The original agreement is dated November 26, 2012 and there have been six amendments, most recently on November 10, 2022 extending the term to June 30, 2031. There are buyout provisions both ways. If Stoops gave his notice now to terminate the contract voluntarily, he is actually required to pay UK $3.5 million.
On the other hand, if it is UK who gives the notice and the termination is pursuant to the "without cause" provision, the terms are not conducive to a discount of the buyout amount on the basis of a negotiated settlement. John Calipari's contract provided for the buyout amount to be paid in installments over the remaining term. Also, Calipari had a duty to actively pursue other coaching positions, i.e., he could not just withdraw to a villa on the French Riviera. Moreover, UK received credit on the buyout for Calipari's future earnings. There was incentive for Calipari to make a deal to be free of such entanglements.
Stoops has no such incentive because he receives the buyout in the form of an immediate lump sum payment.
The other scenario is termination "for cause" which is specifically defined to include the usual scenarios: complicity in NCAA violations, a felony conviction, gambling activity involving UK games, etc.. There is also a specific "cause" provision regarding "failure to follow any written University policies or procedures, including any written policies of the Athletic Department." That caught my attention because in the agreement itself, Stoops is required to "notify the Director of Athletics of any offers of employment, employment opportunities or requests for meetings or discussions with respect to possible employment opportunities before engaging in substantive discussions regarding such employment or employment opportunities."
I don't know all the facts of the communications involving Mark Stoops and Texas A&M and the extent to which Stoops notified Mitch Barnhart. If Stoops was less than candid, I can see possible leverage inuring to UK's benefit in a negotiation.
On the other hand, if it is UK who gives the notice and the termination is pursuant to the "without cause" provision, the terms are not conducive to a discount of the buyout amount on the basis of a negotiated settlement. John Calipari's contract provided for the buyout amount to be paid in installments over the remaining term. Also, Calipari had a duty to actively pursue other coaching positions, i.e., he could not just withdraw to a villa on the French Riviera. Moreover, UK received credit on the buyout for Calipari's future earnings. There was incentive for Calipari to make a deal to be free of such entanglements.
Stoops has no such incentive because he receives the buyout in the form of an immediate lump sum payment.
The other scenario is termination "for cause" which is specifically defined to include the usual scenarios: complicity in NCAA violations, a felony conviction, gambling activity involving UK games, etc.. There is also a specific "cause" provision regarding "failure to follow any written University policies or procedures, including any written policies of the Athletic Department." That caught my attention because in the agreement itself, Stoops is required to "notify the Director of Athletics of any offers of employment, employment opportunities or requests for meetings or discussions with respect to possible employment opportunities before engaging in substantive discussions regarding such employment or employment opportunities."
I don't know all the facts of the communications involving Mark Stoops and Texas A&M and the extent to which Stoops notified Mitch Barnhart. If Stoops was less than candid, I can see possible leverage inuring to UK's benefit in a negotiation.
