Jim Les seeks to collect from Bradley

[jocoshock]

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/ncb/news/story?id=6750688

Les wrote, "I did not ask to be fired, that was Bradley's decision, and now ... Bradley must pay for the consequences of its decision. Instead, the administration has resorted to threats and to taking baseless legal positions, daring me to take legal action to resolve these black/white issues involving my contract with my new employer. In retrospect, I guess I should have sat at home for the next three years and just collected the balance of my contract instead of saving BU money. These recent actions leave me no other choice but to litigate against the University that I have loved, pored sweat into, and represented in a first class manner for my entire adult life."

[Aargh]

Les is making something like $150K in his new job until his contract with BU expires. Then he's immediately bumped to something like $300- $350K.

BU's contention is that the contract was deliberately structured to cost BU money. If it ever goes to court, BU wll argue that Les is being paid below market price because his contract with BU can be used to force BU to pay part of his market value, instead of his new employer paying market value. The increase at the exact time that the BU contract expires will be used as evidence of that fact.

Interesting approach, and BU's position looks like it could be defended. I think BU will lose if it goes to court, but it's a legitimate argument for negotiating a settlement.

[SB Shock]

seems to me that BU should stop whinning and be happy he didn't just sit at home and collect his full amount.

[Kung Wu]

Les is making something like $150K in his new job until his contract with BU expires. Then he's immediately bumped to something like $300- $350K.

BU's contention is that the contract was deliberately structured to cost BU money. If it ever goes to court, BU wll argue that Les is being paid below market price because his contract with BU can be used to force BU to pay part of his market value, instead of his new employer paying market value. The increase at the exact time that the BU contract expires will be used as evidence of that fact.

Interesting approach, and BU's position looks like it could be defended. I think BU will lose if it goes to court, but it's a legitimate argument for negotiating a settlement.

Bradley fired him which means his "market value" has diminished substantially. It has diminished both because of his performance/circumstance and because of the termination.

He was earning $425k to $450/yr at Bradley. He's now earning $125k at UC Davis. At the end of 3 years it will be bumped to $250k, and in the fifth year bumped to $275k. Even at full swing in the 5th year, it will not be close to where he was at Bradley. He has taken a dramatic pay cut.

He is actually only being paid $85k to coach. He is being paid $40k to teach phys. ed. This is where the big dispute lies:
- Do they owe him $425k minus $85k, or
- $425 minus $125k, or
- (Bradley is arguing) $425k minus $250k.

Les' new contract is split exactly like the previous coaches contract -- it has nothing to do with Bradley, but the way UC Davis splits their funding. I bet UC Davis has their version of an ICAA that pays coaches and a separate entity (the school) that pays teachers.

I'm easily siding with Les on this one. There isn't even a grey area here in my humble opinion. They owe him $425k minus $85k times 3 years, as that is his current market value as a basketball coach.

[SHOCKvalue]

I don't see how the what/when/where of Les' new employment has any context whatsoever on the language of a previous employment contract.

In other news, it must be quite the cost-of-living shock going from nearly half-a-mil in Peoria, IL, to $125K in metro Sacramento, CA. Goodbye near-mansion, hello 1100 SF ranch.

[Kung Wu]

From the article above, Bradley says:

"Les has a contractually stated duty to mitigate/offset Bradley financial obligations"

And Les confirms with 'Under my contract, Bradley is entitled to an "offset" for money I receive for "college coaching."'

So he says he makes $85k from college coaching, therefore he is owed $425 minus $85k for three years.

Bradley is claiming that Les is gaming them by earning $125k and in reality should have been $250k/275k which he gets at the end of 3 years.

So if Les simply didn't take a job they would owe him $425k x 3 years. Period. Nothing they can dispute.

If he took $85k per year and worked on the side as a fireman, it would be $425 minus $85k, without any future bonuses or growth. Period. Nothing they can dispute.

But they are wanting his teaching salary and future bonuses to count. And that's crap. He doesn't get the future money if he is laid off between now and then. He doesn't get the teaching salary if he doesn't teach.

[RoyalShock]

I think Bradley's argument is not just the way Les' current contract is split (there is precedence, so BU will lose that one), but the fact that his salary bumps up precisely when BU is no longer on the hook. It looks very much like UC Davis is paying Les an artificially low number simply because he's going to get a good chuck of cash from BU. When that runs out, they bump him back up to market value.

I think BU has a case on the salary side, but not how it's split between coaching and teaching duties. Had UC Davis structured it differently, like a steady year-by-year increase, it wouldn't look nearly as intentional.

[Aargh]

BU must have a law school. They're also getting sued by Kent St. for not paying the buyout in Ford's contract at Kent St.

I might have to wander over to the Bradley board to see how Tornado is handling this. His former attitude that neither BU nor Les could do anything wrong probably isn't working out real well right about now.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Memo to Bradley - Write the check and get it behind you.

[Kung Wu]

I think BU has a case on the salary side, but not how it's split between coaching and teaching duties. Had UC Davis structured it differently, like a steady year-by-year increase, it wouldn't look nearly as intentional.

If you do a steady year-by-year increase you are arguing that instead of them owing $1.020M ($425x3 minus $85x3), they owe him $877.5k.

The difference, $142k, isn't chump change but do you think UC Davis and Les were in collusion to extract an additional $142k out of Bradley? Or do you think it's more likely that UC Davis simply isn't stepping up any new hires' salary given the states of California's and the national economies?

Also, do you think it's worth it for Bradley to drag attorneys to court for $142k which is currently payable over three years?

I agree with RDR. Pay the man.

[bcg]

I might have to wander over to the Bradley board to see how Tornado is handling this.

Tornado doesn't like the new BU administration because they came in and fired all of his buddies. Being that Bradley had the worst athletic department in the Valley, cleaning house wasn't such a bad idea. Who knows if the replacements will be any better.

[DUShock]

Memo to Bradley - Write the check and get it behind you.

:good:

[electricmayhem]

They should just pay Les, but I have a sneaky feeling this isn't just that easy...

[Zardoz]

All Bradley is doing at this point is hurting their image with coaches. If Ford doesn't work out I doubt they would be able to sign even Lowery when SIU can afford to fire him.