Jaqen H'ghar

December 26th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^

My only concern with this guy is that he doesn't know if the 49ers will seek damages or not. From all insider reports so far, Hackett approached the 9ers directly from the get go and has already worked out compensation for Harbaugh. Him not knowing about this leaves some doubt as to how much of an insider he really is.

Allmanski

December 26th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

I didn't get that from the interview.  Mark Dotson was simply saying that an employer in this situation rarely seeks damages against the employee because it's so hard to prove what you're entitled to in terms of compensation. I think the inference is (if he didn't outirght state it) that if MIchigan paid something to SF or worked with SF, SF suing Harbaugh would be off the table.

Everyone Murders

December 26th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^

My hunch is that you're a better lawyer than Mark Dotson (who I've never heard before).  He may have some expertise in some branch of law, but it isn't employment law.  In very short strokes, employment agreements are contracts mostly like any other agreement.  Due to the importance of employment, there are regulatory and public policy limitations on what is and isn't enforceable, but the 49ers lawyers were undoubtedly aware of these when they drafted their agreement with Harbaugh.

With that backdrop, it was painful to hear Dotson imply that Harbaugh was legally entitled to disregard his contract with the 49ers (or at least that there was no risk of fallout from him doing so).  If the 49ers wanted to be pricks and did not fire Harbaugh even though they don't like him any more, there could definitely be fallout from Michigan and Harbaugh entering into an employment contract.* 

Now as a practical matter, I think Dotson's right - the 49ers and Michigan seem to have worked this out, so there won't be any litigation.  However, that's only because they (apparently) got in front of the contract with a different contract.  And that reflects well on all involved.

But when Dotson started blathering about two weeks' notice, etc., it was amazing that he did not seem to appreciate the differences between employment-at-will and other employment agreements. 

*We'd need to see Harbaugh's agreement with the 49ers to bore into this, but Harbaugh could be sued for breach of contract, and the 49ers may have a claim against Michigan for some tort (e.g., tortious interference with contract) or some such. Damages may be hard to calculate, but that wouldn't likely be a bar to the claim.

Allmanski

December 26th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^

And I hope I'm a better lawyer, I went to U of M for law school!  But I agree with your take that he was confusing a lot of issues (and the two weeks notice discussion made no sense to me alhtough I'm an M&A attorney not employment).  I think the main thing that I was taking away is that there might be a contract in place between Harbaugh and U of M that is either effective upon his termination/resignation from the 49ers or some other amendment of his contract with the 49ers that allowed him to sign a contract that facially conflicts with what his obligations under a contract with U of M would be.

Everyone Murders

December 26th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^

I'm with you (especially on the better lawyer part).  It's so much simpler than Dotson's rambling implies.

Provided the parties are reasonable and not vindictive (which is what the back-channel intel indicates), there is nothing keeping the 49ers and Harbaugh from amending their agreement to accommodate a move to Michigan.  And nothing preventing Michigan from paying some cash consideration for the 49er's flexibility.  It's that simple.

It's a savvy move for all involved.  For Michigan, if they work out a side agreement with the 49ers, they can do so in a way that undercuts NFL suitors for Harbaugh's services.  Win Michigan.  For Harbaugh, if he wants to come home, why not do so without any of the attendant clutter (see, e.g., RichRod and WVU)?  Win Harbaugh.  For the 49ers, such a move gets Harbaugh out of the NFL (including out of Oakland), may yield some cash, and kills the fantasy that a team would give up high draft picks for a coach that everyone knows the 49ers are tired of.  Win 49ers.

We all winners!  Like kids' 3v3 soccer!

 

Allmanski

December 26th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^

And if that's how it went down, then that was the smoothest move by Hackett to take Habraugh off the board before anyone else could get to him.  I'm secretly hoping this was the case because if so that a BOSS move and hackett will have already shown himself to be light years beyond DB.

xtramelanin

December 27th, 2014 at 6:53 AM ^

point that seems to have been missed.  employment contracts aren't contracts for servitude, such that if JH wants to go, he can't.  what they can specify are restrictions about leaving where someone could be prohibited from revealing proprietary information (common in business, not likely here though), poaching clients/customers (not applicable here) or that someone can't engage in the same or similar type of business.  

that last part could apply to a coaching gig for JH, but it'd be tough for an NFL team to enforce that for a now-college coach.  they aren't in the same business at least as far as 'competition' is concerned, and in that case court's won't enforce those restrictions unless they are reasonable.  so, a blanket prohibition on coaching at all would never be enforced, same with one that says he can't coach for 5 or 10 years.  probably could enforce one that says 'no pro team coaching' for some number of years, over and above what are probably league rules anyway. 

bottom line:  moving 2600 miles east to coach college football will probably not trigger any signif consequence for JH as it relates to somehow 'violating' his 49er employment contract. 

oh, and one last thing:  i would guess this case would be a fed case if it ever got that far, but if somehow this was litigated under california state laws, JH would be in the driver's seat.

mackbru

December 26th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^

It's highly unlikely that M will have to pay SF anything. By most accounts, NFL contracts are restrictive only re the NFL. A coach can quit the NFL, and therefore his NFL contract, at any time, without penalty. It's unlikely Harbaugh's contract prohibits him from leaving for the college ranks. I'm not sure such a contract would even be legal.

maizenblue92

December 26th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^

Harbaugh has to a lot of players (former, I'm guessing) that he's coming? So, I guess that means...

IT'S HAPPENING!*

 

 

 

*barring unforseen change (such as douchebaggery by the Raiders trying to poach him)

 

AdamBomb

December 26th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

I'm from the EL area (I know...) and Jack Ebling has been around a long time. He is (maybe was) the head writer for the sports section in the Lansing State Journal for a long time, and has a weekly radio/TV show now all about the spartans. So he does have credibility, but not sure about his Michigan credibility.

That being said, my pants just got tighter. It's Happening!!!

BlueMarrow

December 26th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

Interesting opinions expressed on Michigan paying SF to avoid conflict/ litigation.

If that really happened, would Michigan have not negotiated to have JH released after the Niners were out of the playoff picture?

I still beleive we are simply waiting for him to be fired, then he signs the Michigan contract.

Ray

December 26th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^

he also posts on the non-$$ Edge of the Internet Boards.  Seems well respected and credible.

Wasn't Sam supposed to up his probability to 85% today?  I'm jonesin' for an update.