The Rivalry, Esq.: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: SEC Basketball at the Half

The Texas Tech/Mike Leach Contract Dispute, a Legal Analysis

Seeing as it is how we at The Rivalry, Esq. pass ourselves off as law-brains, it dawned on us that we might actually -- you know -- do something legal.  As it turns out, a game dominated by speed, size, and power provides few intellectual opportunities for the juris bystander to flex his or her cognitive muscles. 

Contract_medium

But every once in a while, something like this comes along: Texas Tech, perhaps the most dangerous mid-major program in the FBS, and Mike Leach, the resident Buccaneer  that got 'em there, are stalled in contract re-extension negotiations.

Here's the interesting thing: "The school and Leach's representatives have agreed on the financial terms and length of his $12.7 million, five-year contract extension.  The dispute is over several conditions, or minor clauses that assign penalities, ahem, liquidate damages if 1. Leach is fired, or 2. If Leach interviews with another program without prior permission, and 3. Discuss sharing revenues from personal appearences and promotional functions.  None of the new conditions appear in Leach's present contract, which still has two years remaining.

This article will focus on No. 2, or the "hall pass" provision.

The "hall pass" provision requires that the head coach notify Athletic Director Gerald Myers and receive permission before interviewing with another program.  If Leach fails to disclose a meeting, or attends without Myer's blessing, the provision requires that he pay $1.5 million for his malfeasance.

Texas' Tech's Perspective:

Gerald Myers has emphasized that the "permission requirement" merely allows him to keep up to date with what's going on.  As he maintains, an Athletic Director has a significant interest in knowing when his head coach is involved in discussions with a competing program.  

Myers has gone out of his way to downplay the penalizing aspect of the provision, promising that he would never think of withholding permission.

Mike Leach's Perspective:

But there's a problem with that, and Mike Leach sees it.  If the only issue was notice, the provision could be written as follows:

I. Prior to engaging in face-to-face contact, or negotiations, with a third-party the Head Coach is required to notify the Athletic Director in writing, at least 24 hours before said contact or negotiations take place. 

If the Head Coach fails to comply with the requirements of Part 1, he agrees to pay liquidated damages to the University in the amount of $1.5 million.

This modified provision requires only that Coach Leach notify the Athletic Department a reasonable amount of time before meeting with another program.  It does not require that the Athletic Department give him permission to do so.

Under this hypothetical provision, Coach Leach is in the driver's seat.  He is free to entertain contact with another university and avoid the $1.5 million penalty, as long as he complies with the notice requirement.

Under the University's actual terms, Texas Tech (through its agent AD Myers) has the power to limit Leach's ability to meet with third-parties.  All it has to do is deny Leach permission.  If Leach then chooses to go ahead with the meeting, he triggers the $1.5 penalty.

Analysis:

Not surprisingly, Leach doesn't have a problem notifying Texas Tech before he initiates discussions with a third-party.  Last week he submitted a counter-offer to the University, which emphasized this willingness to cooperate, perhaps through language similar to the hyphethical provision featured above.

The University held firm.  As Myers noted, "Leach's agents' proposal is not fair. We will not even respond to such a proposal."

Granted, the University's comments are directly mainly towards a buyout dispute surrounding the figures Leach will pay if he leaves early, or Texas Tech will pay if it fires Leach before the contract's expiration.

Still, this armchair advocate can't help but feel the University is trying to "have its cake and eat it too" by layering penaly provisions on top of one another.

  • If Leach decides to meet with another program, Texas Tech first exercises veto power -- enforced by the power of the purse.
  • If Leach decides to go ahead and meet anyways, he'll forfeit $1.5 million.
  • If Leach then accepts an offer from a third-party, he'll pay liquidated damages for leaving early, anywhere from $300,000 to $1.5 million.

The layering nature of the "hall pass" provision effectively doubles Leach's penality if he chooses to leave Tech in the next year.  Given his track record, it's easy to see why the Coach isn't biting.

The University's Board of Trustee's will tele-conference Friday afternoon to decide the Coach's ultimate fate.

2 recs  |  Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

See what happens?

You see what happens, Gerald, when you hire a coach who is a lawyer?

This is what happens, Gerald! This is what happens, Gerald, WHEN YOU HIRE A COACH WHO IS A LAWYER!

storminspank: "Or we could join you can take our pants off."

by Hawkeye State on Feb 19, 2009 5:07 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Bully, all around.

I mean that in the 1914 sense, not the big kid who stole your lunch money sense.

LB, excellent breakdown of the legal sticking points in the contract, though it appears (if I read ESPN correctly this afternoon) that they’ve cleared those last few hurdles. I especially liked the “assign penalties” piece.

Meanwhile, Hawkeye State, a Big Lebowski reference is always a good thing. Equally appropriate:

“This isn’t ’Nam, Smokey. This is bowling. There are rules…you are entering a world of pain!”

by lakeeriemonstar on Feb 19, 2009 5:27 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Rec'd and Buzz'd

Thanks for the very informative article!

by studbucket on Feb 19, 2009 5:31 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Leach just signed

A brand new 5 year deal with the provisions as outlined here. Also, since when is TTU a mid-major?

by JRose on Feb 19, 2009 8:35 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Details

The term “mid-major” does not apply to schools belonging to the following six Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences:

    * Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)
    * Big 12 Conference
    * Big East Conference
    * Big Ten Conference
    * Pacific 10 Conference (Pac-10)
    * Southeastern Conference (SEC)

by Scarlet Fever on Feb 21, 2009 11:55 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

I think he was using Mid Major as a level of program term…like Oklahoma is a major football program, TT is a mid major program…but yeah, your right – mid major is usually used for schools like Miami (OH) etc

by grahamfiller10 on Feb 22, 2009 8:56 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools


Overpowering Top 15 teams since 2010.
Start posting on The Rivalry, Esq. »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
NOTRE DAME & THE BIG TEN
Cigar_small
Under Armor All-America High School Football Game
Dodge_front_small
Gophers need to hire Mike Leach
Oscar-gamble-avatar_small
The Big Ten Expansion Index
Small
"THE HOLLAND PLAN" BIG-10 EXPANSION
Small
Big Ten Expansion? The Chadnudj Plan
Small
Florida receives tough to swallow BCS bowl
M_small
Is Nick Saban actually Agent Smith from The Matrix?
Small
Big Ten-ACC Rivalry Discussion Post
M_small
The Blind Side Movie Reviews Are In: Schmaltzy, Uplifting, Formulaic...Fresh?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

M_small grahamfiller10

Cigar_small Law Buckeye

Bama_hawkeye_small Bama Hawkeye

Authors

Caddyshack12_small jerdogg1

Wrigley_small hmlee

N2200586_33075576_4358_small GregGoBlue

Official Partner of CBS Sports