The specifics of the Mark Stoops employment agreement

[Stretch98]

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.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

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.

Jimmy Sexton is Stoops agent, he has made his clients 100's of millions of dollars. Do you really think he would jeopardize not only Stoops 44m, but his 4.4m over non notification?

 

[UKnCincy]

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.

The terms of Stoops’ contract do not constitute a written policy of the Athletics Department. Policies are separate governance documents.

In the event that Stoops failed to provide notification, the only way that would be an issue is if there is also a formal department policy that mandates that certain or all department employees provide notice of other employment offers.

It’s probably unlikely that such a written policy exists. And even if that type of policy does in fact exist, there’d most likely be a serious legal fight over whether violating that specific policy warrants termination with cause.

When contracts reference following written policies or procedures, they are usually referring to policies that dictate ethical conduct and exist to protect the organization from legal risk. For example, policies around sexual harassment or the responsibility to report any criminal or unethical conduct that you may become aware of.

 

[K_TIME]

I agree with the sentiment of the contract…and Stiops potentially nullified by his actions with Texas am


But to proceed with a full year after it went south and stay with Ky…I don’t see how you can legally retroactively enforce it and argue we don’t owe stoops his contract

 

[FirewithFire]

How many here really believe that Mitch wants to get rid of Stoops. I do not. Might as well face it folks. Stoops is here next year along with the same cast of characters.

 

[LosGatos]

I do not believe Barnyard wants to get rid of Stoops.

 

[blackcat714]

I do not believe Barnyard wants to get rid of Stoops.

Brainfart needs to go

 

[shakestheclown564]

Fire him for getting that season vacated

 

[Bluesbrother]

How many here really believe that Mitch wants to get rid of Stoops. I do not. Might as well face it folks. Stoops is here next year along with the same cast of characters.

The biggest change will be the number of fans in the stands. Empty stands aren't a good look and there is a growing sentiment to stop spending money on tickets and NIL to support this FAILED coaching staff. Good coaches will NEVER want to work for Stoops, hence the never-ending staff turnover.

It will only get more difficult to end this and right the ship, but the true gravity is that Stoops is done at UK and everyone worth their salt knows it. Anyone that doesn't own up and admit it has something to lose because there's NOTHING to gain for UK to retain him. He was set and ready to take the A&M job so clearly, he doesn't want to be here. Stoops, in his delusions, thought he could escape Lexington for College Station but the boosters at A&M clearly weren't suffering from the same delusions and dodged that bullet.

 

[CrustyCat]

Jimmy Sexton is Stoops agent, he has made his clients 100's of millions of dollars. Do you really think he would jeopardize not only Stoops 44m, but his 4.4m over non notification?

Speaking from experience, clients don't always take your advice and regularly do a "ready, fire, aim" move and hope/expect you to fix it on the back end. Not saying that has happened here, just saying people do some crazy stuff you wouldn't expect or be able to explain.

 

[Wildcats1st]

Jimmy Sexton is Stoops agent, he has made his clients 100's of millions of dollars. Do you really think he would jeopardize not only Stoops 44m, but his 4.4m over non notification?

That’s where you send out someone to slip him 5 mil to help this go away. You gotta think out of the box and have stacks of cash on hand to make problems go away. Lol

 

[Imafan4evr_]

Can anyone explain the logic behind the buyout being paid upfront for Stoops vs Calipari’s being paid over a term (like it should have been)? Why did Stoops have that kind of bargaining leverage? The whole contract was an overbuy on Barnhart’s part, but that upfront buyout is the most short-sighted, bewildering thing he’s ever done.

 

[rick64]

Can anyone explain the logic behind the buyout being paid upfront for Stoops vs Calipari’s being paid over a term (like it should have been)? Why did Stoops have that kind of bargaining leverage? The whole contract was an overbuy on Barnhart’s part, but that upfront buyout is the most short-sighted, bewildering thing he’s ever done.

I would bet the buyout could be negotiated from a lump sum to spreading it over several years. I would think it would be more tax friendly to Stoops and easier for UK financially.

 

[Bluesbrother]

nm ... sorry some type of fly in the ointment with trying to post my message.

 

[bthaunert]

I would bet the buyout could be negotiated from a lump sum to spreading it over several years. I would think it would be more tax friendly to Stoops and easier for UK financially.

Get Stoops to go the Bobby Bonilla route. Give him $2 million annually over the next 22 years and call it a day!

 

[rick64]

Get Stoops to go the Bobby Bonilla route. Give him $2 million annually over the next 22 years and call it a day!

UK fans could have a Mark Stoops Day. 😉😂

 

[CapitolHillCat]

Barnhart royally messed up with the Stoops and Cal contracts. No one is bigger than the program. And anyone who has managed people knows that you can’t put yourself in a position where you can’t fire an employee if needed.

 

[Zoomfisher1960]

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.

What about the forfeiture of games due to the players getting paid for a job where they were no shows?

 

[Bluesnky]

I would bet the buyout could be negotiated from a lump sum to spreading it over several years. I would think it would be more tax friendly to Stoops and easier for UK financially.

They could just finance it with a bank. I don’t think the lump sum aspect is all that big of a deal.

 

[LosGatos]

They could just finance it with a bank. I don’t think the lump sum aspect is all that big of a deal.

It depends on the implied interest rate and your definition of "big deal". I haven't done such a calculation in many many year but came up with approximately 9M as the difference between a lump sum of 44M an a stream of payments over 5 years. This using 10% interest rate and assuming an immediate initial payment of 1/6 of the amount.

Please, someone who's current do the calculation.

 

[UKnCincy]

They could just finance it with a bank. I don’t think the lump sum aspect is all that big of a deal.

I don’t think they have the authority to go out and secure a loan from a bank.

Before we could spend $7M on the new ribbon boards at Commonwealth, the project had to be authorized by the Kentucky General Assembly. And that project did not even need any public funds or financing, it was funded entirely by private funds.

 

[maysvilleky]

Negotiate with Stoops on a 5 year payout at 9 mil per year. That gives him a $1 Mil incentive.

You have $5 mil from the Cal vs Pope change. Hire a new FB HC for $6 Mil saving $3 Mil. Add $1 per ticket gains $.5 mil. And surely you can get 5 donors to pledge $100k. That totals $9 Mil.

 

[Bluesnky]

It depends on the implied interest rate and your definition of "big deal". I haven't done such a calculation in many many year but came up with approximately 9M as the difference between a lump sum of 44M an a stream of payments over 5 years. This using 10% interest rate and assuming an immediate initial payment of 1/6 of the amount.

Please, someone who's current do the calculation.

I’m thinking more in terms of cash flow.

 

[bthaunert]

Negotiate with Stoops on a 5 year payout at 9 mil per year. That gives him a $1 Mil incentive.

You have $5 mil from the Cal vs Pope change. Hire a new FB HC for $6 Mil saving $3 Mil. Add $1 per ticket gains $.5 mil. And surely you can get 5 donors to pledge $100k. That totals $9 Mil.

While the math works out, that does not account for the new law about revenue sharing with athletes. They have to come up with $20 million annually to pay athletes. They are going to need y on find ways to fund that.

 

[bthaunert]

They could just finance it with a bank. I don’t think the lump sum aspect is all that big of a deal.

As a state entity, they can’t do that.

 

[Stretch98]

What about the forfeiture of games due to the players getting paid for a job where they were no shows?

The contract provides that NCAA violations constitute "cause" for dismissal only if Stoops had knowledge and complicity. The NCAA ruled on the official record of the case that he did not.

 

[Bluesnky]

As a state entity, they can’t do that.

You’re 100% right. For some reason I thought UK Athletics had some level of financial independence.

 

[Catfanlou]

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.

If he makes nine million a year and has four yeas left to go why is the buyout 44 million instead of 36 million. I’m sure I am wrong but what am I missing?thanks

 

[Blueaz]

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.

most contracts, unless stated somewhere...Can be nullified if even one provision is found to be broken and/or unjust.
I always have my employee contracts with one paragraph (paraphrasing) stating that is one or more parts of the contract are violated, found unjust (etc) that does not necessarily negate the entire contract

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Fire him for getting that season vacated

What is it that he did again?

 

[bthaunert]

If he makes nine million a year and has four yeas left to go why is the buyout 44 million instead of 36 million. I’m sure I am wrong but what am I missing?thanks

He's signed until June 30, 2031. He basically has 6 years remaining on his contract and the buyout is 75% of his remaining salary. So, that gets you in the $40 million range.

 

[shakestheclown564]

What is it that he did again?

He was in charge of controlling 11 players that got paid for fake jobs. The fish rots from the head. His best season vacated isn't great for the resume. I'm not anti-Stoops, he's had the best coaching tenure outside of Bear, but it's time for him to go. And whatever it takes to get him to move on, I'm fine with it. He's a stubborn mule like Cal who will only double down on his style and never adjust it. And just like Cal the culture around the program has hit an all-time low.

And I don't even blame Stoops for not leaving, he clearly tried with A&M and now he's paid too much to probably go anywhere else that would have him after the current year. I blame Mitch, so it's up to Mitch to fix the contract situation.

 

[Catfanlou]

He's signed until June 30, 2031. He basically has 6 years remaining on his contract and the buyout is 75% of his remaining salary. So, that gets you in the $40 million range.

Barnhart is incompetent.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

He was in charge of controlling 11 players that got paid for fake jobs. The fish rots from the head. His best season vacated isn't great for the resume. I'm not anti-Stoops, he's had the best coaching tenure outside of Bear, but it's time for him to go. And whatever it takes to get him to move on, I'm fine with it. He's a stubborn mule like Cal who will only double down on his style and never adjust it. And just like Cal the culture around the program has hit an all-time low.

And I don't even blame Stoops for not leaving, he clearly tried with A&M and now he's paid too much to probably go anywhere else that would have him after the current year. I blame Mitch, so it's up to Mitch to fix the contract situation.

He had zero responsibility for those idiot players cheating on hours. My point was that people need to stop saying he did. The NCAA said he didn't and unless you think a HC is responsible for every player, 24/7, he couldn't possibly have any responsibility.

Whether or not its time for him to go has nothing to do with what CRod and the other stooges did.

 

[shakestheclown564]

He had zero responsibility for those idiot players cheating on hours. My point was that people need to stop saying he did. The NCAA said he didn't and unless you think a HC is responsible for every player, 24/7, he couldn't possibly have any responsibility.

Whether or not its time for him to go has nothing to do with what CRod and the other stooges did.

I think when it's 11 players that cause you to get an entire season vacated, then yes the coach is responsible. If for nothing else of setting a culture where players break the rules knowing they probably won't get caught. Every coach's excuse is "they didn't know about it", Pitino "didn't know" about the stripper parties. They know exactly as much as they want to know about when it comes to that many players.

Keep in mind Stoops response to the whole thing was: "heck, it was three years ago. I'm really worried about right now, you know what I mean." And in the end getting a season vacated is reason enough to play hardball with a negotiated severance.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I think when it's 11 players that cause you to get an entire season vacated, then yes the coach is responsible. If for nothing else of setting a culture where players break the rules knowing they probably won't get caught. Every coach's excuse is "they didn't know about it", Pitino "didn't know" about the stripper parties. They know exactly as much as they want to know about when it comes to that many players.

Keep in mind Stoops response to the whole thing was: "heck, it was three years ago. I'm really worried about right now, you know what I mean." And in the end getting a season vacated is reason enough to play hardball with a negotiated severance.

Thats an absurd idea. Thinking you can fire him for something the NCAA already said wasn't his fault in any way...well, good luck with the lawsuit and cold shoulder from the coaching community. That is really comical.