Ollie, Auriemma and Diaco contracts

[UConn9604]

Even if anyone had shown that such a "conflict" exists, it's pretty much a moot point -- Kevin Ollie is not going to coach at another school, period. If he leaves UConn, it will be for the NBA.

So, unless you can demonstrate that Warde really, really wants to be an NBA GM one day, or that Susan really, really wants to own an NBA team, any such conflict that may be identified is a red herring, and this argument is about as relevant as arguing over who will be the better Homecoming opponent, East Carolina or Tulane.

 

[whaler11]

Even if anyone had shown that such a "conflict" exists, it's pretty much a moot point -- Kevin Ollie is not going to coach at another school, period. If he leaves UConn, it will be for the NBA.

So, unless you can demonstrate that Warde really, really wants to be an NBA GM one day, or that Susan really, really wants to own an NBA team, any such conflict that may be identified is a red herring, and this argument is about as relevant as arguing over who will be the better Homecoming opponent, East Carolina or Tulane.

Honestly you don't get it: There is blatent conflict of interest. Your bizarre tangent about SB or WM working in the NBA makes no sense at all.

I fully support Ollie getting what he could in the negotiation. I did not support Warde gaining leverage through an employee who is clearly more valuable than he.

That someone higher in the food chain signed off doesn't much matter - it's still a conflict of interest.

Do you get that conflicts of interest are about perception? That in this case Manuel furthered his own position through Ollie's contract. That Ollie and Manuel are tight, members of the same country club and spend a good amount of time there together?

So my disgust should be with whoever signed off? Sorry mine is with everyone - the people on the UConn end who wrote it, and whoever in the state signs off on it.

Is there a 95% chance it never matters? Yep.

How about if Manuel shows up with an offer from Wake Forest next week and wants to reopen his deal?

How about if Tuesday solid evidence arrives that Manuel was responsible for UConn missing out on an ACC invite?

How about any number of personal or professional misdeeds that would put Manuel's further employment in question.

You want to consider the financial impact of Kevin Ollie's buyout when determining Manuel's continued employment or contract - or do you want to consider Warde's performance?

 

[whaler11]

Yes it can.

No it doesn't. It really doesn't. That's what a frigging conflict of interest is. So Warde can get whatever in Ollie's contract as long as Ollie's people insist? Hey we wrote in a 100k bonus for Warde every year Ollie stays - doesn't matter - Ollie was the one who demanded it.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I agree with whaler and Nelson here if my understanding below is correct:

P5 school offers WM $600K/year (he makes around $500K/year here).

WM goes back to UConn and demands $750Ka year and UConn has to either pay up or risk WM leaving and having KO's contract opened up in a year after WM leaves?

If that is the case, then I'm totally with Nelson and whaler.

 

[itgoeslike]

No it doesn't. It really doesn't. That's what a frigging conflict of interest is. So Warde can get whatever in Ollie's contract as long as Ollie's people insist? Hey we wrote in a 100k bonus for Warde every year Ollie stays - doesn't matter - Ollie was the one who demanded it.

I am correct in saying that it can matter if WM pushed for the inclusion of this clause.

Now, with regard to the clause, if a CEO brings in a top salesman or a managing partner of a law firm bring in an equity partner (along with their book of business), it's not unreasonable to make the relationship contingent upon company structure and leadership. It's a negotiation. If a company or firm really thinks the add is critical the board can choose to assume that risk.

Again, as I stated earlier, my preference is not to see that clause in the contract, because it disadvantages UConn. I'm just not sure what you're suggesting regarding corruption is as cut and dry as you perceive it to be, especially based on the information you've been presented with.

I'm done beating this horse. On to the next. . .

 

[whaler11]

I am correct in saying that it can matter if WM pushed for the inclusion of this clause.

Now, with regard to the clause, if a CEO brings in a top salesman or a managing partner of a law firm bring in an equity partner (along with their book of business), it's not unreasonable to make the relationship contingent upon company structure and leadership. It's a negotiation. If a company or firm really thinks the add is critical the board can choose to assume that risk.

Again, as I stated earlier, my preference is not to see that clause in the contract, because it disadvantages UConn. I'm just not sure what you're suggesting regarding corruption is as cut and dry as you perceive it to be, especially based on the information you've been presented with.

I'm done beating this horse. On to the next. . .

Private enterprise has nothing to do with a state government. So you can stop bringing it up.

In your examples people would have non-compete agreements that would make it impossible to leverage anyway.

 

[UConn9604]

This may be something (I don't think it is) but one thing it isn't is a conflict of interest. Sorry.

TITLE 1 PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION ; CHAPTER 10 CODES OF ETHICS; PART I CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
§ 1-85. (Formerly Sec. 1-68). Interest in conflict with discharge of duties.
A public official, including an elected state official, or state employee has an interest which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties or employment in the public interest and of his responsibilities as prescribed in the laws of this state, if he has reason to believe or expect that he, his spouse, a dependent child, or a business with which he is associated will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of his official activity. A public official, including an elected state official, or state employee does not have an interest which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest and of his responsibilities as prescribed by the laws of this state, if any benefit or detriment accrues to him, his spouse, a dependent child, or a business with which he, his spouse or such dependent child is associated as a member of a profession, occupation or group to no greater extent than any other member of such profession, occupation or group. A public official, including an elected state official or state employee who has a substantial conflict may not take official action on the matter.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap010.htm#Sec1-85.htm

Honestly you don't get it: There is blatent conflict of interest. Your bizarre tangent about SB or WM working in the NBA makes no sense at all.

I fully support Ollie getting what he could in the negotiation. I did not support Warde gaining leverage through an employee who is clearly more valuable than he.

That someone higher in the food chain signed off doesn't much matter - it's still a conflict of interest.

Do you get that conflicts of interest are about perception? That in this case Manuel furthered his own position through Ollie's contract. That Ollie and Manuel are tight, members of the same country club and spend a good amount of time there together?

So my disgust should be with whoever signed off? Sorry mine is with everyone - the people on the UConn end who wrote it, and whoever in the state signs off on it.

Is there a 95% chance it never matters? Yep.

How about if Manuel shows up with an offer from Wake Forest next week and wants to reopen his deal?

How about if Tuesday solid evidence arrives that Manuel was responsible for UConn missing out on an ACC invite?

How about any number of personal or professional misdeeds that would put Manuel's further employment in question.

You want to consider the financial impact of Kevin Ollie's buyout when determining Manuel's continued employment or contract - or do you want to consider Warde's performance?

 

[husky8273]

I didn't see the contract, just a blurb written in an online article. Is it WM that approves these contracts in a vacuum? Or is it the BOT? That could be an important bit of information.

See full copy of the contract at http://snycollege.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/ollie_contract_5-22-14.pdf

 

[RedStickHusky]

I agree that there's an appearance of impropriety in an AD submitting a contract for another employee that provides a disincentive for the university to terminate said AD. Whether that is illegal or improper should be within the AG's purview to determine.

What concerns me more about the inclusion of this clause though is the suggestion that KO is worried about WM leaving. Maybe, as suggested earlier, it's protection against another Hathaway coming on board but, at this point, you have to think that WM is not mission complete until he gets us into a P5.

 

[Fishy]

Ollie - "I want this clause."

Warde - "No."

Ollie - "I just won the NCAA title, am the wet dream of every NBA GM and I hold in my hands the frayed nerves of your entire fan base. Want them to read another NBA rumor in the morning?"

Warde - "Oh, that clause...sure, let's throw it on in there."

 

[Excalibur]

Warde, who is responsible for negotiating the contract, allowed himself to be named in the contract as a condition by which Ollie can avoid a $1MM or more buyout. Next time you bring in a customer at your job, write into their agreement that they can terminate their contract with your employer immediately and go with you if you quit. See what your boss thinks about that.

It's the equivalent of a change in control provision in a CEO contract. Ollie exerted the leverage if a CEO here. He had that leverage.

 

[UConnCat]

Buzz Williams had a similar clause in his contract at Marquette. His buyout went from $2 million to 100k when Marquette's AD resigned. Petrino's buyout is cut in half if Jurich leaves Louisville.

 

[CL82]

Get out.

You think they know more than The Boneyard Conference Realignment board?

Well from what I've read many of us would have had UConn in the conference of us our choice years ago. Heck some of us would have had us in a new east coast conference that is made up of teams cherry picked from other existing P5 conferences. So yeah, we must be more informed.

 

[whaler11]

Buzz Williams had a similar clause in his contract at Marquette. His buyout went from $2 million to 100k when Marquette's AD resigned. Petrino's buyout is cut in half if Jurich leaves Louisville.

I'm not arguing they exist. I'm not arguing that it was probably Ollie who wanted it.

I'm arguing that these are state employees and it shouldn't be legal.

What happens in private industry and at Marquette is not relevant in any way shape or form - seriously people can stop posting about private enterprise.

 

[Vuce]

I'm not arguing they exist. I'm not arguing that it was probably Ollie who wanted it.

I'm arguing that these are state employees and it shouldn't be legal.

What happens in private industry and at Marquette is not relevant in any way shape or form - seriously people can stop posting about private enterprise.

You are probably right. Hey, public sector unions should not be legal either but they exist all over the place. Those are far more damaging. This is in the same realm.

 

[Excalibur]

I'm not arguing they exist. I'm not arguing that it was probably Ollie who wanted it. I'm arguing that these are state employees and it shouldn't be legal. What happens in private industry and at Marquette is not relevant in any way shape or form - seriously people can stop posting about private enterprise.

Take it up with the legislature.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Ollie - "I want this clause."

Warde - "No."

Ollie - "I just won the NCAA title, am the wet dream of every NBA GM and I hold in my hands the frayed nerves of your entire fan base. Want them to read another NBA rumor in the morning?"

Warde - "Oh, that clause...sure, let's throw it on in there."

- or maybe -
(WM to SH, the AG, the Comptroller and the BoT): KO wants this in; I want to bring it to your attention but I don't think it's ethical for me to offer an opinion.
SH: Anyone have grounds to strike this?
SH (after a round of consensual silence): We can live with it.

-----------------------

BTW, does anyone know how long WM's current contract runs?

 

[Stray_Dog]

But that's not what it says, it says Ollie can void the buyout if either of them leave, it allows him an out if someone is hired that doesn't have the same goals in mind. Did you ever stop to think that it was a clause that Ollie had them put in? And the ridiculous analogy doesn't work because the clause doesn't mention anything about him going with them if they leave. Your interpretation of this is nearly as dumb as your football independence idea...nearly.

Not sure what you meant by "nearly as dumb"??? However, if I want to focus on a particular point and ignore all rational thought and then claim that the outcome is logical, well I would have the Nelson Paradox, the smartest dumb dumb ideas. Also, he pointed out about going to your boss, well guess what, Warde did and he even named his boss in the same contingency. Lastly, the agreements a CEO is empowered to make and with the tools they can use is vastly different then a person not sitting on an executive board. Now I am sure we can hear his legalese about why this can't be done...I'm getting ready for the blah, blah, blah and trust me the anxiety caused by anticipation as I hold my breath waiting for a deep sleep ...oh sorry just a nightmare I had as I was watching a basketball game on the 20 yard line (remember its a dream) with him shouting at me that we don't get enough revenue for this game...Then I woke up!

 

[Stray_Dog]

It's a conflict because any potential decision to replace Manuel isn't predicated only on Manuel's performance.

It also gives Manuel a lot of leverage in any contact situation where he is being recruited by another school.

It's negotiated by the very person who benefits most: Manuel.

It's a joke and should be illegal for a state employee to give themselves this type of leverage through contacts they negotiate.

Seriously if you think this is acceptable for a state employee, you can't possibly live here.

I do but with your response I wish I didn't

 

[whaler11]

I do but with your response I wish I didn't

LOL sorry if it's a state employee who I favor I still think there should be standards that eliminate potential conflicts of interest.

Good for Warde: He managed to add a little something for himself and no one seems to mind.

 

[Drew]

what i'd really like to see put into Diaco's contract is what WKU did with Petrino. Whoever hired him had to agree to a home and home football series with WKU. Creative if nothing else: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10263027/louisville-cardinals-offer-job-bobby-petrino

 

[nelsonmuntz]

the contracts are not beyond when the cash from the Big East breakups will dry up. Basically they provide the window for UConn to escape the AAC. If Uconn is not P5 in 3-4 years, then Ollie and Diaco will be gone. Geno may retire? I don't think you can read too much into it sadly

Herbst is smart enough to realize that UConn gets the Big East breakup fees regardless of whether UConn pays Ollie $3MM a year or not. Either the AAC is getting a boost from the AAC/ESPN "look in" (no idea how to handicap that probability) or UConn has another source of revenue in the works. I don't think Herbst is expecting a P5 invitation any time soon.