I may regret this, but …..@AU-ESQ @Harvey Specter @Bassman @Law Tiger and whomever else…
Harsin’s gone. It is what it is. The question now is not just one of ”who” replaces him, but ”when”. The situation is even further clouded by the AD situation, but separate issue. Here’s my question: is it tortious interference to not fire him, now, but yet conduct a “relatively” open coaching search? And maybe tortious interference isn’t the right legal doctrin/claim to use here, and anyone can TRY to sue anyone else, but whatever it’s name, you know what I’m going for…
The issue is simply $3mm vs an entire, practically speaking recruiting class. ESD changed the dynamics of coaching searches, and the portal further exacerbates it. But $3mm (the $18mm v $15mm) ain’t chump change, I don’t care who you are. In the real world, companies search for replacements all the time before releasing the existing employee, so is this different? AU would tell him that he‘s being terminated as of d-day +1 (December 2nd?) but he is a professional and the University expects him to continue his duties and act in good faith, but only certain coaches will be allowed to continue recruiting and no Pete Thamel style hit pieces better appear, otherwise he will be fired for cause and let the war begin (including the infamous exit interviews and former player communiques, plus every piece of dirt on he and his family’s role/interactions with the program will be on full display), and AU will fight to the death to pay nothing…what’s wrong with that, legally speaking? Is it unconventional? Absolutely. But, so what….I mean what would his ”harm” be? That he sucked bad enough to get fired when the BO was $18mm? Again, I’m not saying to try and get out of paying everything, I’m just trying to think through the practical problem of saving $3mm vs the realities of the calendar.
Think of it this way, Harsin still handles the CURRENT roster and games, while the New Coach, once ID’d, handles all “talent acquisition”,I.e. recruiting and portal, requirements. Which brings up another aspect of why you need to move now, which is we‘re dead in the water with forward looking NIL…even though Rich has tried to kill this anyway, but Brett/OTV doesn’t know how their board may change or what their “bogey” is until the new coach hits town.
Again, As far as the new coach, you can structure around anything, but seems to me any hope of this scenario comes down to believing you can survive a claim of TI. I don’t know or even believe this is a likely scenario, and, yes, it breaks a lot of accepted HR “rules”, but HR rules suck, plus this is a fairly unique situation. All in all, I’m trying to understand the “foul poles” in this one….one being practical and the other legal. Practical can be structured around, but legal, well….hence the question.
TIA, but your briefs, including citations, are due by noon tomorrow, but preferably midnight tonight.
Harsin’s gone. It is what it is. The question now is not just one of ”who” replaces him, but ”when”. The situation is even further clouded by the AD situation, but separate issue. Here’s my question: is it tortious interference to not fire him, now, but yet conduct a “relatively” open coaching search? And maybe tortious interference isn’t the right legal doctrin/claim to use here, and anyone can TRY to sue anyone else, but whatever it’s name, you know what I’m going for…
The issue is simply $3mm vs an entire, practically speaking recruiting class. ESD changed the dynamics of coaching searches, and the portal further exacerbates it. But $3mm (the $18mm v $15mm) ain’t chump change, I don’t care who you are. In the real world, companies search for replacements all the time before releasing the existing employee, so is this different? AU would tell him that he‘s being terminated as of d-day +1 (December 2nd?) but he is a professional and the University expects him to continue his duties and act in good faith, but only certain coaches will be allowed to continue recruiting and no Pete Thamel style hit pieces better appear, otherwise he will be fired for cause and let the war begin (including the infamous exit interviews and former player communiques, plus every piece of dirt on he and his family’s role/interactions with the program will be on full display), and AU will fight to the death to pay nothing…what’s wrong with that, legally speaking? Is it unconventional? Absolutely. But, so what….I mean what would his ”harm” be? That he sucked bad enough to get fired when the BO was $18mm? Again, I’m not saying to try and get out of paying everything, I’m just trying to think through the practical problem of saving $3mm vs the realities of the calendar.
Think of it this way, Harsin still handles the CURRENT roster and games, while the New Coach, once ID’d, handles all “talent acquisition”,I.e. recruiting and portal, requirements. Which brings up another aspect of why you need to move now, which is we‘re dead in the water with forward looking NIL…even though Rich has tried to kill this anyway, but Brett/OTV doesn’t know how their board may change or what their “bogey” is until the new coach hits town.
Again, As far as the new coach, you can structure around anything, but seems to me any hope of this scenario comes down to believing you can survive a claim of TI. I don’t know or even believe this is a likely scenario, and, yes, it breaks a lot of accepted HR “rules”, but HR rules suck, plus this is a fairly unique situation. All in all, I’m trying to understand the “foul poles” in this one….one being practical and the other legal. Practical can be structured around, but legal, well….hence the question.
TIA, but your briefs, including citations, are due by noon tomorrow, but preferably midnight tonight.
