Here's the ridiculous contract Tennessee was prepared to give Greg Schiano

[ru4real-really?]

John Currie's signature is not dated? Who knows when the hell he even signed.

Schiano's signature was dated--we know when he signed it!

If the other signers names provided on the signatory page were not necessary to EXECUTE the MOU, why the hell even put them on the signatory page?

There is no way in hell that MOU was EXECUTED!

 

[topdog4tn]

The MOU doesn't specify when the contract begins. That is left blank. Doesn't that qualify that it was never official?

There is no requirement of start date or any dates in a contract unless the matter is time sensitive...this was not a time sensitive matter for mutual understanding to be made.

 

[topdog4tn]

MOU link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4326197/Schiano.pdf

You are correct the signature alone or lack thereof does not get Tennessee out of this....but contracts are a sensitive thing which is why they are generally very detailed. Normal everyday citizens are under inferred contracts with our government that they don't even recognize such as your signature on your license is an inferred contract that you will follow the set laws of the road or else be summoned to traffic court for violation...otherwise traffic court would be unconstitutional for not being recognized under common law. In this specific case though Tennessee could say that Currie acting as an agent to the Tennessee hiring process stepped outside the boundaries of his hiring duties and that the universite was not at a mutual agreement of terms that were agreed upon by said acting agent with the potential employee.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I think it's pretty simple. Currie signed a contract with Schiano. Let Currie pay anything Schiano thinks is due him. Or Currie and Schiano can contest it in court.

Since two of the three signatories representing the University of Tennessee did not sign it, I'd say it is pretty clear this is not a valid, executed contract between UT and any other party.

So let Currie figure it out on his own dime, after we fire him for cause (in part for not protecting UT's interests by including standard boilerplate language such as, "when fully executed" in MOUs that he was waving around to potential coaches).

 

[topdog4tn]

I think it's pretty simple. Currie signed a contract with Schiano. Let Currie pay anything Schiano thinks is due him. Or Currie and Schiano can contest it in court.

Since two of the three signatories representing the University of Tennessee did not sign it, I'd say it is pretty clear this is not a valid, executed contract between UT and any other party.

So let Currie figure it out on his own dime, after we fire him for cause (in part for not protecting UT's interests by including standard boilerplate language such as, "when fully executed" in MOUs that he was waving around to potential coaches).

It's not that simple. It's why LLC exists....limited liability disassociating individual from corporation. As an individual working for someone you cannot be sued...you can be named but you are protected unless a very good case is brought up that you knowingly and willfully screwed someone over on a personal basis which then goes to a civil case and is no longer about anything in the contract...just the process

 

[BeardedVol]

You are correct the signature alone or lack thereof does not get Tennessee out of this....but contracts are a sensitive thing which is why they are generally very detailed. Normal everyday citizens are under inferred contracts with our government that they don't even recognize such as your signature on your license is an inferred contract that you will follow the set laws of the road or else be summoned to traffic court for violation...otherwise traffic court would be unconstitutional for not being recognized under common law. In this specific case though Tennessee could say that Currie acting as an agent to the Tennessee hiring process stepped outside the boundaries of his hiring duties and that the universite was not at a mutual agreement of terms that were agreed upon by said acting agent with the potential employee.

UT's non-delegated contract policy, requires the Chief Financial Officer's signature, in addition to the Chancellor's, or order to be considered 'legally binding'.

Those signatures are not present, and as such, the MOU was not legally binding. If the university was going against the stated policy on non-delegated contracts, there might be some room for argument. As it stands, it's pretty cut-and-dry, that the MOU was not fully executed, and as such there was no agreement between Greg Schiano and the University of Tennessee.

Greg can sue if he wants, I'm sure the office of General Counsel at UT gets pretty bored, and will have no problem sending an associate counsel to court to file a motion to dismiss.

 

[river rat]

The MOU says "subject to the execution of an Employment Agreement." Was an employment agreement ever executed?

 

[topdog4tn]

UT's non-delegated contract policy, requires the Chief Financial Officer's signature, in addition to the Chancellor's, or order to be considered 'legally binding'.

Those signatures are not present, and as such, the MOU was not legally binding. If the university was going against the stated policy on non-delegated contracts, there might be some room for argumen. As it stands, it's pretty cut-and-dry, that the MOU was not fully executed, and as such there was no agreement between Greg Schiano and the University of Tennessee.

Greg can sue if he wants, I'm sure the office of General Counsel at UT gets pretty bored, and will have no problem sending an associate counsel to court to file a motion to dismiss.

Awesome was not aware of their individual policy, was just speaking in terms of general contract law. The policy protects them without stating that they didn't have mutual agreement.

 

[MFL]

Peyton Haslam

 

[HuntlandVolinColo]

Heard it also included a private entry 2-man shower.

 

[wrangler]

You are correct the signature alone or lack thereof does not get Tennessee out of this....but contracts are a sensitive thing which is why they are generally very detailed. Normal everyday citizens are under inferred contracts with our government that they don't even recognize such as your signature on your license is an inferred contract that you will follow the set laws of the road or else be summoned to traffic court for violation...otherwise traffic court would be unconstitutional for not being recognized under common law. In this specific case though Tennessee could say that Currie acting as an agent to the Tennessee hiring process stepped outside the boundaries of his hiring duties and that the universite was not at a mutual agreement of terms that were agreed upon by said acting agent with the potential employee.

That's pretty much mixed up and incorrect. You go to traffic court for breaking the law, which you can do with or without a license. Never heard of "inferred contract", believe you came up with the wrong phrase for what you've got in mind.

UT's non-delegated contract policy, requires the Chief Financial Officer's signature, in addition to the Chancellor's, or order to be considered 'legally binding'.

Those signatures are not present, and as such, the MOU was not legally binding. If the university was going against the stated policy on non-delegated contracts, there might be some room for argument. As it stands, it's pretty cut-and-dry, that the MOU was not fully executed, and as such there was no agreement between Greg Schiano and the University of Tennessee.

Greg can sue if he wants, I'm sure the office of General Counsel at UT gets pretty bored, and will have no problem sending an associate counsel to court to file a motion to dismiss.

As has been pointed out, that's a good argument, but that's not all there is to it. UT policy restricts the AD, but it's not necessarily required for a party contracting with the AD to call UT to check on whether he's authorized to sign a given document. You might want to look into apparent authority of an agent. On the other hand, if Sexton was familiar with the restriction on the AD's authority, that knowledge might be attributed to Schiano, and forestall that argument.

The MOU says "subject to the execution of an Employment Agreement." Was an employment agreement ever executed?

I read that to mean that the MOU does not apply once the Employment Agreement is executed. Normal contract practice to have just one document governing.

 

[37620VOL]

We may be in trouble because the MOU does not define "execution". UT's policy on such things is irrelevant because the MOU is silent to such policy. UT seems to have authored the MOU so any ambiguity will be held against them. If Schiano executed the contract in good faith believing JC to be an authorized agent for UT, then based on JC's execution and Schiano's acceptance, I think we have a valid and enforceable MOU.

Why would UT not include language to explicitly say that "the MOU is not valid until signed by all the following parties: the AD, the Chancellor, and the CFO"?

ETSU's standard contract states:

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The University is not bound by this contract until it is approved by the University officials indicated on the signature page of this contract.
...


Basic stuff really.

*Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice.

 

[Tnmitch]

That is crazy

 

[Eastnvolfan]

Whoever drafted that MoU should be fired if they haven’t already: this is some straight up incompetent bull crap

 

[Wolfeman_Vol]

I'm still amazed Currie was trying to give this loser 27.7 million. I think I can coach the buccaneers to some losses if somebody will pay me 27.7 million a couple years later!

 

[DaddyChad]

Well, of course he had Schiano in mind all along. Why else would he be piddle assing in the Bahamas on the university's dime before he made the hire? But somebody in the athletics dept. had to see his travels arrangements somehow, and passed that on to whoever leaked the Schiano info a good 24 hours before Currie got there.

No wonder Currie seemed all over the place. He had set up to hire one guy, had his signature on the MOU when all Hell broke loose. Once he was out of Columbus, it was like the welease Woger scene from life of Brian. The whole world was laughing at him as he tried to make hires in complete desperation mode. I really think he tried to hire Leach without authorization in the hopes it wouldn't be sabotaged.

Oh it was a set up, but in more ways than one. 100 years from now if they are still making movies, the next Paul Newman and Robert Redford will be making the Big Orange Sting. That is the only thing I can think of that even comes close to what we saw here.

He knew he was being fired. He knew that back when he interviewed Chad Morris; vq reported this. He had no power to offer Leach, the fact that he hitched a ride on a Kansas state booster plane should tell you the guy was completely rouge at that point. He assumed that Haslam was all the permission that he needed and honestly he would've been right if not for the uproar we created.

 

[wrangler]

We may be in trouble because the MOU does not define "execution". UT's policy on such things is irrelevant because the MOU is silent to such policy. UT seems to have authored the MOU so any ambiguity will be held against them. If Schiano executed the contract in good faith believing JC to be an authorized agent for UT, then based on JC's execution and Schiano's acceptance, I think we have a valid and enforceable MOU.

Why would UT not include language to explicitly say that "the MOU is not valid until signed by all the following parties: the AD, the Chancellor, and the CFO"?

ETSU's standard contract states:

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The University is not bound by this contract until it is approved by the University officials indicated on the signature page of this contract.
...


Basic stuff really.

*Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice.

Policy is not necessarily irrelevant, if Schiano knew of it.

"Execution" to me would imply that the signature lines all had signatures. I'd think an examination of the document should assume that those signature lines were there for a reason, rather than decide their presence irrelevant. Regarding your question, a definition of "execution" or a clause such as you cite from ETSU would certainly have helped to clarify matters. I wouldn't be surprised if something like that joined other provisions trimmed from a basic contract, to draft a MOU for general use.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

UT's non-delegated contract policy, requires the Chief Financial Officer's signature, in addition to the Chancellor's, or order to be considered 'legally binding'.

Those signatures are not present, and as such, the MOU was not legally binding. If the university was going against the stated policy on non-delegated contracts, there might be some room for argument. As it stands, it's pretty cut-and-dry, that the MOU was not fully executed, and as such there was no agreement between Greg Schiano and the University of Tennessee.

Greg can sue if he wants, I'm sure the office of General Counsel at UT gets pretty bored, and will have no problem sending an associate counsel to court to file a motion to dismiss.

If me and my wife had a policy that says that we must both sign off on purchases greater than $10k and she decides to buy a Mercedes without telling me, is that purchase still valid? What if the only thing she does is put another space for a signature on the car contract but fails to put in language that says this contract is only valid if husband and wife both sign. How was Schiano supposed to know UT's policy if its not detailed in the contract?

 

[Remy]

He knew he was being fired. He knew that back when he interviewed Chad Morris; vq reported this. He had no power to offer Leach, the fact that he hitched a ride on a Kansas state booster plane should tell you the guy was completely rouge at that point. He assumed that Haslam was all the permission that he needed and honestly he would've been right if not for the uproar we created.

Currie's actions are evidence he certainly did not think Schiano had a valid MOU. He took no specific action we know of on paper to ditch Schiano's MOU, he basically took the KState booster's plane on a rogue coaching search.

 

[DaddyChad]

So basically we got a better coach with a SEC seasoned staff for a cheaper contract? And also washed out an incompetent AD and the influence of a meddling and corrupt booster?

Yeah I'll take that as a win given the hand we were dealt. Pruitt at 3.8 million a year with a 60% buyout is a deal over the insanity Currie was offering to Schiano. Seriously how in the F did we have this clown as an AD?

 

[BeardedVol]

That's pretty much mixed up and incorrect. You go to traffic court for breaking the law, which you can do with or without a license. Never heard of "inferred contract", believe you came up with the wrong phrase for what you've got in mind.



As has been pointed out, that's a good argument, but that's not all there is to it. UT policy restricts the AD, but it's not necessarily required for a party contracting with the AD to call UT to check on whether he's authorized to sign a given document. You might want to look into apparent authority of an agent. On the other hand, if Sexton was familiar with the restriction on the AD's authority, that knowledge might be attributed to Schiano, and forestall that argument.



I read that to mean that the MOU does not apply once the Employment Agreement is executed. Normal contract practice to have just one document governing.

UT publishes their contract policy, and was in accordance with it when they chose not to fully execute the MOU by having the CFO and Chancellor apply their signatures.

Schiano being ignorant of UT's publicly-accessible contract policy is not grounds to sue UT for not signing the MOU.

 

[BeardedVol]

If me and my wife had a policy that says that we must both sign off on purchases greater than $10k and she decides to buy a Mercedes without telling me, is that purchase still valid? What if the only thing she does is put another space for a signature on the car contract but fails to put in language that says this contract is only valid if husband and wife both sign. How was Schiano supposed to know UT's policy if its not detailed in the contract?

That's a strawman argument. Your contract was with your wife, and not the car dealership, who in no way was bound by it to not sell your wife a car.

 

[Orange Daddy]

Here it is

Greg Schiano was one signature away from going to Tennessee

 

[gunner]

A review of the document in question provides doubts as to its valadity. John Currie signed it but he did NOT date it. What was he planning? Was he going to call a press conference and announce him as head coach thereby leveraging the other UT Officials to sign or what? The fact that there are two blank signatures on the contract leads me to believe it was NOT fully executed by UT and therefore invalid until signed by all parties listed on the signature page.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

If me and my wife had a policy that says that we must both sign off on purchases greater than $10k and she decides to buy a Mercedes without telling me, is that purchase still valid? What if the only thing she does is put another space for a signature on the car contract but fails to put in language that says this contract is only valid if husband and wife both sign. How was Schiano supposed to know UT's policy if its not detailed in the contract?

Schiano's agent has had several clients with $100,000+ contracts with UT. Even Butch had recently switched to Sexton.