Pearl's Contract Negotiations

#2
#2
Probably the clause that says, "If you are suspended for a year, don't come back"....something to the lines of that.
 
#4
#4
LawVol13 said:
Job security. I'm not privy to the discussions, but if Tennessee has any sense at all, everything in the contract should be contingent upon the severity of the sanctions.
Click to expand...

If he survives and stays, do you think he will still be effective.....
 
#7
#7
WeldVol said:
If he survives and stays, do you think he will still be effective.....
Click to expand...

It just depends on how heavy the sanctions are and how long they last. Barring a year suspension, I think he returns. Unfortunately, it seems a year suspension is likely.
 
#12
#12
It's not likely that he will be as effective. Rival recruiters will use his ethical shortcomings against him for years. If we have post season bans, recruiting will go into the ditch and it will take years to overcome. Doesn't look good for him or the program.
 
#13
#13
If the initial findings indicate serious impending penalties, I think CBP will either resign or will be fired in hopes that when the final penalties are given in June/Sept. it will partially mitigate what the NCAA actually gives us. Not sure that will even help lower the penalties to the school, but I think they are in a death grip on CBP, and maybe not quite so much on the school.
 
#14
#14
PS - the football and baseball teams are included in this investigation. Does anyone know the potential damage it could do to football? I think all of the secondary violations were either self reported, or were never proven. Still, I worry we'll get some minor penalty. Right now during re-building mode, we can't afford much.
 
#15
#15
If the University allows him to stipulate the contract independently of the sanctions coming then they are stupid. If he is suspended then you have to move forward as an institution and hire a new head coach that can go do things. Having to sit by and wait a full season will set the program back quite a bit.
 
#16
#16
If UT doesn't include that he can be fired with due cause with NCAA sanctions that are unacceptable, Hamilton will be the one who is fired.
 
#17
#17
It's a tricky situation.

You can obviously terminate a coach for gross ethical misconduct. In fact, they did.

And then they allowed him to keep working, and therein lies the problem. If the wording of the new contract is the same as the old, and the penalties handed down by the NCAA are severe enough that he has to go, they can't just "fire him for cause." They already did that, and then re-hired him. Soooo, UT would be in the awkward position of trying to fire him for something that they already re-hired him in spite of.

It would be like if Tennessee fired him, Memphis hired him, and then a year later Memphis fired him for "lying to NCAA investigators in Summer 2010." It just wouldn't make any sense...they knew about that when they hired him, it can't possibly be the firing cause.

So that's the spot Tennessee is in, and therefore they have to put (I guess) crazy language in there about why they can still fire him this year if they feel like it.

And naturally, his view is that if there's not SOME security in there, then what's the point? So both sides are going back and forth, trying to get all the protection they can.

Just my guess.
 
#18
#18
StepCross said:
It's a tricky situation.

You can obviously terminate a coach for gross ethical misconduct. In fact, they did.

And then they allowed him to keep working, and therein lies the problem. If the wording of the new contract is the same as the old, and the penalties handed down by the NCAA are severe enough that he has to go, they can't just "fire him for cause." They already did that, and then re-hired him. Soooo, UT would be in the awkward position of trying to fire him for something that they already re-hired him in spite of.

It would be like if Tennessee fired him, Memphis hired him, and then a year later Memphis fired him for "lying to NCAA investigators in Summer 2010." It just wouldn't make any sense...they knew about that when they hired him, it can't possibly be the firing cause.

So that's the spot Tennessee is in, and therefore they have to put (I guess) crazy language in there about why they can still fire him this year if they feel like it.

And naturally, his view is that if there's not SOME security in there, then what's the point? So both sides are going back and forth, trying to get all the protection they can.

Just my guess.
Click to expand...

This doesn't put UT in an awkward position at all. They haven't "rehired him." He's operating under a memorandum of understanding, I presume. The contents of the new contract will be unaffected by them allowing him to continue to coach under the memorandum. And you better believe that Pearl's job security is directly tied to the outcome of this investigation.
 
#19
#19
Question, What was the result of the Billy Clyde case? He was operating under the same "memorandum" at UK and they fired him unjustly. I know he sued but I dont remember the outcome.
 
#20
#20
LawVol13 said:
This doesn't put UT in an awkward position at all. They haven't "rehired him." He's operating under a memorandum of understanding, I presume. The contents of the new contract will be unaffected by them allowing him to continue to coach under the memorandum. And you better believe that Pearl's job security is directly tied to the outcome of this investigation.
Click to expand...

You're a lawyer and I'm not, but from a common-sense standpoint, they can't sign him to a new contract knowing full well about his lying to the NCAA, and then later fire him for having previously lied to the NCAA, can they?

It seems fishy to terminate him for misconduct, then give him a new contract, and then later say, "we changed our minds about the new contract...let's just revert back to the whole misconduct thing that we already terminated you for, back before this contract existed."

Help me out here...izzat legal?
 
#21
#21
StepCross said:
You're a lawyer and I'm not, but from a common-sense standpoint, they can't sign him to a new contract knowing full well about his lying to the NCAA, and then later fire him for having previously lied to the NCAA, can they?

It seems fishy to terminate him for misconduct, then give him a new contract, and then later say, "we changed our minds about the new contract...let's just revert back to the whole misconduct thing that we already terminated you for, back before this contract existed."

Help me out here...izzat legal?
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer yet either. Hat can correct this if I'm wrong. The first contract was voided for cause for the misconduct. I would think that UT's proposed contract to Pearl make the entire contract voidable pending the results of NCAA investigation. They wouldn't be firing him for cause again. It would just be a clause in the new contract allowing UT to sever its contractual obligations to Pearl pending the outcome of the investigation.
 
#22
#22
LawVol13 said:
I would think that UT's proposed contract to Pearl make the entire contract voidable pending the results of NCAA investigation. They wouldn't be firing him for cause again. It would just be a clause in the new contract allowing UT to sever its contractual obligations to Pearl pending the outcome of the investigation.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why I said they're in a tricky spot and they have to include special language in the new contract.

Seems like we're saying the same thing; I probably just worded my first post poorly.
 
#23
#23
StepCross said:
Right, which is why I said they're in a tricky spot and they have to include special language in the new contract.

Seems like we're saying the same thing; I probably just worded my first post poorly.
Click to expand...

I was just saying it's not a tricky spot. One sentence would do the trick. Tennessee is by far in the dominant position in this negotiation.

Or, Tennessee could simply have no buyout on Pearl's contract for this upcoming year. That would do the trick as well.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
LawVol13 said:
I was just saying it's not a tricky spot. One sentence would do the trick. Tennessee is by far in the dominant position in this negotiation.

Or, Tennessee could simply have no buyout on Pearl's contract for this upcoming year. That would do the trick as well.
Click to expand...

If they tried that, he might say "now hang on just a damn minute." I certainly would...no buyout allows them to fire him due to the NCAA investigation, or if they don't like his on-court results in the middle of next december, or if he grows back that fro he used to wear. He might not want to go that route.

He'd probably prefer to pin them down to NCAA investigation.
 
#25
#25
StepCross said:
If they tried that, he might say "now hang on just a damn minute." I certainly would...no buyout allows them to fire him due to the NCAA investigation, or if they don't like his on-court results in the middle of next december, or if he grows back that fro he used to wear. He might not want to go that route.

He'd probably prefer to pin them down to NCAA investigation.
Click to expand...

Then Tennessee simply responds, "Go find another school that will pay you $2 mill per with these NCAA violations."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top