Rich Rod's contract...the actual contract
I did a search of the forums and website and didn't find anything so I apologize if this has already been posted.
This link is the .pdf of RRs contract with Michigan, the USA Today must have filed a FOIA or something, its pretty interesting as it has his buyout and terms for dismissal.
http://i.usatoday.net/sports/graphics/2010/coaches-contracts/pdfs/michigan_rodriguez_rich_38.pdf
In section 4.02 (e) the contract states: The University has the right to terminate the employment of Rodrigez for cause in the event of the following:
(e) Rodriguez is determined by the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, or the University to have committed a major violation of the NCAA Rules, or to have intentionally committed any other type of violation of the NCAA Rules, pursuant to section 2.05 of this Agreement.
Doesn't this mean that the University could fire him without paying the $2.5 million buyout?
EDIT: I'm in my 4th year of med school so all this law talk confuses me and makes me feel like I'm getting sued, glad there are so many lawyers on mgoblog. If anyone couldn't tell by my avatar, I'm a big RR supporter, I just thought the actual wording in the contract was interesting.
December 21st, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
how few people actually pay attention.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^
next year, would be nice.
December 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 AM ^
But he did that at Stanford....Stanford.
/s
December 21st, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
I'm not on this site often these days, but when I am, your are inevitably bitching about how terrible RR is and how awesome JH is. Give it a rest for another two weeks.
They are both good coaches. Support the one we have or pipe down for a while. If they change seats in a couple of weeks, support the new one. Good lord.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^
Welcome to the club!
December 21st, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
You must be a hybrid super-troll. You couldn't really be this stupid can you?
Please promise to go away after RR is retained or at least choose a new persona. I want your name un-burned from my brain. You cause me to hate some of my fellow Michigan fans for no reason other than they may agree with you and all the people I've ever met named Nate which I realize isn't right.
This may seem harsh but I have been reading your posts for awhile now and I just snapped. I would neg you till all my points were gone if I could just so I'd feel better.
Actually I feel better now, thanks.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
It will explain a lot of things...
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^
Thanks, it does. It would be funny if he wasn't a U-M fan or whatever he is.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
Yields a picture of Jim Harbaugh as the 15th result or so. Yoda says: "Hmm, telling this is."
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:11 AM ^
Hilarious.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 AM ^
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 AM ^
...Mr. Volk was truly a Michigan fan that somewhere in that epic tale of fortunes made and lost and made again there'd be some mention of the fact that despite being a two time MSU grad, he's a Wolverine at heart. The absence of such a statement certainly points toward troll.
Troll or leach (made a living in the foreclosure business then as a spammer) -- not sure which is worse.
December 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
the "financially independant" phrase that was thrown around a lot. I guess it's easy to be financially independant when you are living in your grandma's basement trying to create websites.
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
For all matters related to Nathan's work in Texas from 1999 to 2005....
I'm extremely curious to know what Mr. Volk did in Texas between 1999 and 2005, and why it warrants special attention.
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 AM ^
No not worth it Harbaugh is more of a pop-up hitter.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^
Here's the clincher for me, putting everything else aside for a minute. If you had your act halfway together your icon would show Grace Park in BSG, or anything other than that lame-ass Hawaii 5-0 rehash.
JMHO
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
I love when you post, if for no other reason than that I may be in love with the girl in the pic in your avatar.
That said, why post this now? The OP clearly set this up as a non-CC discussion. The comments on this thread up until yours almost entirely managed to avoid the CC topic and just focused on RR's contract.
I actually agree with you that JH might be a good move (I say might because I really do see the merit to the keep-RR arguments, which are probably more based upon logic and reasoning than our argument of "let's make a change in bring in a Mich Man who could silence the divisions within our fanbase"). But we have both said that we favor JH about 100 times over the past month. Adds nothing to say it again, especially when the thread doesn't really call for it.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
Sit this one out, Champ.
[Until 2012]
December 21st, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
in section 2.05 it says he could be held accountable for violations he may have commited at another NCAA institution.
anybody know when the WVU investigation is going in front of the NCAA?
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
Where if the coach is to be fired without cause he has to have 30 days notice. I don't think anything in the agreement would prevent a quick coaching turnover, but thought that was interesting.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
RR can be given 30 days notice on 1/4 (hypothetically) that he will be terminated on 2/4. He can be retained on staff for the 30 days but stripped of all of his power and responsibility. He can (unless the contract says otherwise) even be stripped of his title as head coach.
When these clauses are in a contract, it generally only means that RR will get paid for another 30 days. In practicality, what usually happens is that the employer and the employee agree to 30 days pay, but the employee does not actually stay on. (It is almost embarassing if the employee has to stay, has no responsibilities, no power and often no office).
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
Page 13 had a spreadsheet valuing the membership at $6400 or so. I wonder if that's for the UM course or another country club somewhere else.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^
It's funny(?) reading all of this law talk right after finishing up my 1st semester of 2L year today -- seems like there are quite a few attorneys making the mgoblog rounds. The best part is that this has been the most interesting thing I've read pertaining to the law in weeks.
Hook a Michigan grad up w/ a summer clerkship? It'd make a good story, right!?
... right?
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
-1 Lawyer, +1 Michigan grad., +1 MGoBlog reader. All in all its positive. We need more lawyers in the world with the virtues of a Michigan Man.
December 22nd, 2010 at 6:38 AM ^
Yeah we need more ambulance chasers like the in-bred Bernstein family.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:57 AM ^
Mgobloggers skew heavy to the legal set. As someone part of that set, I admit, it's probably annoying.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
Prejudicial!
December 22nd, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^
law school is way more interesting than the actual practice of law.
December 22nd, 2010 at 7:38 AM ^
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 AM ^
While the degree of "on the job learning" may vary field to field, I think it's pretty universal that the classes do a great job of securing a piece of paper that can get your foot in the door but you've gotta hustle to pick up the real way of working the job if you're going to stay around.
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
In my opinion, the greatness of law school was being around co-eds again (after a work break between undergrad and law school). And boy do they have a high opinion of law students! Too bad for them that it took 'em so long to figure out that we're very annoying. Hahaha.
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
the coeds dressed up like medieval knights and hit each other with fake swords.
So that didn't really work for me so much.
December 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^
I didn't get past the very beginning where it said "University's men's football team ("Team"). Shouldn't it read ("The Team, The Team, The Team").
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:08 AM ^
Look up the legal doctrine of acquiesence.
<br>
<br>Basically, even if the clause means that they *could* have fired hime once the NCAA deemed the violations to be major, the fact that they didn't fire him at that time may mean that the University acquiesed to his actions and therefore forclosed their power to fire him on those grounds.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^
Like I mention above, you may never get there if the contract specifically provides that any delay in termination does not amount to waiver of the right of the University to terminate. Common law doctrines only come into play if the contract is silent on that issue. This is a perfect example of why law school courses are worthless when it comes to actual real-life examples. Good lawyers make sure that interpretation never gets to the level of common law doctrines.
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
RR was not found guilty of a major violation of NCAA rules. Of all of the things that were alleged, the only major rules violation was "Failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance." RR was found not guilty of that violation and DB as well as Mary Sue took that stance as well when they were in front of the NCAA Infractions Committee. All of that means means that the buyout clause is still intact.
I don't think that DB wants RR fired, he just wants to see the Michigan Football Empire back on track. I don't think RR goes either way but a bowl win would help.
This is my first post. BOOM.
GO BLUE
______
In section 4.02 (e) the contract states: The University has the right to terminate the employment of Rodrigez for cause in the event of the following:
(e) Rodriguez is determined by the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference, or the University to have committed a major violation of the NCAA Rules, or to have intentionally committed any other type of violation of the NCAA Rules, pursuant to section 2.05 of this Agreement.
Doesn't this mean that the University could fire him without paying the $2.5 million buyout?