Online Now 1589

The CheckerBoard

The place for inside information on the Tennessee Vols

On this Board 501
Record: 4783 (12/9/2012)

Online now 1473
Record: 6475 (12/7/2012)

Reply

SIAP: More Gruden News Confirms Atomic's OP

  • petergaultney said...

    My biggest question at this point, and I've asked Wes on Twitter, is: has anyone EVER heard of a booster giving a coach money/things like this as part of a hiring deal?

    Obviously, it's Haslam's choice to donate whatever he wants to anyone he wants, but a) I have serious trouble believing that it could be written into any sort of contract (i.e., you are given this ownership under the terms that you coach at the University of Tennessee for at least 4 years), and b) it seems like the sort of thing that would seriously change the future of the coaching profession.... that we would finally have reached the point where boosters somehow have direct, public authority/involvement in hiring/firing decisions.

    You think T Boone Pickens doesn't have any say on the hiring processes at Oklahoma State? Or how about any VC firm & the hiring process companies have regarding potential Executive level employees. I deal with the same scenarios every da at my job & it happens almost evrywhere. Everybody answers to somebody, i dnt care who you are... As much as Hart is the AD & he has a ton of authority, he ultimately answers to somebody. Heck, unless you're part of the sheeple that down voted me during Election Week (which I may get more of those now for this comment) even the President answers to a select few.

    Unfortunately as the acronym C.R.E.A.M. goes (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) so it goes in everyday life. Sucks yes, but in the case of it helping bring Gruden to UT I gotta say I'm all for it...

    JSamson7 ●

  • NavyMike said...

    New info: The NCAA requires partial ownership would have to be donated to the university before given to Gruden. Per Rucker and josh ward.

    If so, are endorsement deals handled this way? I don't think the NCAA has this power but I could be wrong.

    tnbear66 ●

  • tnbear66 said...

    Gruden is a proven NFL commodity who could be a consultant to the Browns and it would be justified since he was a successful NFL coach and Super Bowl winner. It would be a separate contract. It would not, contractually, be that much different from an endorsement deal that most coaches have already. I believe it would be well beyond the reach of the NCAA for this reason. OrangeTex posted something similar to this in another thread I believe.

    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.

    petergaultney ●

  • 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...

    signature image signature image signature image

    tntoak

  • BrisVol said...

    This deal would be an NCAA Violation unless the ownership stake was first donated to Tennessee.

    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...

    JSamson7 ●

  • tnbear66 said...

    Gruden is a proven NFL commodity who could be a consultant to the Browns and it would be justified since he was a successful NFL coach and Super Bowl winner. It would be a separate contract. It would not, contractually, be that much different from an endorsement deal that most coaches have already. I believe it would be well beyond the reach of the NCAA for this reason. OrangeTex posted something similar to this in another thread I believe.

    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.

    smasher423 ●

  • JSamson7 said...

    You think T Boone Pickens doesn't have any say on the hiring processes at Oklahoma State? Or how about any VC firm & the hiring process companies have regarding potential Executive level employees. I deal with the same scenarios every da at my job & it happens almost evrywhere. Everybody answers to somebody, i dnt care who you are... As much as Hart is the AD & he has a ton of authority, he ultimately answers to somebody. Heck, unless you're part of the sheeple that down voted me during Election Week (which I may get more of those now for this comment) even the President answers to a select few.

    Unfortunately as the acronym C.R.E.A.M. goes (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) so it goes in everyday life. Sucks yes, but in the case of it helping bring Gruden to UT I gotta say I'm all for it...

    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.

    petergaultney ●

  • a

    This post was edited by tom cat on 11/27/2012 at 11:50 PM

    GO BIG ORANGE!!!

    tom cat

  • petergaultney said...

    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.

    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 on 11/27/2012 at 11:41 PM

    tnbear66 ●

  • tnbear66 said...

    If so, are endorsement deals handled this way? I don't think the NCAA has this power but I could be wrong.

    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.

    smasher423 ●

  • tntoak said...

    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...

    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....

    petergaultney ●

  • JSamson7 said...

    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...

    But that WNBA team was not owned by a booster at UT. Big difference here.

    This post was edited by smasher423 on 11/27/2012 at 11:41 PM

    smasher423 ●

  • smasher423 said...

    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.

    NOT IF HE IS CONTRACTED AS A CONSULTANT TO THE BROWNS. IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT.

    tnbear66 ●

  • petergaultney said...

    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....

    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.

    JSamson7 ●

  • tnbear66 said...

    NOT IF HE IS CONTRACTED AS A CONSULTANT TO THE BROWNS. IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CONTRACT.

    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.

    smasher423 ●

  • JSamson7 said...

    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...

    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.

    jacvol12 ●

  • jacvol12 said...

    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 on 11/27/2012 at 11:53 PM

    JSamson7 ●

  • jacvol12 said...

    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.

    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.

    smasher423 ●

  • This post is for members of GoVols247 only. Join now! 7-Day Free Trial

    Mksuzore

  • smasher423 said...

    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.

    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.

    tnbear66 ●

  • JSamson7 said...

    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!!!

    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.

    smasher423 ●

  • This post is for members of GoVols247 only. Join now! 7-Day Free Trial

    GeneHarrogate

  • + 1 for the C.R.E.A.M. reference, JSamson7

    This post was edited by Fear_Smokey on 11/28/2012 at 12:03 AM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "What did he do? All he did was score!" - John Ward

    Fear_Smokey

  • tnbear66 said...

    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.

    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. biggrin

    smasher423 ●

  • smasher423 said...

    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.

    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.

    tnbear66 ●

Tennessee
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports