In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1039
Online now 931 Record: 6475 (12/7/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If so, are endorsement deals handled this way? I don't think the NCAA has this power but I could be wrong.
Ahhh, but is it allowable for an NCAA football coach to hold such "outside positions"? One would think there would also be rules against that, if for no other reason than to prevent a loophole exactly like this one. It would be an amazingly toothless rule if it didn't anticipate the possibility of more-or-less fraudulent positions in booster-owned firms.
If this is a) true and b) Gruden is actually considering it, then it pretty much rules out a return to coaching on the NFL level in the near future...
Wrong, case in point is Pat Summitt. She had a very similar arrangement for a WNBA team. Maybe not ownership, but she was hired & compensated accordingly...
TN State Champs: '13, '11, '10, '07, '06, '05, '04, '02, '01, '00, '98, '78, '76, '70, '64 Runner Ups: '12, '09, '08, '97, '79, '77, '75
Even if they set up a contract for him to be a consultant for the Browns and structured the compensation that way, it would be hard to get the NCAA to buy off that it was an arms-length transaction since Haslam is a very well known booster. It would be viewed (and rightfully so) as a side deal to the coaching agreement. I don't think they are going to lawyer their way out of this rule.
Oh, I am under no illusions about how these things work behind the scenes, believe me. But the NCAA is all about keeping up appearances, and so these sorts of things have always happened as backroom deals, and not as straight-up, "T. Boone Pickens announces that the new head coach at OSU shall be..."-type things.
My point is not that I don't believe the Haslams would be funding the Gruden hire.... my point is that this doesn't seem like the way it'd normally work. Usually you just give a huge chunk of change to the athletic department with the understanding that it is being given because they have agreed to hire your guy.
This post was edited by tom cat 17 months ago
GO BIG ORANGE!!!
I could be wrong since Wes and Ward have said the money would have to be donated to the University and then passed to Gruden. However, should his contract with the Brown's precede any contract with UT it could muddy the waters. It would be fun to see the NCAA justify illegal restraint of trade in a court of law where their monopoly has no standing. All of this could be moot if this whole 'part ownership' thing proves to be false.
This post was edited by tnbear66 17 months ago
Endorsement deals are for specific services which have nothing to do with coaching services. This is different because he would be receiving the ownership as part of his total compensation package, and all compensation has to come from the school, no outside boosters. Boosters donate to the school to fund it, but they don't write the checks to the coach.
Now THIS is the first thing that I've heard that makes any sense. Granted, I still don't actually believe this is happening, but if it were, the reasoning behind it is solid: You only give part-ownership to someone if you want to prevent him from coaching anywhere else. Of course, that also assumes that there is some sort of contract on the ownership itself - i.e. you may not sell your stake for X years....
But that WNBA team was not owned by a booster at UT. Big difference here.
This post was edited by smasher423 17 months ago
NOT IF HE IS CONTRACTED AS A CONSULTANT TO THE BROWNS. IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT.
Point taken. Could very well be similar to Stock Options or RSU's where you aren't fully vested usually for a period of 4 years.
Yes, but PERCEPTION is important here. I just can't see the NCAA letting this fly. With all these rumors out now, Jon Gruden enters a consulting contract with a team owned by UT's biggest booster at the same time he agrees to be the coach at UT? Come on, you can't say that any intelligent person is going to buy it that those are not related.
She didn't have ownership. According to bylaw blog this is not permitted under NCAA rules without it being donated to the University first. Which the NFL does not allow. Not saying we will not get Gruden but I do not believe for a second he will get any part of the Browns. The NCAA will not allow any type of job with Browns while he is our coach. The Knicks tried to make Isiah Thomas a consultant while he was at FIU and the NCAA put and a quick end to it.
I can see your point here, but that's why I explained the difference between Stock Options from RSU's. Big difference there. One is given to the share holder (RSU'S) & the other is stock shares that you have the "option" to purchase. In this case, the BOD of the Brown's could agree on a price Gruden could buy shares for then he would be fully vested in those shares after a certain period. After that, he can do whatever he wants with them... As far as making a profit, hat would only happen if he sold his shares for more than he paid for them just like any trader in the stock market.
Who knows really, all I know for sure is I WANT GRUDEN!!!
This post was edited by JSamson7 17 months ago
If I'm reading Bylaw Blog's tweets correctly, he's not saying that the NFL doesn't allow ownership to be donated. He's saying, Gruden can't receive the ownership stake as compensation for coaching unless Haslam donates it to the school first (then the school pays it to him). He's not saying it can't happen, he's just saying that Haslam can't be part of the contract - it has to belong to UT and then UT pays it to Gruden. Otherwise, it is "outside compensation" which is not allowed.
Anyway, he said he's going to explain it in more detail tomorrow with NCAA citations and ish. We'll see if that clears anything up.
They can perceive anything they want but this is a legal situation and their powers most likely will not extend to this matter. Again, it could all be moot. Gruden is not a sitting NCAA coach of any kind and is not bound by their powers. They would have to try to make him divest and I don't think they want that fight. Do you think Phil had some real estate investments on the side with Thornton. It would be a terrible loss of face for the NCAA if they challenged and lost. I wish one of our lawyer friends would post. I have negotiated a number of contracts over the years but am by no means a corporate attorney.
Someone also asked this guy "what if it was structured as future ownership" which would get to your point of comparing it to a stock option. His response: "same problem". I just can't see any way around this. Bottom line: HASLAM IS NOT ALLOWED TO PAY GRUDEN TO BE OUR COACH. He can donate all he wants, but everything he receives has to come from the school.
Member of Les Trucker's Top 5 VFL Club
+ 1 for the C.R.E.A.M. reference, JSamson7
This post was edited by Fear_Smokey 17 months ago
"What did he do? All he did was score!" - John Ward
Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if other coaches, even Fulmer had some side investments or business deals with a few boosters. But the way this one is playing out in the media, we would be putting it on a tee for the NCAA to knock out of the park. And yes, absolutely the NCAA's powers would extend to this matter. The "matter" is a coach's compensation. You better believe they have the power to investigate any coach's compensation if they suspect we tried some loophole around their rules. They would absolutely investigate and bring enforcement action if something like this went down. No doubt at all in my mind.
And let's all be realistic here, even if it wasn't within the NCAA's power, they are masters at making things up as they go.
This is my last word on this issue. Haslam would not LEGALLY be paying him to coach at UT but to be a consultant to the Browns.
Dolla dolla bills y'all! Lol
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports