Did Tubby negotiate w/ Virginia?

Donate To GopherHole
P

Plinnius

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,101
Reaction score
5
Points
38
From Jerry Ratcliffe:

First of all, I didn’t miss. I know there was interest — great interest — from Tubby Smith through this process. I know that there was great interest from Virginia in Smith.

When it all came to an end on Monday, sources on the UVa side of things said they did everything reasonable to try to land Smith.

Folks in the Tubby camp said that “Virginia did not bring its ‘A’ Game to the negotiating table.”

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/sp...uestions_still_exist_on_search_process/38055/
 

Plinnius said:
From Jerry Ratcliffe:

First of all, I didn’t miss. I know there was interest — great interest — from Tubby Smith through this process. I know that there was great interest from Virginia in Smith.

When it all came to an end on Monday, sources on the UVa side of things said they did everything reasonable to try to land Smith.

Folks in the Tubby camp said that “Virginia did not bring its ‘A’ Game to the negotiating table.”

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/sp...uestions_still_exist_on_search_process/38055/
Click to expand...


Old man might just be covering his ass.......

They ate up all his other BS...why would that change now
 

Exactly. Ratcliffe the rest of the beat writers fueled the flames of "Tubby's the guy, Tubby's the guy" and now they have egg on their faces.

He's trying to spin this as Virginia tried really hard (which they may or may not have done) and that Tubby was being unreasonable during the negotiation. That way, it looks Virginia was the victim and Tubby tried to screw them over, so they were forced to move on to Bennett.

The bottom line is this: Even if Virginia did contact Tubby, he obviously said no. It doesn't matter whether Virginia offered Tubby the largest contract ever or whether Tubby was demanding even more than reported. The end result was that Tubby didn't want Virginia and the media down there is having a hard time accepting the fact.
 

I don't know whether he 'negotiated' with them, but I have been told by another media person in C'ville that they confirmed the $3.2 million/year offer with someone as well. This is what Charley Walters reported too, so it certainly does seem that they made him a substantial offer, and $3.2 million/year hardly seems like what you'd open with, so I'm guessing some negotiation did occur.
 

Folks in the Tubby camp said that “Virginia did not bring its ‘A’ Game to the negotiating table.”
Click to expand...


This is hardly something Tubby would have authorized be said. Tubby would never say it. As for it being "People in Tubby's camp" I doubt that too. It makes him sound like a mercenary. And if Tubby refused $3.2 million, the last thing he is is a mercenary.

Ratcliffe seems quite concerned about what people on the local college message board think of him. We don't see Sid or Patrick defending themselves to Gopherholers.


I think gopherguy05 hit the nail on the head...
Old man might just be covering his ass.......
Click to expand...
 


Tubby may have strung UVA along long enough to better his position in Minnesota. I wouldn't be surprised to hear things coming out soon about official plans on a practice facility, a contract extension, and other stuff Tubby received to stay in MN. At a minimum, you'd think he would be able to milk a raise out of this, particularly if the $3.2 million UVA offer is accurate. I don't care how good of a guy you are, you don't simply say no to $3+ million without getting something extra or new from your current employer.

So to that extend, I'm sure there was some negotiating going on between UVA and Tubby; and in turn, likely some negotiating going on between Minnesota and Tubby, too. Probably a few offers and counteroffers on all four sides in this.
 

It is irrelevant if or not Tubby indeed negotiated with UVA. It is his prerogative to entertain an outside offer and use it as a leverage for whatever demands he has. We can only try to meet his demands or look for another coach. Until our bargaining position improves, it is business as usual. Every second tier program with a high profile coach goes through the same motion every year. We just have to make sure we get what we want from Tubby until he retires or moves onto another program - that's the reality. If we do that, the collaboration will turn out to be fruitful for every party involved.

All in all, I am just glad we do not have to go through coach resumes this year.
 

Okay Lawyers, let us know

Is it a violation of contract to negotiate another contract while you are currently under contract? I've always thought these situations should be messier than they seem because coaches are already under contract, and should not be contacted by anyone else without permission of the current employer.
 

Not a lawyer, but I've been involved in contracts (myself and spouse). It would be rare to include a clause that prevents you from talking to people about furthering your career (that's what it boils down to) but the contract likely has a template for what happens if you exit your existing contract (buyout, non-compete, etc.).
 



Holy Man said:
Is it a violation of contract to negotiate another contract while you are currently under contract? I've always thought these situations should be messier than they seem because coaches are already under contract, and should not be contacted by anyone else without permission of the current employer.
Click to expand...

First, it is standard practice to ask permission from the AD to speak to a coach under contract. It is not law but it is a generally accepted principle that is followed by most administrations.

That would be a very unique clause in a contract. The question with any clause is how do you enforce it. Would they enforce it by firing the coach for cause? Considering he is negotiating to go elsewhere I'm not sure what the point is. Firing him for cause would just mean that the new employer (or coach) doesn't have to buy out the old contract. If he is negotiating to bring a counter-offer back to his current employer and ask for a raise his current employer has the option to match or let him leave.
 

Ratcliffe was saying from day 1 that Tubby was the guy. He used stuff like "In my opinion","i believe" and "I still thinK', so this seems like more of the same. He was pushing hard for Tubby and basically said he would be the next coach and had to be the next coach at UVA. Whether his sources were right or not about how close it was we will never know but this sounds a lot like Ratcliffe trying to cover himself since so many on the UVA message board bought into it.
 

Talk is cheap - as a matter of fact it's almost free

Without knowing the details of the employment contract, the mere existence of a buyout clause clearly contemplates a situation in which such discussions would and could take place.

As a general matter, courts have not been friendly to any employment contract that prohibits someone from discussing how they might ply their trade when and where they see fit. Too much of that approaches indentured servitude – albeit at a well compensated level.

Without being able to point to specific instances that evolved this procedure, it seems pretty clear that the “custom” of a hunting AD calling the hunted AD at the last minute is a direct reflection of how the courts have guided similar parties in similar circumstances to act in the past.

Unless the discussion itself starts to create a problem for one or the other parties of the contract in the fulfillment of their obligations, which would trigger a tortious interference action, the parties are pretty much able to talk with whomever they want about whatever they want whenever the choose to do so. God bless America!
 

grunkiejr said:
First, it is standard practice to ask permission from the AD to speak to a coach under contract. It is not law but it is a generally accepted principle that is followed by most administrations.

That would be a very unique clause in a contract. The question with any clause is how do you enforce it. Would they enforce it by firing the coach for cause? Considering he is negotiating to go elsewhere I'm not sure what the point is. Firing him for cause would just mean that the new employer (or coach) doesn't have to buy out the old contract. If he is negotiating to bring a counter-offer back to his current employer and ask for a raise his current employer has the option to match or let him leave.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the BC football coach just fired for talking to an NFL team in violation of his contract?
 



Tubby may have listened to their offer, like 99.99% of any coach looking out for his best interest would have done, but I doubt it went farther then that. Otherwise, don't know who Ratcliffe is, but if he is suppose to be a journalist, he does not have a whole lot going for him.
 

harrys ghost said:
Wasn't the BC football coach just fired for talking to an NFL team in violation of his contract?
Click to expand...

Yes, but there was a clause in his contract that prohibited it.

As was previously mentioned, courts do not think very highly of non-competition clauses. But this issue wouldn't even go that far...without some sort of express clause there would be no way to prevent someone from negotiating with someone else while under contract.

If someone does not fulfill their contractual obligations then they can be taken to court for breach. A common remedy for breach is specific performance, but it would be ridiculous to ask a coach to fulfill that considering he would then be at a place he wouldn't want to be and the quality of work would likely suffer. That is why specific performance would likely be used in other types of contracts, such as the building of a house, etc.

Instead of specific performance the side who breached would likely have to pay damages.
 

Great point

MRJ said:
Exactly. Ratcliffe the rest of the beat writers fueled the flames of "Tubby's the guy, Tubby's the guy" and now they have egg on their faces.

The bottom line is this: Even if Virginia did contact Tubby, he obviously said no. It doesn't matter whether Virginia offered Tubby the largest contract ever or whether Tubby was demanding even more than reported. The end result was that Tubby didn't want Virginia and the media down there is having a hard time accepting the fact.
Click to expand...

Best post I've read in a while. This is all moot right now and the UVa folks can tell themselves whatever they want at this point, whatever makes them feel better.

Also a great point about hearing this crap every year, happens to other solid coaches at mid-level programs.

I hear this every damn year on the local radio about UNLV's Lon Kruger. The locals think, hear or fear that he's rumored for every higher level opening there is, including lately Arizona.

Bottom line, Kruger has it pretty good right now, not that different than Tubby; comfortable living, fans really like him, somewhat reduced expectations, not as stressful of a position. Not a lot of reasons to leave.
 

You have to admit our very ancient reporter got it right

Once again Sid got real scoop on everyone. He may be about 100 years old but he still has more inside contacts than anyone.

This hack from Charlottesville and some of our local scribes could only feed on rumors. And this guy's defense in his column is that there was some truth to the rumors about Tubby. Big deal! There's a shred of truth to almost every rumor. These guys never learn. They just report on what they think or hope will happen, not on what they know which is basically nothing.
 

All that matters is that Tubby turned Virginia down and they turned there attention to Bennett late in the week. The details of exactly what occured and the timline will probably never be known in full detail as nobody is really talking about it. Virginia was very quiet in this process with very little leaks so I'm not sure how much some of these writers out there really know, in MN Tubby has said very little about it and most of what is out there is alot of rumors.
 


Lawyer here -- you just have to read the contract. All the rules are in there, if any. Contracts aren't hard to read and don't really require a lawyer, other than the fact that they are so FRICKIN BORING!!!!!! But my guess is Tubby didn't really talk to UVA, I just think his agent said no thanks. Not about any money they have, just that he isn't done here. 3 mil is better than 2 mil but lets be honest-- the first mil you make is a heck of a lot more money than the second. I can prove it --we can make it a reality show if only someone out there would give me a mil and then after a while a second mil and I will let you know.
 

Wow - I finally read the original column

That guy is a piece of work!

If you haven't read it, you should. It is without a doubt some of the worst sports column writing I have ever seen. Transparently pretentious, groveling and self-involved - all without even bothering to create an actual paragraph.

Truly amazing.

By comparison, you will be grateful for the writing in the Strib and PP. IKYN
 

This makes it sound like Tubby was in the bag until Virginia's president nixed the deal.
 

Plinnius said:
This makes it sound like Tubby was in the bag until Virginia's president nixed the deal.
Click to expand...

Of course he was. I mean it is Virginia after all. How could he possibly say no without a dunderhead move by their president? Spin, spin and more spin from the Virginia press. Tubby said "no." That's all I'm interested in.
 

Tubby is still here, Isn't that Great????
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom