Charlie Strong

[TheBullies]

Either way, if UT is trying to say USF can't offer a backloaded deal, then USF will just have to pay market value every year. Strong might not like that, because the "load" is taken off the back. And I'm talkin about $$$. In case you were wondering.

[ajusf16]

3 minutes ago, TheUpperHand said:

Depends whether or not Charlie wants to see the dessert menu.

It's catered. Foods there. Just need to eat

[Gismo]

Texas is the reason USF can't have nice things. 

[RaisingFenix]

1 minute ago, Orlando Bull said:

To an extent yes, but, he can also sit at home doing nothing and they have to pay him. Even under a back-loaded contract, they get out of some of that liability. Again, he could just say... you know what... I will take 2 years off and Texas has to pay him every dime. Anyone hiring Strong is a favor to them.

 

 

True, and if that is what's being negotiated, that would be the leverage we have. Texas wouldn't be able to just force our offer up, because at some point we could just walk away from the table and leave them holding the bag.

[Bulls Are We]

2 minutes ago, Orlando Bull said:

To an extent yes, but, he can also sit at home doing nothing and they have to pay him. Even under a back-loaded contract, they get out of some of that liability. Again, he could just say... you know what... I will take 2 years off and Texas has to pay him every dime. Anyone hiring Strong is a favor to them.

 

 

Tejas doesn't have to pay him ****.  They can tie it up in court for years and not pay him anything if they wan't to be ***** about it.  

[Azmodi]

4 minutes ago, Who'sYourData? said:

Absolutely they can.  We will give you $10.7 million as a buy out over three years, subject to negotiation if you take another ncaa coaching job.

Very simple language to include in his original contract with Texas.

The devil is in the details however, they terminated him. That being said, the manor in which he is being paid already addresses further employment. As to whom he may be employed by, they can not restrict. Had he self terminated then a No-Compete-Clause would be binding.

[TheUpperHand]

nm

Edited December 9, 2016 by TheUpperHand

[RandyGator]

Someone need to photoshop this pic with green instead of orange.

[Who'sYourData?]

1 minute ago, Azmodi said:

The devil is in the details however, they terminated him. That being said, the manor in which he is being paid already addresses further employment. As to whom he may be employed by, they can not restrict. Had he self terminated then a No-Compete-Clause would be binding.

Sure they can.  If you want the buyout, there are stipulations.  End of story.

[E.T.]