Bob Shoop owes PSU $891,856
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Yes they do, and it is really no big deal.
It is called coach speak.
Numerous examples of coaches saying they are happy, not going anywhere, and then they leave a day or a week later.
Nothing to see here, the video means nothing
So was he lying then or lying now? If he was lying then kind of puts a big ole question mark around his credibility.
Yes coaches do that but they also don't usually file a suit claiming a Hostile work environment.
I mean file it at the time you are leaving not 11 mos later.
No doubt -- it has nothing to do with the "unreasonable" and "Intolerable" work conditions Shoop is referring to.....these references have to do with the onerous, unreasonable, "imperialistic" and intolerable actions of the corrupt OGBOT and their equally corrupt, incompetent, hack LAWYERS that they have placed at PSU that Shoop had no choice but to "deal with". Shoop's allegations likely have nothing whatsoever to do with CJF or PSU Football at all, but rather everything to do with PSU's imperialistic, corrupt, hack-lawyers actions in the first week of Jan 2016! Here is a hint of how unreasonable and intolerable PSU's imperialistic, intolerable, corrupt hack-lawyers are.....remember when they TERMINATED Joe Paterno and then ridiculously month's later tried to say that they didn't "terminate" him and that he "resigned" despite PSU sending him a letter signed by their GC that says PSU terminated him and they wanted their stuff back????
I have a feeling that most of us would find PSU's corrupt, hypocritical, scumbag OGBOT, and their lawyers, equally intolerable as Shoop if we were exposed to them as they are complete @ssholes and subservient little pricks to the corrupt, jack-botted OGBOT and the corrupt political Junta & crime syndicate that controls it!
ClarkstonMark- I would like to review the contract and the suit and countersuit. Coach speak, as you refer to it, does not apply when one is asserting a hostile work environment. Bob's a big boy. In fact, went to Yale. Made a business decision he now regrets and that assertion will end up showing he has no credibility. In good news for him, his credibility ultimately won't matter. The contract will govern, and whether he prevails or not will ultimately decide upon how those words are interpreted (unless a settlement is reached, of course).
Gee, I wonder if Bob will bring up PSU's Lawyers' absurd contention that Joe Paterno "resigned" when he had a letter signed by PSU's General Counsel saying he was TERMINATED in violation of his contract (i.e., "not for cause" - in fact, PSU in gross violation of the contract provided no reason for his TERMINATION!). And you want to sit here and talk about people being disingenuous, self-serving LIARS and hypocrites??? LMFAO!
IMHO, "hostile work environment" is a non-starter legally. Every place is a hostile work environment. this board is a hostile work environment. Unless Shoop was discriminated against in terms of age, race, religion or sex its not going anywhere. I suspect Shoop's attorneys are saying 'we will embarrass you when you cannot afford to be embarrassed' by disclosing stuff. Football is a game played between the lines but taken out of context, looks illegal and harsh. So if he has tape of a coach grabbing a player by his face mask and pulling him around the practice facility, that would come in. Swearing, talking about women, and so on and so forth. Its all about positioning and bluster.
Shoop had a contract that is unlike a normal worker's deal. We don't have the contract so don't know the provisions. But he signed it so he agreed to those provisions. Those provisions, unless they violate his constitutional rights, will prevail in a court of law. In a court of public opinion? Could be a totally different matter.
Shoop had a contract that is unlike a normal worker's deal. We don't have the contract so don't know the provisions. But he signed it so he agreed to those provisions. Those provisions, unless they violate his constitutional rights, will prevail in a court of law. In a court of public opinion? Could be a totally different matter.
Said contract presumably contained an enormous (probably six figure) raise. Maybe that's what Shoop means by "duress?"
But yeah this won't be good for his career at all. Football coaching is a very small clubby world -- these guys work together without sleep/showers for days. You want to work with people you like and trust.
At very least, next time he's somewhere at a job with another place trying to recruit him, the existing employer won't have much reason to offer him a raise to stay, because Bob will leave anyway.
To which I would expect PSU's attorneys (I know, expecting anything might be expecting too much) to counter,"So you've never seen this kind of behavior or heard this kind of talk at any of the other places you've worked?"
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
That's right. [I'm not going to read 6 pages of replies to determine whether someone else responded similarly but I'll respond and apologize in advance for a possible duplication.] You're right. Coming up the ranks in coaching, the next logical step most desire is a head coaching spot. The exception is an acknowledgment of what an assistant or coordinator SHOULD want.
Hostile work environment.....I gotta assume he's referring to Witvoet and his fellow Big 10(14) officials. If he goes this route it's a slam-dunk case!
Now just waiting for the NCAA to jump in on PSU with new sanctions, saying "you can't not allow a coach to de-commit".
Yeah, but we know about PA judges. If I was Shoop, I would take my chances with the PA judicial system vs. Penn State.
Hostile work environment...further evidence of lack of institutional control....more sanctions!
Huh? don't have the contract? What you talking about? According to Bushwood, 'The contract specifies a "liquidated damages clause", NOT a "Non-Compete Agreement" as PSU is attempting to claim. If PSU stopped paying Shoop for merely going to the State'
so he must have a copy, right?
Probably way more examples of people making excuses to get out of paying money they owe.
What is important is the written contract.
he cant because he wasn't fired. I believe its called job abandonment. So people are looking for a letter of resignation from Shoop, well there probably isn't one. What I would guess happened is, PSU/Franklin looked around and asked, 'where's Shoop', I need him to recruit xyz territory. 'He aint here coach,' somebody answers, CJF says well 'where is he?' I don't know coach, I think he took the UT job. So CJF tells payroll, 'hey don't pay Shoop he quit and went to UT' They probably have some kind of legal procedure to follow and attempt to ascertain where he is, hold his pay in suspense to all of this is figured out. Shoop wasn't fired, he probably never said, 'I quit', he just abandoned his job, PSU filed the correct paperwork and moved on. Shoop owes PSU, because if he left PSU (which he did) he owed them $x, which he hasn't paid.
None of what you posted has squat to do with the actual provisions of the "RECIPROCAL Liquidated Damages Clause" that PSU is attempting to invoke even though Shoop did not "resign" as required by the provisions - PSU fired him (i.e., TERMINATED HIM) without proper "cause". You keep trying to claim that PSU had a legally-binding bonafide "Non-Compete Agreement" rather than a "RECIPROCAL Liquidated Damages Clause", which they did not have. The only thing that applies here as to who owes what, if anything, is who did the TERMINATING of the contract prior to its term and it is pretty clear that PSU did the "terminating" (including immediately stopping Shoop's pay) without cause on Jan 8, 2016 as Shoop visiting the State of Tennessee is not a "fireable offense" under his contract regardless of what the "imperial" jack@ss wish to think!
This is nearly as good as these same jack@sses claim that Joe Paterno wasn't fired and terminated (he "resigned" too, don't you know???) despite Joe Paterno producing an Official Termination Letter signed by PSU's corrupt, incompetent, hack General Counsel.
What if Shoop was told, "if you interview with Tennessee, we will consider that your resignation." -- what then? What if Shoop's contract is written such that interviewing for a lateral position is considered his resignation.
How can you say "Penn State terminated him" as a statement of fact? What's your source for that claim?
Penn State is not allowed to "tell him that" under a "RECIPROCAL Liquidated Damages Clause". Again, it is not a "Non-Compete", it is a "RECIPROCAL Liquidated Damages Clause". Telling someone that you are terminating them because they are going to visit the State of Tennessee is not a "terminable offense" under any contract except under the delusions of PSU's corrupt, hack, worthless, @sshole lawyers opinions. Again, I guess you buy into their bull$hit about PSU not firing and terminating Paterno (despite him having a letter signed by PSU's GC saying this), because they say that's how it is? LMFAO!
It's pretty simple. Shoop figured Franklin was in trouble and decided a move to Tennessee at that time was his best move. He inherited a talented experienced defense that could have made him the hottest new potential head coach. He figured he would be a head coach this season and avoid the buyout. Unfortunately the injury bug hammered his TN defense and the rest of the story is the legal maneuvers. If he's a real man he will take in account where his son is and settle this out of court quickly. Also, this suit won't be great in his coaching resume.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
No matter how this plays out, it'll always be hanging over Shoop, his character and his resume.
Lmao that's what will be the ruling. Job abandonment pay up Mr ShoopLMFAO, let me guess.....just like Paterno "resigned" and wasn't fired / terminated.
No, I don't buy into the BS about Paterno.
That said, several people have asked you for your source on this, and you continue to ignore those requests. Where do we see this contract, so that we know the exact wording contained in it?
And, no one said he was fired for VISITING the state of Tennessee, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that.
Shoop was announced as the D.C. at Tennessee on January 9th. He cannot be under exclusive contract to two football programs at the same time. Perhaps Shoop gave verbal notice via phone, or a fax or text or email before the announcement. Perhaps PSU took the announcement as his resignation, given that he cannot work in two places at once.
Reciprocal Liquidated Damages Clauses in coaches contracts have been upheld in courts, including a famous case involving Gerry DiNardo.
http://www.sportslawblogger.com/liq...-in-employment-contracts-for-college-coaches/
And I would think PSU would not pursue the payback. And I would think instead of all the hostile work environment claims, Shoop would justbsay they fired him.
Besides that, it makes no sense. Let him leave and collect $900k or fire him so he can go for free? Gee, tough choice.
Yea, just like the corrupt, hack PSU lawyers freely admitted they fired Joe....
BTW, Shoop DID SAY he was fired without cause effective immediately and PSU stopped paying him in violation of the contract as evidenced by paystubs! (He also registered a counter claim that PSU owes him $75K under the "Reciprocal Liquidated Damages Clause"). IOW, he has absolutely made the claims you say he has not made - go figure!
