BornInAA

August 18th, 2017 at 7:54 PM ^

"Rodriguez was the UA’s highest-paid employee last year, making almost $2.9 million in base salary and bonuses. He has a 36-29 record through five seasons at Arizona."

In my mind, record to salary ratio justifies their pay. RR should kick in a case of single malt scotch too.

 

 

 

 

 

NRK

August 18th, 2017 at 10:39 PM ^

Hard to tell from [EDIT: summary of] pleadings, but does seem there's some dispute given that article:

According to the suit, the fees would include “renewals, replacements, modifications or amendments of agreements negotiated prior to the termination or expiration of” Rodriguez’s deal with CAA.

The suit also states that it is “industry standard” and “commonly understood” that a client “agrees to pay fees on his or her earnings already received, or to be received in the future, for the duration of any employment that began, was agreed to, or that was substantially negotiated, while the agent (CAA) performs services for the talent.”

So basically Rodriguez reads the deal to only require payment for incoming money during the term of the agreement with CAA, while CAA views it to apply to anything that came out of the time while they were performing agent services. 

CAA goes "everyone knows what this means!" and RichRod says "If you want to mean it then put it in the damn contract!" Incredibly common issue, and not surprised at all that this is a lawsuit.

Yeoman

August 18th, 2017 at 11:05 PM ^

Agent gets you a ten-year deal for 10% of the contract; you fire him on the way home from the signing and he doesn't get a dime for his work.

It's hard to believe CAA would be that sloppy with their contract language, but if a coach ever won a suit like this he might find himself negotiating his own contracts henceforward. Which maybe at this point in RR's career doesn't matter any more.

NRK

August 19th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^

Yeah, under Rodriguez's scenario that's the interpretation and an argument from CAA as to why that is not a reasonable interpretation (and the industry standards are truly standard). Realistically that might work for a coach once and then your next agent would require it to be explicit or you would have trouble finding another agent.

This issue - whether a vague issue should be read literally or should include some outside context - is so common in litigation, especially as it relates to commercials contracts, because you can almost always find a way. It's probably not as much about sloppy language as it is about finding a way to present that argument. No matter how much you put into a contract an attorney likely can find a way to make this argument. 

My guess is CAA was willing to take a decent haircut on this to be done, and that that likely is the common approach in this situations, but Rodriguez wasn't willing to budge.

I've been on both sides of this argument (again, it's quite common), and generally each side tends to have some valid points. Which is why it almost always gets settled.

 

Yeoman

August 19th, 2017 at 3:48 PM ^

I'd go further and say it would be hard to find another agent regardless. As you say, you can "almost always find a way," and if the next agent makes this explicit RR (or rather his ninja attorneys) might just find something else. It reminds me a bit of Leach suing TT for wrongful termination; there's a reason it happens so seldom.

The more I think about it the more I wonder if some of the speculation elsewhere on the thread is on target. This seems like the move of someone in some financial difficulties who knows his career is nearing its end regardless. (I don't mean the dispute, I mean letting it get to this point without settling.)

KARC

August 18th, 2017 at 9:27 PM ^

If I ever see that Jabroni I swear to Jesus that I will suplex him, put him in the camel clutch, break his back, and make him humble the old country way. 

He is the Brian Blair of football.  No he worse than the Brian Blair.  He is jabroni like that fucking Hulk Hogan.  At Madison Square Garden in 1984 I should have broke that Jabroni's back. Instead he stole the belt from me and for that I will forever hate that no talent mother fucker.

Yeoman

August 19th, 2017 at 12:48 AM ^

It's odd to me that some people still remember the end of RR's tenure as a time when things were looking up.

We lost his last three games by a combined 88 points. If I'm not mistaken, it was the second-worst three-game stretch in program history. (The last two games of '35 and first game of '36 were lost by a combined 92.) And we'd lost 13 of the last 14 conference games against teams not in Indiana--the only win was that 3OT game against Illinois.

Goggles Paisano

August 19th, 2017 at 7:18 AM ^

RR is not a great coach and he continues to prove that.  He is just an ok coach that will likely never get another gig at a big-time program.  College football has caught up with defending the spread and he has not been able to adapt to stay ahead of the curve.  This in addition to many other flaws and the results speak for themselves.  I hear Rita makes a mean dip though.  

The Barwis Effect

August 19th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^

Rich Rod never had a chance. The deck was stacked against him. He wasn't a "Creative Artist Agencies Man" and didn't understand the culture of the agency. Not to mention, all the various political groups within the agency conspiring against him guaranteed that he no chance of success.