Hubert Davis Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeoBloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 67K
  • UNC Sports 
Doesn’t his buyout drop from $5 million to $3.75 million on April 1? Maybe they are trying to get him to take the lower amount now versus wait until April 1 when they can fire him and contractually pay that amount (but would be stuck in neutral with any hiring search for that extra week)?
April Fool's Day - appropriate.

Naturally, I encourage y'all to keep Hubert.

I'm hearing Nate Oats will be a target.
 
You just make the termination effective April 1. That doesn’t stop you from interviewing or selecting the new head coach.
To reduce the buyout? Not a lawyer and I believe you are, so you are the expert here, but I’d think that HD would have a case to collect the difference, right?
 
To reduce the buyout? Not a lawyer and I believe you are, so you are the expert here, but I’d think that HD would have a case to collect the difference, right?
How? He’d have the job through April 1.

Edit - but that is one of those details that usually gets negotiated out
 
How? He’d have the job through April 1.
Because they would have made the decision to fire him and start interviewing replacements prior to April 1, and only terminated on April 1 to reduce his buyout. Sees to me HD would have an argument. Not saying he’d win. But again you are the expert and if there is precedent here I would concede.
 
the problem with the thought process behind this hypothetical play is that a resignation rather than a firing is preferable for both sides.

even though i think HD needs to go, UNC doesn't come out looking rosy in the scenario where they fire a beloved alum.

the goal here should be amicable divorce. pay the fucking buyout and act you have some class.
Yeah definitely agree. It’s obviously not my money, but a few million is chump change in a situation like this. It might be much more costly in terms of negative attention if UNC draws the line in the sand over that and makes this messier than it needs to be.
 
Because they would have made the decision to fire him and start interviewing replacements prior to April 1, and only terminated on April 1 to reduce his buyout. Sees to me HD would have an argument. Not saying he’d win. But again you are the expert and if there is precedent here I would concede.
Well, everything depends on the contractual language. This might be specifically addressed. Otherwise, my instinct is the same as yours. I think HD's theory would be constructive termination -- whether or not they technically fired him, his position as coach would be in name only. Plus, it would be seen as bad-faith dealing.

Also, if we're trying to get a good new coach, it's not a great idea to be screwing over the existing coach.
 
You like the reminder of K’s last home game and the Final Four huh? One of those self-flagellating types.
As much as that stung, I think most of us have gotten over it. It certainly helps that I moved out of the RDU area and didn't have to hear about it endlessly at the time.
 
As much as that stung, I think most of us have gotten over it. It certainly helps that I moved out of the RDU area and didn't have to hear about it endlessly at the time.
Maybe we can all PM you once a week
Oh wait I should wait to make sure you don't win a Natty in a couple weeks
 
Well, everything depends on the contractual language. This might be specifically addressed. Otherwise, my instinct is the same as yours. I think HD's theory would be constructive termination -- whether or not they technically fired him, his position as coach would be in name only. Plus, it would be seen as bad-faith dealing.

Also, if we're trying to get a good new coach, it's not a great idea to be screwing over the existing coach.
This is pretty routine in exit negotiations. Most coaching contracts have buyout cliffs that occur slightly later than the typical announced firing. There are a variety of ways to deal with these details (and the contract language can make a big difference) but they are the type of details that get hammered out in the negotiation process -- unless it is an absolutely bad blood type termination.
 
This is pretty routine in exit negotiations. Most coaching contracts have buyout cliffs that occur slightly later than the typical announced firing. There are a variety of ways to deal with these details (and the contract language can make a big difference) but they are the type of details that get hammered out in the negotiation process -- unless it is an absolutely bad blood type termination.
That timeline of buyout cliff makes no sense to me, but you know -- I have too many other things to worry about to think about it.
 
That timeline of buyout cliff makes no sense to me, but you know -- I have too many other things to worry about to think about it.
Roy retired on April 1, so maybe that is when Hubert's contract began.

Typically, the new coach is hired a week or so after the old coach is fired/leaves, so the 1st year anniversary would be a little later than the typical firing date.
 
I thought I saw people on IC saying there actually isn't any change to the buyout on April 1 - it is what it is. Does anyone know what the contract actually says?
 
I thought I saw people on IC saying there actually isn't any change to the buyout on April 1 - it is what it is. Does anyone know what the contract actually says?

I don't see any April 1 cliff. Just have to pay 100% of the base pay through 2030. There is an offset for future income. Sometimes coaches will accept a lower buyout in order to waive the offset clause.
 
Back
Top