MGB: Terms of Villarreal's buyout

[shootermcgavin44]

4 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I don't know the man. I hate his job performance and don't think he should be rewarded a lifetime check for a crappy, incomplete job performance. 

And no, this isn't a kin to any other institution. No other institution keeps a failure of an AD around for 15 years and then makes sure he gets to retirement because he is such a good guy. It's ridiculous behavior from a large state university

Usually the people who accuse me of "hating" Rick Villarreal are the people who have a personal relationship with him. 

Normal Age Retirement

For persons who became members of TRS prior to September 1, 2007, had at least five years of service credit on August 31, 2014, and maintain membership until retirement, the following eligibility requirements must be met to qualify for normal age retirement:

• Age 65 with five or more years of service credit, or
• Any combination of age and service totaling 80 with at least five years of service credit.

For persons who first became members or returned to membership on or after September 1, 2007, but prior to September 1, 2014, had at least five years of service credit on August 31, 2014, and maintain membership until retirement, the following eligibility requirements must be met to qualify for normal age retirement:

• Age 65 with five or more years of service credit, or
• At least age 60, meets the Rule of 80 (combined age and years of service credit equal at least 80), and have at least five years of service credit

 

[GMG24]

Just let it go, should we have paid him probably not. But he's GONE.... Let's move on man!!

[UNT90]

30 minutes ago, GMG24 said:

Just let it go, should we have paid him probably not. But he's GONE.... Let's move on man!!

June 20th can't get here fast enough.

[EagleMBA]

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by EagleMBA

[VideoEagle]

On 6/12/2016 at 4:17 AM, Silent Eagle said:

I suppose the contract supersedes the fact that Texas is an at will employment state. If not, game over.  He's gone, the end justifies the means. 

Yes, a contact supersedes at will employment. 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 6/11/2016 at 10:24 AM, Ben Gooding said:

But..but....but...I thought he resigned? 

It's a contract.  And, if was guaranteed, or even partially/conditionally guaranteed, it may not have made a difference if he resigned. 

Have you ever had an employment contract or negotiated a commercial lease?  In both, you can negotiate terms of an early exit for either party.

It's likely here that Rick fulfilled enough of the bargained for conditions in his contract to trigger a guaranteed buyout, even with a resignation.

In short, he had a good attorney.  If you want to whine about it, whine about the administration that negotiated it at the time he signed it. 

[UNT90]

6 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

It's a contract.  And, if was guaranteed, or even partially/conditionally guaranteed, it may not have made a difference if he resigned. 

Have you ever had an employment contract or negotiated a commercial lease?  In both, you can negotiate terms of an early exit for either party.

It's likely here that Rick fulfilled enough of the bargained for conditions in his contract to trigger a guaranteed buyout, even with a resignation.

In short, he had a good attorney.  If you want to whine about it, whine about the administration that negotiated it at the time he signed it. 

Hustler always looks out for the hustler. Too bad that attorney couldn't have been scheduling football games.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

1 hour ago, VideoEagle said:

Yes, a contact supersedes at will employment. 

Only if the contract contains some sort of condition such as the termination has to be for cause (which is then, normally, defined within the contract) would it supersede at will. 

As much as people here froth at the mouth about Rick, very few people in his positions - I'd say probably zero percent - would sign a contract without a termination for cause clause in it. 

Find me an athletic director, or any other type of executive, without a termination for cause clause in the contract and I'll show you an attorney who should be disbarred for negotiating it.

You negotiate in your clients best interest.  The school's attorney's do the same for them.  And, quit dreaming...there is no way a school gets an athletic director without one.  UNT's next AD will have one as well. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[ghost of smith hall]

What I find incredibly ironic is the constant complaining that UNT will not buy out a bad contract like the "big time" programs do, but when we do buy a contract out, at what amounts to chump change in a "big time" athletic program, you complain about that too.  Whiners gonna whine. 

 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Just now, ghost of smith hall said:

What I find incredibly ironic is the constant complaining that UNT will not buy out a bad contract like the "big time" programs do, but when we do buy a contract out, at what amounts to chump change in a "big time" athletic program, you complain about that too.  Whiners gonna whine. 

 

Thank you.

[UNT90]

4 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Only if the contract contains some sort of condition such as the termination has to be for cause (which is then, normally, defined within the contract) would it supersede at will. 

As much as people here froth at the mouth about Rick, very few people in his positions - I'd say probably zero percent - would sign a contract without a termination for cause clause in it. 

Find me an athletic director, or any other type of executive, without a termination for cause clause in the contract and I'll show you an attorney who should be disbarred for negotiating it.

You negotiate in your clients best interest.  The school's attorney's do the same for them.  And, quit dreaming...there is no way a school gets an athletic director without one.  UNT's next AD will have one as well. 

Right, but the for cause clause has to do with money. You aren't saying there was no way to fire RV, you are saying that there was no way to fire him without paying the remainder of the contract, correct?

4 minutes ago, ghost of smith hall said:

What I find incredibly ironic is the constant complaining that UNT will not buy out a bad contract like the "big time" programs do, but when we do buy a contract out, at what amounts to chump change in a "big time" athletic program, you complain about that too.  Whiners gonna whine. 

 

I don't think UNT should have nursed him to a state retirement. That's my complaint. 

All for the buyout...

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Yes.  That's what I'm saying.  That's what the termination for cause clause is for:  you can only be fired for cause, which is defined within the contract.

Also, did you fall from the sky?  Almost every executive contract has these clauses in them.  The only way an executive doesn't get paid is if he or she does something morally reprehensible, and does so willfully.

This isn't some new scheme Rick or his attorney devised.

[UNT90]

35 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Yes.  That's what I'm saying.  That's what the termination for cause clause is for:  you can only be fired for cause, which is defined within the contract.

Also, did you fall from the sky?  Almost every executive contract has these clauses in them.  The only way an executive doesn't get paid is if he or she does something morally reprehensible, and does so willfully.

This isn't some new scheme Rick or his attorney devised.

I know this, but other posts implied there was no way to remove him from the position unless you fired him for cause. That isn't the case. You simply pay him to govaway.

[GreenN'walinsVet]

24 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

I know this, but other posts implied there was no way to remove him from the position unless you fired him for cause. That isn't the case. You simply pay him to govaway.

THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UNT90]

2 minutes ago, GreenN'walinsVet said:

THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duh. Glad you get that. 

[Cr1028]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I don't think UNT should have nursed him to a state retirement. That's my complaint. 

 

16 hours ago, shootermcgavin44 said:

Normal Age Retirement

For persons who became members of TRS prior to September 1, 2007, had at least five years of service credit on August 31, 2014, and maintain membership until retirement, the following eligibility requirements must be met to qualify for normal age retirement:

• Age 65 with five or more years of service credit, or
• Any combination of age and service totaling 80 with at least five years of service credit.

Based on graduating high school in 1975, RV is about 59 years old. He took over April 4, 2001, which means he currently has 15 years and 2 months of service. Those added together equal about 74 years. That leaves him 6 years short. Even if he is on the payroll for the buyout rather than unemployed, the 15 months times 2 (for age and years of service) still only adds to the 74 to create 76 or 77 years of service, still leaving him 3 years short at age 61. However, whether you @UNT90 want to throw him the double bird on the way out or not, that WILL NOT change the fact that regardless of anything the University of North Texas or you can do, he WILL be eligible to retire at age 65 based on the simple language @shootermcgavin44 put above. I know you want to destroy the man but the fact is, he paid into the Teacher Retirement System and therefore will receive benefits from the Teacher Retirement System. Maybe you had a teacher that sucked growing up, guess what, if he/she paid into the system for 5 years and didn't withdraw their contributions, they too are eligible at age 65. Those are the facts and I'm sorry that your hatred has so blinded you to them.

[RushnStudies]

You're forgetting that he had the ability to pay in and buy service credit. I used to work for a state agency where you could do that once you'd been employed with them for 10 years. If he bought service credit, his age plus actual service may, in fact, add up to 80... which makes him eligible for normal age retirement. 

[Cr1028]

37 minutes ago, RushnStudies said:

You're forgetting that he had the ability to pay in and buy service credit. I used to work for a state agency where you could do that once you'd been employed with them for 10 years. If he bought service credit, his age plus actual service may, in fact, add up to 80... which makes him eligible for normal age retirement. 

You make a good point but last I checked it is megabucks expensive. One of the guys I worked with spent like $22k for just a year or two.

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

 

Based on graduating high school in 1975, RV is about 59 years old. He took over April 4, 2001, which means he currently has 15 years and 2 months of service. Those added together equal about 74 years. That leaves him 6 years short. Even if he is on the payroll for the buyout rather than unemployed, the 15 months times 2 (for age and years of service) still only adds to the 74 to create 76 or 77 years of service, still leaving him 3 years short at age 61. However, whether you @UNT90 want to throw him the double bird on the way out or not, that WILL NOT change the fact that regardless of anything the University of North Texas or you can do, he WILL be eligible to retire at age 65 based on the simple language @shootermcgavin44 put above. I know you want to destroy the man but the fact is, he paid into the Teacher Retirement System and therefore will receive benefits from the Teacher Retirement System. Maybe you had a teacher that sucked growing up, guess what, if he/she paid into the system for 5 years and didn't withdraw their contributions, they too are eligible at age 65. Those are the facts and I'm sorry that your hatred has so blinded you to them.

I don't want to destroy anyone, I just don't want him living off UNT's tit anymore. He has done enough of that.

Dont forget the time he served as Asst AD at TCU. If he has three years there and he didn't pull his retirement, this may be just enough to get him to the magical 20 year mark. 

I know he is most likely vested and will get the service credit time at UNT in one form or another, I just don't see the need to stretch it out for another 2 years, especially if the reason for that stretch is to make sure RV reaches retirement goals.

Edited June 13, 2016 by UNT90

[MeanGreenTexan]

20 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

I don't want to destroy anyone, I just don't want him living off UNT's tit anymore. He has done enough of that.

Dont forget the time he served as Asst AD at TCU. If he has three years there and he didn't pull his retirement, this may be just enough to get him to the magical 20 year mark. 

I know he is most likely vested and will get the service credit time at UNT in one form or another, I just don't see the need to stretch it out for another 2 years, especially if the reason for that stretch is to make sure RV reaches retirement goals.

TCU is a private University homie.

[Cr1028]

47 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

I don't want to destroy anyone, I just don't want him living off UNT's tit anymore. He has done enough of that.

Dont forget the time he served as Asst AD at TCU. If he has three years there and he didn't pull his retirement, this may be just enough to get him to the magical 20 year mark. 

I know he is most likely vested and will get the service credit time at UNT in one form or another, I just don't see the need to stretch it out for another 2 years, especially if the reason for that stretch is to make sure RV reaches retirement goals.

Regardless, they payout is no more in $25k in payments than it would've been in a lump sum. Time value of money might say that the payments are actually a little cheaper for us.

[shootermcgavin44]

5 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I don't want to destroy anyone, I just don't want him living off UNT's tit anymore. He has done enough of that.

Dont forget the time he served as Asst AD at TCU. If he has three years there and he didn't pull his retirement, this may be just enough to get him to the magical 20 year mark. 

I know he is most likely vested and will get the service credit time at UNT in one form or another, I just don't see the need to stretch it out for another 2 years, especially if the reason for that stretch is to make sure RV reaches retirement goals.

Early-Age Retirement Eligibility
If you do not meet the normal-age service retirement requirements, then to be eligible for early-age service retirement, you must meet one of the following conditions:
•you are at least age 55 with five or more years of service credit but do not meet the Rule of 80,
•you have at least 30 years of service credit, do not meet the Rule of 80, and are less than age 62, or
•you meet the Rule of 80 (your age and years of service credit total at least 80) with at least five years of service credit but you are less than age 62.
If you apply for early-age service retirement, your annuity will be calculated according to the standard annuity benefit formula in effect when you retire, but the annuity amount will be actuarially reduced for early age to reflect that you will receive retirement benefits earlier than if you waited to reach normal-age service retirement eligibility.
Early-Age

 

TRS uses the following formula to calculate a normal-age monthly standard annuity:
1.Average of Highest Five* Annual Salaries (based on creditable compensation) = Average Salary
2.Total Years of Service Credit x 2.3% (multiplier) = Total %
3.Total % x Average Salary = Annual Annuity
4.Annual Annuity ÷ 12 = Monthly Standard Annuity

 

[RushnStudies]

18 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

You make a good point but last I checked it is megabucks expensive. One of the guys I worked with spent like $22k for just a year or two.

Yeah, it isn't cheap, but I'm willing to bet that RV could afford it, and probably bought into it a long time ago.

Looking at what shooter posted, he might be eligible for early-age retirement anyway.

[Aldo]

I mean, he has said that he's probably not done.

[UNT90]

18 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

TCU is a private University homie.

Ah yes, my mistake.