OT: Arizona owes Miller $10M if fired for cause, $5M if just fired

Submitted by iawolve on

I assume the University will likely be hiring new legal cousel soon, MGo legal experts in the area could apply. Error in the contract gives Miller $5M if fired and $10M if "fired for cause" which is bonkers since that should be $0. Flip side is if this was intentional and not an error, that would be insane to allow that clause. Pretty much an admission the program was on fire and the administration was ok with it. 

 

Rovell did a retweet

JUST IN: Sean Miller’s contract, as written, somehow pays him more for getting fired with cause than without cause. So if Miller is fired with cause, Arizona will owe him approximately $5 million more ($10.3 million versus $5.15 million) than if they fired for no reason

 

Also here in more detail

http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Drafting-Error-That-Could-Cost-Univer…

 

 

OwenGoBlue

February 24th, 2018 at 6:32 PM ^

That's one way to guarantee your coach goes the extra mile to win.

Also can't wait for every coach on the hot seat to come out with strong statements condemning the cheaters and saying things like "I still believe we can do this the right way."

J.

February 24th, 2018 at 7:15 PM ^

Given that contract, Miller could sue and claim that he was terminated for cause.  The university can't unilaterally decide which of the two clauses apply.

Typically, of course, you'll see lawsuits the other way -- Louisville claims Pitino was fired for cause; Pitino sues, saying he was fired without cause and should receive all monies due.  The idea is the same; it's just the the plaintiff's claim is backwards.

This will be settled out of court, probably to the detriment of the athletic department budget at the University of Arizona.

VicTorious1

February 24th, 2018 at 10:41 PM ^

It could be that simple. Of course, I don't have his contract, so it depends how it's written. However, in typical executive agreements that I've drafted termination for convenience/without cause could use a provision such as the following:

"Company may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon 30 days prior written notice and upon such termination Executive’s employment will terminate. I'm the event of such termination, Company will pay to Executive as severance in a lump sum an amount equal to the sum of Executive’s Base Salary for twenty-four months at the rate in effect at the time of termination (the "Severance Amount"); provided, however, if Company terminates this agreement for Cause, Executive will not be entitled to the Severance Amount."

It'll be interesting to see how the provision was drafted. If it's there typical Cause provision with a Severance added for Cause terminations, that's horrible drafting on Arizona's part.

trustBlue

February 25th, 2018 at 1:18 AM ^

I agree with Victorious. I've reviewed and drafted tons of these kinds of executive agreements, and they usually have some kind of language that says the employer MAY terminate for Cause if certain enumerated conditions are meant (e.g. certain types of wrongdoing or illegal acts). So its pretty unlikely that the University would be contractually required to dismiss him FOR  Cause. Of course, its possible that they bungled up this part somehow as well, but that there is nothing that we know that indicates that this is the case here.

The real problem here is that the termination for Cause typically allows the University to pay less in severance than a standard termination (without cuase). But because the lawyer screwed up the for Cause provision, Arizona will be stuck paying full severance, even though they have pretty clear cut case of wrongdoing.

AnxietyRules

February 24th, 2018 at 6:46 PM ^

It incentivizes both parties to say nice things about each other in an exit scenario. But actually, yeah... no this is really stupid. Any scenario where someone is fired for cause should net them zero beyond salary already paid.

LLG

February 24th, 2018 at 6:56 PM ^

Arizona might be able to argue that Miller violated the implicit terms of the contract to not do anything illegal and, therefore, he breached the contract and that breach damaged the University.  The damages outweigh anything they may owe him  In other words, Miller violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Would obviously be better had the University addressed the issue, but I could see a court still finding that his conduct violated the implicit terms of the contract given the outrageous nature of the alleged conduct.

ThatTCGuy

February 24th, 2018 at 7:06 PM ^

The fact that Arizona gave Miller a contract that finacially incentivized winning at all costs and are now publicly shaming him for doing so is the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen.

Perkis-Size Me

February 24th, 2018 at 7:08 PM ^

Kudos to Miller’s agent for being able to screw Arizona over in the contract. Miller is a scumbag but shame on Arizona for not being smart enough to negotiate that out of the contract.

SF Wolverine

February 24th, 2018 at 7:27 PM ^

if you are great at your job, you get top dollar, even if you cheat.  If you sort of suck and we fire you, you take a 50% haircut.  Not much disincentive to "do what you gotta do."

1VaBlue1

February 24th, 2018 at 8:32 PM ^

I don't really care if UA goes bankrupt trying not to pay the slime they hired.  They knew exactly what they were getting, and got exactly what they wanted - a top tier bball team.  Fuck 'em all...

brad

February 24th, 2018 at 9:42 PM ^

So fire him for no reason. half the $10M problem solved, and the other half is either incompetence or desperation in the moment, so they'll be forced to pay.

Go Blue in MN

February 24th, 2018 at 10:01 PM ^

but it might be difficult to prove what the result was supposed to be if Miller got fired for cause.  Depending on the documentation of the negotiations, it might also be difficult to prove that Miller's attorney/agent agreed to that purportedly-intended version.  I think Arizona would need to show both of those things to get it changed.  More likely result is that they owe him $5 million. 

L'Carpetron Do…

February 25th, 2018 at 2:04 AM ^

Weird Q - could they just wait for him to get arrested by the FBI (if it comes to that?)  Would the contract automatically be terminated if he is indicted on criminal charges?  Or would he still technically need to be terminated by the university 'with cause'?

I wonder if they just held off on firing him if he would start sweating and then resign with some dignity.