Pitino's Buyout Drops to Zero

Marooned

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
182
Points
43
They wouldn't have said that in the article, if that was the case.

Thus, you're wrong.
I’m not sure logic is your strong suit (as you’re apt to call out a poster in another thread).
The termination fee applies if the contract terminates because Pitino left for another coaching job. That didn’t happen. The contract terminated because he was fired. Why the strib decided to call that out, I have no idea, but them briefly mentioning it doesn’t make your version factual.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
The termination fee applies if the contract terminates because Pitino left for another coaching job. That didn’t happen. The contract terminated because he was fired.
You are wrong because you're making this wrong assumption.

He wasn't fired and he did indeed decide to leave the U for New Mexico. That plays better on PR, better for his career record, and it worked out better for both parties (particularly the U financially, to the tune of 1.25M net).
 

Marooned

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
182
Points
43
You are wrong because you're making this wrong assumption.

He wasn't fired and he did indeed decide to leave the U for New Mexico. That plays better on PR, better for his career record, and it worked out better for both parties (particularly the U financially, to the tune of 1.25M net).
He was fired. It's literally in the article:
The separation agreement says the U doesn't have to pay any buyout for parting ways with Pitino

Pitino didn't part ways with the U. The U parted ways with Pitino. The facts back that up as well given the U's release of them firing Pitino prior to Pitino taking the NM job.

Again, you're wrong on this one.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
The separation agreement says the U doesn't have to pay any buyout for parting ways with Pitino

Separation agreement just means an agreement of terms on final payments for any reason that the coach is leaving the school.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
He was fired. It's literally in the article:
The separation agreement says the U doesn't have to pay any buyout for parting ways with Pitino

Pitino didn't part ways with the U. The U parted ways with Pitino. The facts back that up as well given the U's release of them firing Pitino prior to Pitino taking the NM job.

Again, you're wrong on this one.
Look, it was mutual! He was going to break up with the U anyways!
 

GopherBlood666

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
749
Points
113
Separation agreement just means an agreement of terms on final payments for any reason that the coach is leaving the school.
Timeline was coyle announced pitino would not return, a couple days later he took the nm job. When pitino was released it was not stated it was due to him leaving for another school. It was due to his performance. Pitino was fired.
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
697
Points
113
He was canned last April and was told if we have a season you might coach it but there is 0 buyout at the end of this. NM knew they were likely hiring Richie last August.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,784
Reaction score
516
Points
113
You are wrong because you're making this wrong assumption.

He wasn't fired and he did indeed decide to leave the U for New Mexico. That plays better on PR, better for his career record, and it worked out better for both parties (particularly the U financially, to the tune of 1.25M net).

Look, if you want to count it as $500k less the U was going to get, go ahead. But, it makes no sense whatsoever. Pitino was NEVER going to pay that because he was never going to voluntarily leave the Gophers. That was NEVER money the Gophers were going to get. That was the buyout in the contract for when Pitino won big at MN and took a job at Louisville or Florida. Not for when he took the job a day after he was fired. I mean do you really think Richard Pitino was willingly going to not only pay the U a buyout of $500k, but do so to take a job that paid him $1.6 million/year less?
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
I don't think there is any doubt that Coyle and Pitino worked together on the timing.
100% correct. Hence why it wasn't a "firing" in the normal sense. If Coyle wanted to fire him, he would've told him "you're done and we'll have Conroy take over for the rest of the season" towards the end.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
I mean do you really think Richard Pitino was willingly going to not only pay the U a buyout of $500k, but do so to take a job that paid him $1.6 million/year less?
He could have chosen to bide his time and make the U pay him out every last dollar of the $1.75 he was owed.

Coyle and Pitino worked it out, so he could take the NM job right away and not be "fired". Looks better all around, and worked out better for everyone.

Pitino doesn't get the $1.75M buyout he would have been owed, but he also doesn't have to pay the $500k he would owe for taking another job prior to April 30.
 

Marooned

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Post #32:
They wouldn't have said that in the article, if that was the case.
Post #46:
The media specifically used the word "fire" because that generates more clicks. No other reason.
So, which is it? It's true because the media mentioned it? Or it's not true because the media is looking for clicks? Or, is it maybe only true when it fits whatever narrative you've already convinced yourself of, but otherwise clickbait when it doesn't? You're going in circles. Like I said, logic isn't your strong suit.
Very telling that you didn't link to the official annoucement. The word fire isn't in there.
Geesh. Literally the first sentence in Coyle's statement:
I recently met with Richard and told him that we were moving in a different direction.
You're right, he didn't use the word "fire". But that statement could not have been any more clear. You're being obtuse here. It's hilarious.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
It's true because the media mentioned it? Or it's not true because the media is looking for clicks?
Completely different things, so your argument here does not hold.

But that statement could not have been any more clear.
That they worked together on a mutual separation agreement.

I never said otherwise. All I ever said is that the terms they mutually agreed upon were set up so that Richard wouldn't get paid the $1.75M he was owed in exchange for getting to finish out the year, not be officially fired, and not having to pay the $500k for leaving.
 

Marooned

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Completely different things
Nice mental gymnastics there. Whatever makes you feel better.
That they worked together on a mutual separation agreement.

I never said otherwise.
I don't doubt much of the exit was planned out between Coyle and Pitino after it was already decided that Pitino would be let go. However you want to spin it, Coyle approached Pitino to tell him he would no longer coach the Gophers, so your assertion on post #34 how Pitino "decided" to leave the U is wrong. Him leaving the Gophers was dictated. Him coaching at NM was his decision.
 

Marooned

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
261
Reaction score
182
Points
43
Hence why he technically would’ve owed the U $500k.
You're still wrong here. The provision in which Pitino would pay the U falls under what is literally called the "Coach's Right to Terminate" and states "In the event Coach terminates this Agreement during the Term of Employment, Coach shall pay the University a termination fee..." (emphasis mine) - in other words, it only applies if the Coach terminates the contract (ie, leaves on his own free will before being fired or the contract expiration). Here, the University terminated the contract, not the Coach, and which, therefore, the "University's Right to Terminate Without Just Cause" and the University's termination fee - ie, payout - would apply. The original article discusses that the U doesn't owe Pitino anything since a provision within the "University's Right to Terminate Without Just Cause" states "If Coach is employed elsewhere post-termination in a comparable employment position, then payments [...] shall cease."

If you're interested, I found the original contract from 2013 (but couldn't find any of the extensions). The language is likely mostly the same, but with the figures being different/updated. But, let it be clear that he did not technically owe the U anything for being let go.
 

UpAndUnder43

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
7,460
Reaction score
3,229
Points
113
You're still wrong here. The provision in which Pitino would pay the U falls under what is literally called the "Coach's Right to Terminate" and states "In the event Coach terminates this Agreement during the Term of Employment, Coach shall pay the University a termination fee..." (emphasis mine) - in other words, it only applies if the Coach terminates the contract (ie, leaves on his own free will before being fired or the contract expiration). Here, the University terminated the contract, not the Coach, and which, therefore, the "University's Right to Terminate Without Just Cause" and the University's termination fee - ie, payout - would apply. The original article discusses that the U doesn't owe Pitino anything since a provision within the "University's Right to Terminate Without Just Cause" states "If Coach is employed elsewhere post-termination in a comparable employment position, then payments [...] shall cease."

If you're interested, I found the original contract from 2013 (but couldn't find any of the extensions). The language is likely mostly the same, but with the figures being different/updated. But, let it be clear that he did not technically owe the U anything for being let go.
Ok, but aside from facts, logic and the contract what do you really have to prove your point?
 

SanDiegoGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
576
Reaction score
471
Points
63
SD gopher, rubio’s fish tacos. amiryt?

Ohhh, this deservers another thread. For a chain fish taco, Rubios is very solid/good.

My favorite, if you're familiar with the area, are the fish tacos from south beach bar and grill in ocean beach. pair them with some calimari and their bloody mary. You got a legal feel good drug right there
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
697
Points
113
Ohhh, this deservers another thread. For a chain fish taco, Rubios is very solid/good.

My favorite, if you're familiar with the area, are the fish tacos from south beach bar and grill in ocean beach. pair them with some calimari and their bloody mary. You got a legal feel good drug right there
Never been there but i now have it it my notes - thanks to you!
 
Top Bottom