Court Rules That Geno Ford Owes Kent St. $1.2 Mill

[ShockerEngr]

It's an interesting tactic for Kent St to take - basically Geno now has to pay more to leave his employment than the totality he had be paid in the course of his employment.

While there are arguments to be made, taking that course of action should make anyone considering employment think thrice as it wouldn't take much to come out way in the red for your efforts.

[WstateU]

I’m rooting for Geno Ford for personal reasons and I hope this judgment doesn’t bring him down. I met him in March prior to the NCAA tournament and he was a pleasure to visit with. He couldn’t have been any more complimentary of WSU; specifically coach Marshall, WSU fans, Koch Arena atmosphere and our program in general. He said we’re the model for what they’re striving for at Bradley. Geno is a great addition to the Valley and this is troubling news.

Go Geno!

[ShockerInKC]

That is what they'll argue. That Bradley took affirmative steps in bad faith toward Kent State that proximately caused Ford not to fulfill his contract.

If it is tortious interference with a contract then isn't it true that Bradley would have to have knowledge of terms of the contract and chose to intentionally interfere with the performance of the contract?

Not that this is likely, but couldn't the tortfeasor* (Bradley) argue that they had not seen the contract and assumed the coach had met all his obligations?

* I learned a new word today ;-)

[Shox21]

If Bradley was the party that initiated the contact with Ford (without gaining permission from Kent State to talk to Ford), then I think that would be behind-the-back dealing and might be tortious interference. If Ford initiated the contact knowing that Bradley was looking, then I would think the onus is on Ford and Bradley would not be held accountable (unless there is some kind of rule that says even if Ford were the one to contact Bradley, that Bradley knew there was a contract between Kent State and Ford and should then have gotten permission from Kent State before pursuing the negotiations).

[Ricardo del Rio]

http://www.crainscleveland.com/artic...FREE/130719857

In what's probably the worst liquidated damages clause in the history of basketball coaching, an Ohio court warded Kent St. $1.2 mill.

The liquidated damages clause in the contract required Ford to pay Kent St. the full amount of anything remaining on his contract if he left before the end of the contract. He had 4 years at $300,000 per year, so he has been ordered to pay Kent St. $1.2 mill.

No update on the status of Jim Les's lawsuit against Bradley for paying him the remaining amount he was due on his contract with Bradley. That was one of the most poorly handled coaching changes in the history of basketball.

I imagine Coach Ford is taking a hard look at his lawyer(s).

[Ricardo del Rio]

Brutal contract. Kent St must have slipped that in hoping no one would read it. And why would you quit if you knew you had to pay that?

Maybe this was one of those agreement in principle deals with the formal contract to follow. In the meantime, Coach Ford went to work.

When I was with a large design/build firm, we did those agreement in principle deals all the time and invariably, there were hard feelings on the back-end. Our feelings.

We completed a large, regional mall and the contract still had not been executed. Failure to insist on a fully executed contract, prior to the commencement of work, is a poor business practice.

Just sayin'.

[Aargh]

I'm interested in seeing what happens with this on appeal when it might get heard by a judge outside of Ohio. Ford apparently signed the thing, but it could be argued that the contract created a case of indentured servitude, which is illegal. I can come up with 2 or 3 other legal arguments that would make the liquidated damages portion of the contract unenforcable.

I expect an out-of-court settlement. Only the lawyers are going to come out ahead in this deal.

[WSUwatcher]

Interesting, but I don't see the case for tortious interference. He either had a buyout clause (for the salary remaining on his contract), or he didn't. If he had a buyout and chose to leave, then where's the tortious interference? I suppose that lawsuit was done when the other one was done with the hope that one of them would stick? Since the buyout suit stuck I don't see how tortious interference can, but then again, we haven't seen the contract either.

I don't claim to know all the facts, and don't plan to take the time to research them, but one possible way tortious interference could occur would be if Bradley poached Ford by pursuing him while he was still under contract at K-State (Ohio) without requesting permission. Is there reason to believe that's what happened here?

[Rlh04d]

My understanding was that Kent State gave Ford permission to interview with Bradley. If true, I don't understand the lawsuit against Bradley.