Restructured Contract: Fair or Foul?

[Pseudo Nym]

For those like me who are and have been heavy on SL must go:

I'm nowhere near as consistent on here as many of you are but I've maintained, going back to the end of last season that it's time to make a change at the HC position.

I still do, however, someone mentioned a restructured contract and I've moved from 100% "he should go" to 95% if a restructured contract is in the mix, and the final deal is favorable for UNT from a financial perspective.

Jim Harbaugh and Scott Frost are the only ones I can recall doing this recently, and it definitely ramps up the pressure (in a positive way), the key spirit of it being a "renewed confidence" and basically "a last change, so don't screw it up" vibe for SL.

Along those lines, I think it would be hard for SL not to accept a restructured contract given the examples of Harbaugh and Frost.  It definitely wouldn't be a good look for him if he flat out turns down the idea of restructuring his contract.

For me I'm always looking at ROI, Return on Investment.

1. If his contract was restructured with a lower base salary and serious incentives, would that change your mind? 
    
2. What would a restructured contract look like for you to support it?
    
3. What would you need to see to see in the restructure to be convinced? (Money, wins, etc.)

Edited November 28, 2021 by Pseudo Nym

[Wag Tag]

His contact in thru 2023. Don’t do anything and see how 2022 goes.

[greenjoe]

North Texas is so unfamiliar with success we don’t know how to react when we are mildly successful.  Let’s tap the brakes on naming Seth a saint just now.

Great win.

GO MEAN GREEN

[NorthTexasWeLove]

16 minutes ago, Pseudo Nym said:

For those like me who are and have been heavy on SL must go:

I'm nowhere near as consistent on here as many of you are but I've maintained, going back to the end of last season that it's time to make a change at the HC position.

I still do, however, someone mentioned a restructured contract and I've moved from 100% "he should go" to 95% if a restructured contract is in the mix, and the final deal is favorable for UNT from a financial perspective.

Jim Harbaugh and Scott Frost are the only ones I can recall doing this recently, and it definitely ramps up the pressure (in a positive way), the key spirit of it being a "renewed confidence" and basically "a last change, so don't screw it up" vibe for SL.

Along those lines, I think it would be hard for SL not to accept a restructured contract given the examples of Harbaugh and Frost.  It definitely wouldn't be a good look for him if he flat out turns down the idea of restructuring his contract.

For me I'm always looking at ROI, Return on Investment.

1. If his contract was restructured with a lower base salary and serious incentives, would that change your mind? 
    
2. What would a restructured contract look like for you to support it?
    
3. What would you need to see to see in the restructure to be convinced? (Money, wins, etc.)

Money has nothing to do with ANYTHING!!!!! Pay the man more!!! 

 

[GreenN'walinsVet]

Didn't we restructure his deal going into this season, making it more favorable to UNT?

[greenjoe]

North Texas is so unfamiliar with success we don’t know how to react when we are mildly successful.  Let’s tap the brakes on naming Seth a saint just now.

Great win.

GO MEAN GREEN

[meangreenlax]

47 minutes ago, Pseudo Nym said:

If his contract was restructured with a lower base salary and serious incentives, would that change your mind? 

Why would SL agree to any contract restructuring that would be advantageous to the university? If I were him I'd rather get fired than agree to take less money.

Maybe he would go for more years, with a lower average annual value. But I don't think that is a trade worth making.

[greenminer]

56 minutes ago, meangreenlax said:

Why would SL agree to any contract restructuring that would be advantageous to the university? If I were him I'd rather get fired than agree to take less money.

There is precedent for it.  I've blanked out on who, but a coach recently took a paycut and fired his assistants to keep his job.

Edited November 28, 2021 by greenminer

[UNT Texas Hooligan]

8 minutes ago, greenminer said:

There is precedent for it.  I've blanked out on who, but a coach recently took a paycut and fired his assistants to keep his job.

 

Scott Frost. Taking a pay cut for the 2022 season and fired 4 of his assistants.

[Pseudo Nym]

44 minutes ago, meangreenlax said:

Why would SL agree to any contract restructuring that would be advantageous to the university? If I were him I'd rather get fired than agree to take less money.

Maybe he would go for more years, with a lower average annual value. But I don't think that is a trade worth making.

Great question.

I guess there's only really three outcomes as it sits right now:

1. Nothing happens and he keeps his job with current contract
    
2. He gets fired and get's paid (*Note 1)
    
3. He keeps his job but with a lower base salary and incentives (incentives could pay more than current contract)

*Note 1:

His contract calls for 30% of his base salary for the remaining years on his contract if he was fired today (I believe this is correct, I posted his contract on here somewhere a while back).

So he's not getting 100%, if he was fired "for cause" he would get nothing.

Depending on his view of his job prospects moving forward, when factoring in the 30% buyout and how passionately he feels that he's built this program to be successful, starting over may be a prospect he's not willing to take on and would take a lower base to stay, with incentives he believe he will achieve.

Incentive Structure Scenario (Example - not proposing these numbers)

For basic math, let's say a current contract calls for $1mil with and additional $500k in incentives for a total contact value  of $1.5mil

A restructured contract drops the base salary to $600k with $1.5mil in incentives for a total contract value of $2.1mil

- If I remember correctly, Jim Harbaugh's base went to $600k. 

Looked it up real quick, and this is his Harbaugh's  restructured money:

Basically, a restructured contract, to use a popular coaching phrase, is about: "Show us, don't tell us."

Obviously, with a lower base salary, if the results aren't there, UNT has saved money in the process if they decide not to fire him, and SL has a chance to keep his job and make more money.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

14 minutes ago, Pseudo Nym said:

Great question.

I guess there's only really three outcomes as it sits right now:

1. Nothing happens and he keeps his job with current contract
    
2. He gets fired and get's paid (*Note 1)
    
3. He keeps his job but with a lower base salary and incentives (incentives could pay more than current contract)

*Note 1:

His contract calls for 30% of his base salary for the remaining years on his contract if he was fired today (I believe this is correct, I posted his contract on here somewhere a while back).

So he's not getting 100%, if he was fired "for cause" he would get nothing.

Depending on his view of his job prospects moving forward, when factoring in the 30% buyout and how passionately he feels that he's built this program to be successful, starting over may be a prospect he's not willing to take on and would take a lower base to stay, with incentives he believe he will achieve.

Incentive Structure Scenario (Example - not proposing these numbers)

For basic math, let's say a current contract calls for $1mil with and additional $500k in incentives for a total contact value  of $1.5mil

A restructured contract drops the base salary to $600k with $1.5mil in incentives for a total contract value of $2.1mil

- If I remember correctly, Jim Harbaugh's base went to $600k. 

Looked it up real quick, and this is his Harbaugh's  restructured money:

Basically, a restructured contract, to use a popular coaching phrase, is about: "Show us, don't tell us."

Obviously, with a lower base salary, if the results aren't there, UNT has saved money in the process if they decide not to fire him, and SL has a chance to keep his job and make more money.

 

 

Now that I think about it, this could be negotiated and agree on from the very beginning.

A 6 year contract with an automatic restructure after year 4, based on wins, bowls, etc. would be a better a better model (we'll call it the 4+2 Model)

Similar to the "automatic extension" - if you haven't hit the targets at the end of year 4, money gets restructured for the final two years of the contract, with an option for the coach to "opt out" after year 4 but will receive no buyout or compensation.

If at the end of year for the coach has hit/exceeded targets, base and incentives increase, with the amounts predetermined.

It would look like this after the 4th year for the coach in years 5 and 6:

• Hit the targets = Increase Base/Incentive (Could also throw a trigger for an automatic 2 year extension)
• Miss the targets = Lower Base/Incentive Restructure

Edited November 28, 2021 by Pseudo Nym
Actually, we'll call it the "4+2 Restructure Clause"