interviews with TN.

In my unqualified opinion, this doesn't constitute forfeiture of the buyout provision.

CJF presented a verbal if/then scenario. Interviewing with TN doesn't formally trigger termination language in Shoop's contract. Unless PSU presented Shoop with a letter of termination before signing his employment contract with Tennessee, there should be an expectation of execution on the buyout provision.

This isn't CJF saying, "If you interview with TN and get the job, we'll terminate your contract and waive your buyout agreement." It's CJF saying, "If you do interview, you better hope you get the job because you won't have one here. Oh, and don't forget about that little buyout provision." It's essentially a non-compete.

Further, at the time of his hire, Shoop acknowledged the existence of the buyout agreement and assured TN he would handle it himself. TN AD acknowledged likewise and expressed jubilation that Shoop would make such a sacrifice to join the UT staff. Nobody expressed any expectation of the buyout being invalidated or waived.

Now, maybe TN should've sat down with Bob and said something to the effect of, "Bob, is this going to be a problem?" To which Bob might've said, "No. You guys sold me on a veteran, championship-caliber defense. If I come in and get the job done on defense, you guys win a championship, I get a head-coaching gig, the buyout clause is waived and everybody wins except for PSU." Instead of following up with, "What happens in the event of XYZ..," TN said you're hired. Shoop and TN (and their lawyers) should've seen this coming. Now it's a big mess and somebody's going to have to pay. Tennessee boosters might've been willing to do it if Bob (out of desperation) didn't assure TN that he had it covered.

Another point to add: generally, if a coach is terminated without cause, he is owed money (looking for another job is not typically listed as a "for cause" provision). To the best of my knowledge, Shoop hasn't sought monies he would be owed under a no-cause termination. Thus, his behavior didn't indicate that he thought he'd been fired.

 

[Coultr77]

Nah, don't think I will, but thanks for the advice. I'll put it in the same place I put all of the other stuff you post.

 

[AWS1022]

Another point to add: generally, if a coach is terminated without cause, he is owed money (looking for another job is not typically listed as a "for cause" provision). To the best of my knowledge, Shoop hasn't sought monies he would be owed under a no-cause termination. Thus, his behavior didn't indicate that he thought he'd been fired.

I would think if he fired it would have been reported that way.

 

[sluggo72]

I would think if he fired it would have been reported that way.

I would think either he wrote a letter of resignation or PSU wrote a letter of termination so there should be a paper trail

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Another point to add: generally, if a coach is terminated without cause, he is owed money (looking for another job is not typically listed as a "for cause" provision). To the best of my knowledge, Shoop hasn't sought monies he would be owed under a no-cause termination. Thus, his behavior didn't indicate that he thought he'd been fired.

Actually, if Shoop takes a job immediately with the "New Employer", it legally "mitigates" any damage for the "not for cause termination", so you are not correct that "damages" accrue when they clearly have been more than 100% "mitigated" by a slightly higher paying concurrent "New Job" at UTenn. However, PSU initiating the "not for cause termination" would also evaporate any claim they had if Shoop terminated the contract prior to its term.

 

[Doc-M]

Cooking and coaching are different! Having excellent based on existing recruits vs. building defense based on ones' recruits are different. Pay up Shoop, you dropped us like hot potato during the time of need!

 

[PSU_1991]

Wasn't it reported that the buyout was a sticking point in Shoop's negotiations with TN? TN didn't want to cover it and Shoop said he would do so. The AD at TN cited this as proof as to how much Shoop wanted the job. So, it sounds like both TN and Shoop thought the layout was expected.

Also, it would be interesting to know, as others have said, if Shoop officially resigned or was terminated.

 

[kgilbert78]

That said, I'm not defending Shoop here. If that's the kind of guy he is, you wonder why JF ever hitched his wagon to him in the first place, since it doesn't seem like something that any of the other guys on staff would do.

Often it takes time for character to be revealed.

 

[kgilbert78]

Whatever. I wouldn't give those people running this school another dime, from anybody or any source. Feel free to give them your money if you are so inclined. Lubert and Dambly thank you.

While I agree with you on that comment--and am so acting--Shoop's in the wrong here, considering the current info. He owes PSU--and I prefer to see contracts enforced, even if I'm not fond of those who will get the cash. Rule of Law and all that...

 

[step.eng69]

Wasn't it reported that the buyout was a sticking point in Shoop's negotiations with TN? TN didn't want to cover it and Shoop said he would do so. T

Found this on "the sticking point", PSU_91:

Ten days before he got on a plane to Tennessee, Bob Shoop said he hoped to be at Penn State forever.

Things change quickly in the world of major college football.

Penn State’s celebrated defensive coordinator flew to Knoxville on Friday to discuss the same job at Tennessee with Volunteers coach Butch Jones. FOX Sports first reported that Shoop was in negotiations with the Vols.

“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said on Dec. 29 in Florida while preparing for the TaxSlayer Bowl. “This is really a time for our team and looking forward to being out there Saturday with these guys.

“I hope Penn State will have me for forever and ever and ever. I love being a part of Coach (James) Franklin’s program. I love what we’re building here.”

A year ago at this time, another SEC squad — LSU — made a strong pitch to hire Shoop away from the Nittany Lions. In the end, he took less money to stick with Franklin, getting a raise that put him around $1 million annually.

That amended contract may be a sticking point. According to the coaching search website FootballScoop, Shoop’s buyout from Penn State is at least $800,000. It’s a hefty fee for a coordinator, one that goes on top of a seven-figure salary as well as Tennessee’s own buyout paid to former defensive coordinator John Jancek, who was fired on Wednesday.

“We live in an industry that is very competitive, particularly in the SEC, and very market-driven,” Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart said Friday on WNML radio in Knoxville. “We will do what we feel like we need to do and still be fiscally responsible to keep the excitement, energy and progress moving forward with Butch.”

Though the Volunteers have recently been on a lower tier than LSU thanks to two disastrous head coaching hires before Jones, Tennessee may be more attractive to Shoop, who enjoyed his three years living in the state while coaching at Vanderbilt.

Regardless, it’s an upsetting development for Franklin, who laid out his beliefs on staff mobility pretty clearly before the season started.

“None of our coaches should ever leave for a lateral move,” Franklin said. “It should be to become a head coach (for a coordinator) or a coordinator (for a position coach).”

Shoop has made no secret of his desire to become a head coach again and was briefly linked to the opening at Tulane at the end of the regular season.

His first stint in the big chair did not go well, going 7-23 in three seasons leading Ivy League cellar-dweller Columbia.

Making better memories as a head coach has been a motivating factor for him.

“Oh, of course,” Shoop said last week. “I’m as competitive as anybody. Anybody who knows me knows that. And I was a head coach and did not have a successful conclusion to my head coaching experience.

“So if the right opportunity presented itself for me and my family and the people that are important to me, and we sat down and talked about it, sure, that’d be something I’d be interested in.”

If Shoop were to leave, it would mean Penn State would have its fifth different full-time defensive coordinator in six seasons, with Shoop following Tom Bradley, Ted Roof and John Butler out the door.

With that in mind, the Lions would likely give strong consideration to promoting linebacker coach Brent Pry — who already holds the titles of co-defensive coordinator and assistant head coach — to help with continuity.

A month ago, Pry himself was a finalist for the head coaching job at Georgia Southern for the second time in three years.

“They were rumors for you (reporters) — they were reality for me,” Franklin said upon arriving in Florida for the bowl game. “I wasn’t hearing the rumors. I was hearing what was actually going on firsthand. As I’ve told you guys before, I’m going to be very, very supportive of our staff when they have a chance to take steps professionally that are going to be the right things for their careers and more importantly, the right things for their families.

“Some places aren’t like that. Some head coaches aren’t like that. We’re very, very supportive. And because of that, I’m able to be part of the process and know what’s going on.”

Reach Derek Levarse at 570-991-6396 or on Twitter @TLdlevarse

 

[Art]

Actually, if Shoop takes a job immediately with the "New Employer", it legally "mitigates" any damage for the "not for cause termination", so you are not correct that "damages" accrue when they clearly have been more than 100% "mitigated" by a slightly higher paying concurrent "New Job" at UTenn. However, PSU initiating the "not for cause termination" would also evaporate any claim they had if Shoop terminated the contract prior to its term.

If a contract stipulates the amount of liquidated damages to be paid upon termination without cause, then that amount is paid, no questions asked. If the contract contains conditions e.g. that the amount will be offset by earnings received within a stipulated timeframe, then the amount is reduced.

Do some research before you hit the keyboard. There are numerous coaches contracts that are public record and readily available.

 

[sluggo72]

If a contract stipulates the amount of liquidated damages to be paid upon termination without cause, then that amount is paid, no questions asked. If the contract contains conditions e.g. that the amount will be offset by earnings received within a stipulated timeframe, then the amount is reduced.

Do some research before you hit the keyboard. There are numerous coaches contracts that are public record and readily available.

I think I am getting my pop corn out!!!

 

[mn78psu83]

I think I am getting my pop corn out!!!

Goobers or Raisinets? Goobers or Raisinets? Maybe both.

 

[sluggo72]

Goobers or Raisinets? Goobers or Raisinets? Maybe both.

View embedded media

Neither- straight pop corn Homie.

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

Found this on "the sticking point", PSU_91:

Ten days before he got on a plane to Tennessee, Bob Shoop said he hoped to be at Penn State forever.

Things change quickly in the world of major college football.

Penn State’s celebrated defensive coordinator flew to Knoxville on Friday to discuss the same job at Tennessee with Volunteers coach Butch Jones. FOX Sports first reported that Shoop was in negotiations with the Vols.

“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said on Dec. 29 in Florida while preparing for the TaxSlayer Bowl. “This is really a time for our team and looking forward to being out there Saturday with these guys.

“I hope Penn State will have me for forever and ever and ever. I love being a part of Coach (James) Franklin’s program. I love what we’re building here.”

A year ago at this time, another SEC squad — LSU — made a strong pitch to hire Shoop away from the Nittany Lions. In the end, he took less money to stick with Franklin, getting a raise that put him around $1 million annually.

That amended contract may be a sticking point. According to the coaching search website FootballScoop, Shoop’s buyout from Penn State is at least $800,000. It’s a hefty fee for a coordinator, one that goes on top of a seven-figure salary as well as Tennessee’s own buyout paid to former defensive coordinator John Jancek, who was fired on Wednesday.

“We live in an industry that is very competitive, particularly in the SEC, and very market-driven,” Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart said Friday on WNML radio in Knoxville. “We will do what we feel like we need to do and still be fiscally responsible to keep the excitement, energy and progress moving forward with Butch.”

Though the Volunteers have recently been on a lower tier than LSU thanks to two disastrous head coaching hires before Jones, Tennessee may be more attractive to Shoop, who enjoyed his three years living in the state while coaching at Vanderbilt.

Regardless, it’s an upsetting development for Franklin, who laid out his beliefs on staff mobility pretty clearly before the season started.

“None of our coaches should ever leave for a lateral move,” Franklin said. “It should be to become a head coach (for a coordinator) or a coordinator (for a position coach).”

Shoop has made no secret of his desire to become a head coach again and was briefly linked to the opening at Tulane at the end of the regular season.

His first stint in the big chair did not go well, going 7-23 in three seasons leading Ivy League cellar-dweller Columbia.

Making better memories as a head coach has been a motivating factor for him.

“Oh, of course,” Shoop said last week. “I’m as competitive as anybody. Anybody who knows me knows that. And I was a head coach and did not have a successful conclusion to my head coaching experience.

“So if the right opportunity presented itself for me and my family and the people that are important to me, and we sat down and talked about it, sure, that’d be something I’d be interested in.”

If Shoop were to leave, it would mean Penn State would have its fifth different full-time defensive coordinator in six seasons, with Shoop following Tom Bradley, Ted Roof and John Butler out the door.

With that in mind, the Lions would likely give strong consideration to promoting linebacker coach Brent Pry — who already holds the titles of co-defensive coordinator and assistant head coach — to help with continuity.

A month ago, Pry himself was a finalist for the head coaching job at Georgia Southern for the second time in three years.

“They were rumors for you (reporters) — they were reality for me,” Franklin said upon arriving in Florida for the bowl game. “I wasn’t hearing the rumors. I was hearing what was actually going on firsthand. As I’ve told you guys before, I’m going to be very, very supportive of our staff when they have a chance to take steps professionally that are going to be the right things for their careers and more importantly, the right things for their families.

“Some places aren’t like that. Some head coaches aren’t like that. We’re very, very supportive. And because of that, I’m able to be part of the process and know what’s going on.”

Reach Derek Levarse at 570-991-6396 or on Twitter @TLdlevarse

This still all depends on what PSU's formal response was when Shoop asked for permission to speak with UTenn. Shoop would have been permitted to ask for permission to speak with UTenn, just as he spoke with LSU a year earlier (and ended up staying at PSU for less money). If PSU told him that he could speak with UTenn if he wanted, but threatened him with termination if he decided to do so (i.e., even merely speaking with them to hear what they have to say), PSU has likely initiated the "termination", not Shoop imo. If that is the case, I can see why PSU would have gone this course and find no "fault" with it, but I don't think they will be successful in regards to their claim that Shoop was the "instigator" in regards to the termination (which I believe they would need to show to collect on the "termination buyout clause" in their favor).

 

[Pennsy_Kraken]

If a contract stipulates the amount of liquidated damages to be paid upon termination without cause, then that amount is paid, no questions asked. If the contract contains conditions e.g. that the amount will be offset by earnings received within a stipulated timeframe, then the amount is reduced.

Do some research before you hit the keyboard. There are numerous coaches contracts that are public record and readily available.

Don't disagree with that, but if the contract is "silent" in regards to this subject, it would be assumed that the "New Job" causing the termination, mitigates the damages of the "wrongful termination" (i.e., without proper cause) of the "Former Job" imo (including that Shoop would have no obligation to pay a "buyout" under the termination clause of the former existing contract).

IOW, without language stipulating a payment no matter what, it is assumed that "the damages" of a wrongful termination are your wages....if those wages are being replaced by concurrent new job and guaranteed contract at a slightly higher rate with a new employer that caused the wrongful termination in the first place, there are no "damages" to pay imo.

 

[Art]

Don't disagree with that, but if the contract is "silent" in regards to this subject, it would be assumed that the "New Job" causing the termination, mitigates the damages of the "wrongful termination" (i.e., without proper cause) of the "Former Job" imo (including that Shoop would have no obligation to pay a "buyout" under the termination clause of the former existing contract).

IOW, without language stipulating a payment no matter what, it is assumed that "the damages" of a wrongful termination are your wages....if those wages are being replaced by concurrent new job and guaranteed contract at a slightly higher rate with a new employer that caused the wrongful termination in the first place, there are no "damages" to pay imo.

Yes, but the reason that contracts are written and include definitions of termination circumstances and the penalties that follow is precisely so that it's not left up to the courts to make these decisions, or limit their discretion.That's the reason we don't see coaches and universities in court all that much given the frequency with which coaches are fired or leave.

 

[Art]

I think I am getting my pop corn out!!!

This isn't that big a deal. The only reason it's even a question is that maybe Franklin spoke injudiciously. I would hope that the contract between PSU and Shoop adequately protected the University. Then again, given the track record of its crack legal team, maybe there is cause for concern.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

This isn't that big a deal. The only reason it's even a question is that maybe Franklin spoke injudiciously. I would hope that the contract between PSU and Shoop adequately protected the University. Then again, given the track record of its crack legal team, maybe there is cause for concern.

Crack legal team? More like a legal team on crack!

 

[Obliviax]

It's a good debate. Franklin says interview with TN and we'll invalidate your employment contract. Shoop interviews with TN.

In my unqualified opinion, this doesn't constitute forfeiture of the buyout provision.

CJF presented a verbal if/then scenario. Interviewing with TN doesn't formally trigger termination language in Shoop's contract. Unless PSU presented Shoop with a letter of termination before signing his employment contract with Tennessee, there should be an expectation of execution on the buyout provision.

This isn't CJF saying, "If you interview with TN and get the job, we'll terminate your contract and waive your buyout agreement." It's CJF saying, "If you do interview, you better hope you get the job because you won't have one here. Oh, and don't forget about that little buyout provision." It's essentially a non-compete.

Further, at the time of his hire, Shoop acknowledged the existence of the buyout agreement and assured TN he would handle it himself. TN AD acknowledged likewise and expressed jubilation that Shoop would make such a sacrifice to join the UT staff. Nobody expressed any expectation of the buyout being invalidated or waived.

Now, maybe TN should've sat down with Bob and said something to the effect of, "Bob, is this going to be a problem?" To which Bob might've said, "No. You guys sold me on a veteran, championship-caliber defense. If I come in and get the job done on defense, you guys win a championship, I get a head-coaching gig, the buyout clause is waived and everybody wins except for PSU." Instead of following up with, "What happens in the event of XYZ..," TN said you're hired. Shoop and TN (and their lawyers) should've seen this coming. Now it's a big mess and somebody's going to have to pay. Tennessee boosters might've been willing to do it if Bob (out of desperation) didn't assure TN that he had it covered.

Rumor I heard was that Shoop's wife had a "break" with PSU. That she was going to leave with or without Shoop.

I can't go into details about the allegations of what happened with/to his wife..but I suspect (if that rumor is true) that Shoop will blame PSU and it is his position that he should not have to reimburse PSU for salary already paid.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

Rumor I heard was that Shoop's wife had a "break" with PSU. That she was going to leave with or without Shoop.

I can't go into details about the allegations of what happened with/to his wife..but I suspect (if that rumor is true) that Shoop will blame PSU and it is his position that he should not have to reimburse PSU for salary already paid.

EricStrattan-RushChairman wrecked that chick?

 

[Obliviax]

EricStrattan-RushChairman wrecked that chick?

no....had a bit of a falling out that got emotional with other people in and around the program. nothing sordid, just immature.

 

[NittPicker]

no....had a bit of a falling out that got emotional with other people in and around the program. nothing sordid, just immature.

Maybe being around an SEC program will give her what she's looking for, whatever that may be.

 

[Art]

Rumor I heard was that Shoop's wife had a "break" with PSU. That she was going to leave with or without Shoop.

I can't go into details about the allegations of what happened with/to his wife..but I suspect (if that rumor is true) that Shoop will blame PSU and it is his position that he should not have to reimburse PSU for salary already paid.

That's going to be a tough one. Typically the only language regarding termination by the coach for cause is limited to "material breach of contract" by the university. So unless the contract specifies behavior toward his wife, that ain't gonna work. Courts can certainly look beyond the contract for areas not covered or anticipated by the contract, but whatever happened to Shoop's wife wasn't enough give his son cause to transfer. Good luck with that. Again, it's PSU Legal on the other side, so we can fully anticipate Shoop walking away with cash.