I agree
Buyouts for all coaches must be higher
Staff Interference multiplier for poaching staff
We do need to beef up our negotiations
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Mel Tucker leaves CU for Michigan State
- Thread starter ElCunado
- Start date
Buyouts for all coaches must be higher
Staff Interference multiplier for poaching staff
We do need to beef up our negotiations
Deleted member 807
Guest
Speculation. Also possible if MT’s buyout was $11 million, he’s never CU’s coach.
What’s his buyout at Sparty 14mo in?
Edit: Buy-out is $6M thru 1/16/21. Then $2.5M thru 1/16/22. Then $500K annual reductions from there. MSU did worse.
Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker's contract details: Just how much is pay raise?
Michigan State gave new football coach Mel Tucker a significant pay raise from his job at Colorado – and a much bigger salary than Mark Dantonio.
www.freep.com
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing we need are steeper buyouts. The other stuff is irregular and won’t get signed by the coaches we want.
You can demand higher buyouts with more lucrative deals. If we’re going to be on the lower end of P5 coach salaries, we’ll languish with these easy to buy out deals.
tuck ****er
NuggNinja
Well-Known Member
It’s kind of crazy that 3 million dollars is an easy buy out.
Unless it's a sitting head coach, almost nothing.
c502cid
Well-Known Member
That's kinda my point, if we end up going that route.
$3M was actually a pretty big buyout. It was more than his annual salary. That was not the issue that made Tucker available to MSU. Desperation, B1G Monopoly money and Tucker's lack of integrity weren't going to be stopped by a buyout.
a matching buyout would have been prety nice. we've got some big expenses coming up to fill out our staff.
NuggNinja
Well-Known Member
They have the money that was allotted to Tucker this year plus an extra 3 million, so they’re not hurting for money.
When you get $50 million from your football TV revenue, $3 million is a pittance.
If we make the team buyout the remaining cash value of the contract, you’ll nip a lot of the poaching.
NuggNinja
Well-Known Member
I’m sure it would but you’d have to get coaches to agree to buyouts like that which I think is unlikely.
You can get them to agree so long as the money you pay them in the contract is significant.
Why?
Yep. The only way I see that sort of contract happening is if we had the sort of coach who never wanted to leave, was secure he'd never be fired by CU, and wanted that in his contract to avoid the annoyance of other schools trying to contact him.
For example, I could see a scenario where Tad made an Elite 8 run this year, got a new CU contract out of it, and wanted a $10M buyout put in or something like it in order to affirm his commitment and avoid being hassled by offers he doesn't want.
IF Colorado wants to make a commitment to football, a real coach budget will justify a serious buyout.
Respectfully disagree. Liquidated damages clauses are something that are really hard to take a hard line on for either party unless the leverage is all on one side. sometimes, that's there. For Tucker last year, not really. If a guy you are giving his first head coaching job to refuses to come on board unless he can walk away for peanuts after one year while demanding that you pay triple his buyout if you fire him.... I'd say that's an easy thing to say no to.
NuggNinja
Well-Known Member
They were paying Tucker (who had never been a HC in cfb) almost 3 million dollars, so it’s not like they offering chump change.
They just can’t compete with the SEC and Big 10 who have better media rights deals.
But hey, the PAC 12 pays the highest executive salaries and has the highest rent for its headquarters of any conference, so the former tennis player running the conference clearly has the right priorities. *sigh*
How would you have reacted if you'd learned 14 months ago that we could have had Tucker, he was the guy RG wanted, and the deal fell though because CU demanded too large of a buyout clause? I'd have struggled to be ok with that. Would make me think that CU was focused too much on mitigating damage if things go wrong instead of being focused on achieving success with the guy they believe in.
That was a new contract extension after he'd done well.
I'm saying that tucker would likely have agreed without that clause. He needed that stepping stone.
Interesting concept. Legal?
If MSU was such a dream job for him, why did t he accept it when first offered? Would love for someone to actually be able to ask him that question in a public setting.
It really depends on who it is and who has leverage in the negotiations. Maybe CU sucks at contracts or maybe it was what they could do to get the coach they wanted. If you make the buyout crazy, you’ll scare people off.
Maybe Tucker drove a hard bargain on the buyout and took less salary knowing that he was out as soon as the B1G or SEC came calling.
Are you offering? Yes, I accept.