Bang.
KSU wins, Geno loses. See ya!

Quote:The judgment was announced by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and the university. According to DeWine:

“Ohio’s public colleges and universities have a duty to students and taxpayers to be wise stewards of tuition and taxpayer moneys. When coaches and high-profile employees leave public universities in breach of their contracts, the state of Ohio has an obligation to seek the compensation to which it is entitled. I am pleased that the Court has awarded the damages due to Kent State.”

(07-16-2013 12:32 PM)axeme Wrote:  Bang.
KSU wins, Geno loses. See ya!

Quote:The judgment was announced by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and the university. According to DeWine:

“Ohio’s public colleges and universities have a duty to students and taxpayers to be wise stewards of tuition and taxpayer moneys. When coaches and high-profile employees leave public universities in breach of their contracts, the state of Ohio has an obligation to seek the compensation to which it is entitled. I am pleased that the Court has awarded the damages due to Kent State.”

Nice. Very nice.

The Bradley president isn't very well liked by many around Peoria. Most poaching schools just pay the buyout as a matter of course, and Bradley certainly had the endowment to do it. Her compensation is very high-- over $700k as I understand it, probably around 50th among private schools-- but she nickel and dimes both the departing coach (a former player at that) and Kent, and from what I hear may leave Geno on the hook for this judgment. I think Geno/Bradley had a case to get the amount lowered, and I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal it, but the prudent thing to do would be for Bradley to step in, pay them off and avoid the bad press.

I do think Geno's rebuilding is going well and he won't be long for Peoria. He hired a former assistant from the top AAU program nationally (the one w Jahlil Okafor and Cliff Alexander on it now) and is winning recruiting battles against the likes of Kansas State and VCU.

(07-16-2013 01:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The Bradley president isn't very well liked by many around Peoria. Most poaching schools just pay the buyout as a matter of course, and Bradley certainly had the endowment to do it. Her compensation is very high-- over $700k as I understand it, probably around 50th among private schools-- but she nickel and dimes both the departing coach (a former player at that) and Kent, and from what I hear may leave Geno on the hook for this judgment. I think Geno/Bradley had a case to get the amount lowered, and I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal it, but the prudent thing to do would be for Bradley to step in, pay them off and avoid the bad press.

I do think Geno's rebuilding is going well and he won't be long for Peoria. He hired a former assistant from the top AAU program nationally (the one w Jahlil Okafor and Cliff Alexander on it now) and is winning recruiting battles against the likes of Kansas State and VCU.

It's too late for Bradley/Geno to avoid bad press. On what basis does Gf have to get this lowered? If he were fired, we would have owed him the balance of his contract. If he didn't inform us to "look at the Bradley website" and inform his players via Twitter that he was leaving, perhaps there could have been a negotiation. But that ship has sailed. Pay up.

(07-16-2013 12:32 PM)axeme Wrote:  Bang.
KSU wins, Geno loses. See ya!

Quote:The judgment was announced by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and the university. According to DeWine:

“Ohio’s public colleges and universities have a duty to students and taxpayers to be wise stewards of tuition and taxpayer moneys. When coaches and high-profile employees leave public universities in breach of their contracts, the state of Ohio has an obligation to seek the compensation to which it is entitled. I am pleased that the Court has awarded the damages due to Kent State.”

It makes me wonder what is going on with Miami and former coach Haywood/Pittsburgh. I had thought Miami was still owed money from him leaving...

(07-16-2013 03:14 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 01:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The Bradley president isn't very well liked by many around Peoria. Most poaching schools just pay the buyout as a matter of course, and Bradley certainly had the endowment to do it. Her compensation is very high-- over $700k as I understand it, probably around 50th among private schools-- but she nickel and dimes both the departing coach (a former player at that) and Kent, and from what I hear may leave Geno on the hook for this judgment. I think Geno/Bradley had a case to get the amount lowered, and I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal it, but the prudent thing to do would be for Bradley to step in, pay them off and avoid the bad press.

I do think Geno's rebuilding is going well and he won't be long for Peoria. He hired a former assistant from the top AAU program nationally (the one w Jahlil Okafor and Cliff Alexander on it now) and is winning recruiting battles against the likes of Kansas State and VCU.

It's too late for Bradley/Geno to avoid bad press. On what basis does Gf have to get this lowered? If he were fired, we would have owed him the balance of his contract. If he didn't inform us to "look at the Bradley website" and inform his players via Twitter that he was leaving, perhaps there could have been a negotiation. But that ship has sailed. Pay up.

That's not the law. Maybe Ohio law is different than most jurisdictions but generally speaking, you're only owed liquidated damages if it's a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered as a result of the breach. Considering KSU hired his very qualified assistant Senderoff at a discount and there's been roster and staff continuity at KSU, it's hard to fathom that Ford's leaving cost KSU $1.2MM, or that such an estimate was reasonable. Just my opinion. I think Bradley still would have been ordered to pay most of that sum, best case scenario, so fighting it was foolish on Glasser's part.

(07-16-2013 03:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 03:14 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 01:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The Bradley president isn't very well liked by many around Peoria. Most poaching schools just pay the buyout as a matter of course, and Bradley certainly had the endowment to do it. Her compensation is very high-- over $700k as I understand it, probably around 50th among private schools-- but she nickel and dimes both the departing coach (a former player at that) and Kent, and from what I hear may leave Geno on the hook for this judgment. I think Geno/Bradley had a case to get the amount lowered, and I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal it, but the prudent thing to do would be for Bradley to step in, pay them off and avoid the bad press.

I do think Geno's rebuilding is going well and he won't be long for Peoria. He hired a former assistant from the top AAU program nationally (the one w Jahlil Okafor and Cliff Alexander on it now) and is winning recruiting battles against the likes of Kansas State and VCU.

It's too late for Bradley/Geno to avoid bad press. On what basis does Gf have to get this lowered? If he were fired, we would have owed him the balance of his contract. If he didn't inform us to "look at the Bradley website" and inform his players via Twitter that he was leaving, perhaps there could have been a negotiation. But that ship has sailed. Pay up.

That's not the law. Maybe Ohio law is different than most jurisdictions but generally speaking, you're only owed liquidated damages if it's a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered as a result of the breach. Considering KSU hired his very qualified assistant Senderoff at a discount and there's been roster and staff continuity at KSU, it's hard to fathom that Ford's leaving cost KSU $1.2MM, or that such an estimate was reasonable. Just my opinion. I think Bradley still would have been ordered to pay most of that sum, best case scenario, so fighting it was foolish on Glasser's part.

Ford's contract with Kent State defined liquidated damages as the number of years left on his contract multiplied by his annual salary. Perhaps he was ill advised to sign a contract with this language. GF argued the point you made in his dispute with KSU, but he signed something that defined liquidated damages differently.

Can't post the link, but the opinion is posted on the Portage County Court website.

FF, that is the point in a nutshell. Not only did Gf leave in a dishonorable way, he also was not smart. Next step, file a judgement for collection and garnishment because he will not pay otherwise.

Here's the link from Judge Enlow's decision. Liquidated damages discussed in detail.

Enlow Summary Judgement: KSU vs. Ford

(07-16-2013 04:15 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  FF, that is the point in a nutshell. Not only did Gf leave in a dishonorable way, he also was not smart. Next step, file a judgement for collection and garnishment because he will not pay otherwise.

The time to negotiate what the terms mean is before the contract, not after.

Guess we have to wait until GF's decision to appeal. Think there is an appeal deadline bouncing around somewhere.

(07-16-2013 04:00 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  Ford's contract with Kent State defined liquidated damages as the number of years left on his contract multiplied by his annual salary. Perhaps he was ill advised to sign a contract with this language. GF argued the point you made in his dispute with KSU, but he signed something that defined liquidated damages differently.

Can't post the link, but the opinion is posted on the Portage County Court website.

I know that, but that doesn't mean courts will enforce it. I can sign a contract with you to mow my lawn by tomorrow for $50, and include a liquidated damages provision that says you must pay me $1 billion if you don't, and if by tomorrow you haven't mowed my lawn I can't just collect that billion because it's in the contract. No court in America would enforce it.

But again, just because I thought Bradley had a case doesn't mean I think they should have taken it this far. I don't.

(07-17-2013 10:41 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 04:00 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  Ford's contract with Kent State defined liquidated damages as the number of years left on his contract multiplied by his annual salary. Perhaps he was ill advised to sign a contract with this language. GF argued the point you made in his dispute with KSU, but he signed something that defined liquidated damages differently.

Can't post the link, but the opinion is posted on the Portage County Court website.

I know that, but that doesn't mean courts will enforce it. I can sign a contract with you to mow my lawn by tomorrow for $50, and include a liquidated damages provision that says you must pay me $1 billion if you don't, and if by tomorrow you haven't mowed my lawn I can't just collect that billion because it's in the contract. No court in America would enforce it.

But again, just because I thought Bradley had a case doesn't mean I think they should have taken it this far. I don't.

Your hypothetical does not apply to the KSU V. Ford case. One billion dollars in liquidated damages for a $50.00 contract is punitive. But, one billion dollars in liquidated damages is not punitive if the reason I didn't mow your lawn is because someone gave me $3 billion to mow their lawn. Liquidated damages of annual salary by year of contract is not punitive, certainly not the billion dollar enforcement of a $50 contract. This point gains strength especially when Geno's defense is that he took the Bradley offer to double his salary and sign a contract worth nearly $3 million.

Apparently, Bradley University agrees with me as they made Geno agree to a liquidated damages cause in his contract of $1.4 million, or double his annual salary, if he left within two years. Be a little awkward to argue that $1.2 million, or 1X annual salary per year of contract remaining is punitive, but $1.4 million, or 2X GF's annual salary if he leaves within 2 years is not. Hoisted by those damn petards.

Hypotheticals are fine. Summary judgements are better.

I don't know why some people are trying to make Kent State out to be the bad guy in this.

They basically said to Geno- We're currently paying you $200K/yr for the next 2 years, you can stick with that or we can pay you $300K for the next 5 years, stating right now. You'll get paid $300K/yr for the next 5 years even if we fire you, BUT if you quit before the 5 years up you'll owe us the difference. If you want to do this then sign this piece of paper.

And he signed the piece of paper. There's no tricks or misunderstandings here.

Bradley is the one to blame, if anyone. If I remember correctly they announced Ford as the new coach before his plane landed so he couldn't take the offer back to Kent to use as leverage for more pay.

You want to play hardball, let's play hardball. screw 'em.

In addition Kent has allowed coaches to go to other schools with no problems. Kent is not punishing coaches for leaving. Geno is the exception because he left with no say or warning. He is the only coach that recently has gone in this fashion and so it is no surprise that he is the only coach where we actually went after for damages.

(07-17-2013 02:13 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  Your hypothetical does not apply to the KSU V. Ford case. One billion dollars in liquidated damages for a $50.00 contract is punitive. But, one billion dollars in liquidated damages is not punitive if the reason I didn't mow your lawn is because someone gave me $3 billion to mow their lawn. Liquidated damages of annual salary by year of contract is not punitive, certainly not the billion dollar enforcement of a $50 contract. This point gains strength especially when Geno's defense is that he took the Bradley offer to double his salary and sign a contract worth nearly $3 million.

My hypothetical applies because it illustrates what an unenforceable penalty provision looks like. It's an extreme example, and this case is much grayer. I understand that.

The question of whether liquidated damages are punitive is judged from the time the contract is executed, not years later when it is breached. But even if not, I'm still not convinced it isn't punitive. The fact that it matches his salary doesn't make it non-punitive, and neither does the fact a program was willing to pay him more. The larger program pays more because it has a larger budget and attendance, and therefore a winning program is worth more to them. But that doesn't mean the smaller program lost out on that amount of revenue. Let's use an example. The Florida Gulf Coast coach (ironically hired by ex-Bradley AD Ken Kavanagh, a friend of mine who the Bradley president chased away but I digress) was hired away by UCLA for a million dollar salary, but does that mean FGCU will make a million dollars less next year than they would have? No of course not. They play in a 2,000 person capacity arena, and don't have the merchandising opportunities, TV exposure, recruiting advantages and alumni connections to take advantage of quality coaching and wins the same way UCLA does. And we don't know if the assistant taking his place would be much worse, if at all. (Geno Ford himself was a replacement for Jim Christian and kept the program on the level, and Senderoff was a perfectly qualified successor.)

Going back to our lawn mowing hypothetical, the guy offering $3 million probably has a very large, complex lawn to mow that he shows off to impress his business clients. It's worth more to him than it was you.

Bradley basketball budget (attendance): $3,846,345 (7,600)
Kent St basketball budget (attendance): $1,596,949 (3,400)

Quote:My hypothetical applies because it illustrates what an unenforceable penalty provision looks like.

My reality applies because KSU has a summary judgement with a ruling that the liquidated damages terms in GF's contract were not punitive, thereby enforceable.

Now, if KSU had not hired a competent successor to Ford, you would argue that KSU didn't take necessary steps to mitigate damages, thereby is less entitled to a remedy from Bradley. So we're screwed either way, huh?

I'm just happy that the only enforceable opinions come from the courts and not message boards.

(07-18-2013 01:23 PM)FlashFan Wrote:  

Quote:My hypothetical applies because it illustrates what an unenforceable penalty provision looks like.

My reality applies because KSU has a summary judgement with a ruling that the liquidated damages terms in GF's contract were not punitive, thereby enforceable.

Now, if KSU had not hired a competent successor to Ford, you would argue that KSU didn't take necessary steps to mitigate damages, thereby is less entitled to a remedy from Bradley. So we're screwed either way, huh?

I'm just happy that the only enforceable opinions come from the courts and not message boards.

It would only be violative of the duty to mitigate if you knew the successor wasn't competent at the time you hired him. And I don't know why Kent would do that, ie sacrifice their program in order to extract more from Ford's contract breach. It would be incredibly stupid.

I know what the ruling is, and I respect the judge's interpretation of the facts. I'm entitled to my own opinion regardless.

Every human can have a different opinion. Fortunately, the one opinion that matters is on KSU's side, and it's more than an outsider's opinion, it's a legal decision based on what both sides agree is the language of the contract. That Bradley and Ford have really embarrassed themselves here is my opinion.