http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12910308/charlie-weis-cashing-big-paychecks-via-notre-dame-fighting-irish?ex_cid=espnFB

quote:

---

Former Notre Dame and Kansas coach Charlie Weis could ultimately earn more than $24.5 million from the schools while not coaching either program.

Notre Dame paid Weis $2,054,744 for the reporting period of July 2013 through June 2014, according to the university's federal tax return, which was provided to ESPN.com on Monday.

The sum paid to Weis to not coach the Irish -- already at a total of $14,857,379 because he has now received four straight payments of $2,054,744 from Notre Dame, following an initial payment of $6,638,403 after his firing -- could end up exceeding $18 million by next winter.

Notre Dame is scheduled for "additional annual payments" through December 2015, so two more payments of what Weis received in the previous four years means his buyout money from the school would total $18,966,867.

---

This is ridiculous!! My kids won't be going to Notre Dame, that's for sure. Why don't they just demote HCs or keep them on as recruiters or something?

Weis made enough to be happy, and it showed at KU.

I feel like our legal system is skewed in America. We pay people ridiculous sums of money for failing and literally doing nothing. It makes zero sense. Sure, Notre Dame promised the money to the coach, but shouldn't the coach have to promise results? It just seems like a complete waste of students' and former students' money.

How is that the fault of the legal system? Nobody was holding up Notre Dame at gunpoint.

Legal system? Huh?

Notre Dame is doing what it contractually agreed to do. They are free to make payment contingent on results in a coaching contract.

But good luck getting any good coach to agree to that

quote:

---

I feel like our legal system is skewed in America. We pay people ridiculous sums of money for failing and literally doing nothing. It makes zero sense. Sure, Notre Dame promised the money to the coach, but shouldn't the coach have to promise results? It just seems like a complete waste of students' and former students' money.

---

He did deliver results. He coached his team every day, trying to develop his players. He didn't slack off or act like a ****ty employee. He wasn't failing because of lack of effort. He didn't lose control of his team.

If you are not fulfilling your contract, why should you get paid?

quote:

---

The OP won't allow his kids to get an education at ND because they made poor business decisions with their football hire

---

That's a skewed remark and you know it. "OP" won't allow his children to attend there because they waste students' and alumni money.

He had leverage and ND was desperate, so he he had the upper hand in the negotiations ad could put in safeguards. I do think some of these schools have idiots negotiating their contracts----not to mention, once schools latch on to a coach, they do whatever it takes to get them and coaches know that-----thus even more leverage for "proven" coaches. Nothing illegal----really this is more really crappy AD's with terrible negotiating and business sense......or a program that is in desperation mode and thinks they found their savior.

If you become "proven" in your line of work, or have a skill set very few others have, you too will be able to make a ton of money. It's the American way!

quote:

---

If you are not fulfilling your contract, why should you get paid?

---

They offered him a guaranteed deal. The fault is on them or really the coaching market.

The contract doesn't say he has to win a certain number of games. Weiss did not breach the contract.

I guess you won't be sending your kids to any FBS school.

Show me where in his contract it says that he has to win x number of games a year. No coach is going to sign a contract like that.

I agree, of all professions, this one is pretty easy to measure success or not, but you would have to completely transform all the coachs' contracts to make a change b/c right now, none would leave a guaranteed contract for a non-guaranteed. And I guess I do kind of get it.....how many of you would want your liveliehood held up almost entirely by 18-22 yr olds. It's a great gig if you can get it. Kudos to Weiss' lawyers for destroying ND-----but if I were a booster to ND, I would be pissed as hell and fire my AD and the lawyers that negotiated that contract. Horrendous. ND should never be that desperate.

I always laugh at these contracts that act like they are performance based----most will pay a coac $2.5-5.0M /year and then if they win conference they get $50K and BCS bowl, $100K and National Championship $200K......really, you reach the pinnacle, that even the greatest of all time rarely reach, and you get probably less than 10% of your pay. That's stupid. Seems like you could have much better contracts, but then I gues syou would never have a coach go to Vanderbilt or something like that.

OP has to be like a 17 yr old or a woman. Only excuse for this level of naivety/stupidity.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The OP won't allow his kids to get an education at ND because they made poor business decisions with their football hire

---

That's a skewed remark and you know it. "OP" won't allow his children to attend ANY UNIVERSITY because they waste students' and alumni money.

---

FIFY

they can demote him and keep him; but they still have to pay him per the contract. would you really want a bitter, pissed of former head coach recruiting for you?

quote:

---

they can demote him and keep him; but they still have to pay him per the contract. would you really want a bitter, pissed of former head coach recruiting for you?

---

Yes. Most definitely. Wax the floors. Empty the trash cans. Coach the water boys. Anything is better than letting him off to rob someone else.

Agreed, and then if he's insubordinate, you can fire him for cause and not owe him anything......that said, I imagine most of the contracts don't allow for a reduction in job responsibilty----thus the primary reason you don't ever see that.....they force you to either fire them or keep them as head coach.

I would bet there is some kind of clause covering reassignment that basically states that he cannot be demoted to another position while being paid out his contract. Some contracts define this in a general sense. Coaches who are older with respected tenures (see Slocum and Brown) are normally willing to take a fundraising position as they finish out the contract, but that is not common.

^ag2003 beat me to it.

Ok, OP, say you are a stock broker. One company offers you $100k a year for 5 years guaranteed. Another offers you $10k per pecent of return you achieve with no guarantees. (10% return = $100k). Market crashes (your Hesiman candidate is jailed and suspended for stealing crab legs for instance) and plummets 30% and you make $0 that year. Do you take the guaranteed money or risk it all for the chance to make more?

Personally, I would need about triple the non-guaranteed money per year to take the risk, (i.e. 10% return = $300k) without a guarantee. Would we be willing to pay Sumlin $2 million PER WIN with an unguaranteed contract? That first year would've cost us $22 million and Sumlin might have retired on the spot.

Its called contracts.

We pay attention because its football and we love to follow it. But the reality, this stuff happens all the time in business. Somebody gets into a bad contract and get hampered by it.

This happens with CEOs, land deals, etc.

I can't even imagine what we would have paid Sumlin if he started out with 2 BCS appearances in his first two years like Weis did.

Also, you could "promote" them to Director of Football Operatons or some such with responsibility to promote the brand, speak publicly, lead expeditions to Dubai....

That's not a promotion, though-----there isn't a director of football ops mking more than a head coach, anywhere.....and there is no place where that position is above head coach in the hierarchy. Couldn't make that argument.

Coaches have it great b/c their buyouts are generally very small, relative to the schools buyout of them-----that's where there should be a little more reciprocal agreement----at least require mitigation of the amount due----but I guess that's tough to enforce. Who knows.

The reason they have so much power is that there are so few people that can do what a coach does. They really do have all the power with negotiations. Look at texas's hiring process for example.

I blame Obama for this.

quote:

---

I feel like our legal system is skewed in America. We pay people ridiculous sums of money for failing and literally doing nothing. It makes zero sense. Sure, Notre Dame promised the money to the coach, but shouldn't the coach have to promise results? It just seems like a complete waste of students' and former students' money.

---

Moron alert.

quote:

---

The OP won't allow his kids to get an education at ND because they made poor business decisions with their football hire

---

He also won't let his kids go to A&M after he finds out we paid Fran and Sleepy Sherman not to coach for us after we fired them.

Charlie sez hi from the strip club where he makes it rain each and every day.

Sounds to me like Charlie Weis's agent had a decided schematic advantage over the negotiators at the ND athletic department.

My dad is somewhat connected to the ND athletic dept. The word is that the lawyers writing the contract for ND forgot to add the clause that ND would subtract $ money owed by ND if he worked elsewhere (dollar for dollar).. It's a pretty standard clause in these contracts and they just screwed it up.