Ferentz's Contract: What's in it to protect Iowa's interests?

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
A friend of mine asked me this: "Is it possible that Ferentz's buyout was Gary Barta's idea to make it impossible for another school or NFL team to lure Ferentz away?"

So I was curious to see what sort of protections the contract has for Iowa...we all know how sweet a deal it is for Kirk Ferentz, but what protections does Iowa have?

I need you guys to take a look at it, as I am not a lawyer. But I don't see much in it that protects Iowa's interests if Kirk would want to leave for another job. I see the following two sections dealing with leaving:

"Termination by University for Cause"

and

"Termination by University without Cause; Liquidated Damages"

Take a look at this and help me out. I have to be either missing something or just unaware how contracts like this work, but as I am reading it, I see it only protecting Kirk and there being no protection for Iowa.

Now, I don't think Kirk would ever leave Iowa for another college job..and the sweetness of this deal being a big factor. But do you do a contract like this without any protection for your own University?

I have to be missing something here.

Here is the contract
 
Last edited:
I wondered the same thing. I'm no attorney either, 2 semesters of business law tells me athat a contract can't be slanted in favor of 1 party or it could be invalid / unenforcable / voidable.

I don't think that there is anyone at the U who is thinking about letting KF GO right now.

Seems to me that it would be a negotiated settlemnt if push came to shove.
 
They probably should have scaled his w/o cause buyout provision based upon number of wins over a certain period of time.

For example, the buyout percentage could be 25% in the event of 10 wins or less in the previous two seasons, 50% for 11-15 wins in previous two seasons, and 75% for over 15 wins in the previous two seasons.

KF had a good amount of bargaining power when signed, but Barta could have used rhabdo to renegotiate the buyout. However, he may have thought that would send the wrong message to recruits and the media, etc. since this is a publicly available contract.
 
JonDMiller said:
A friend of mine asked me this: "Is it possible that Ferentz's buyout was Gary Barta's idea to make it impossible for another school or NFL team to lure Ferentz away?"
Click to expand...

It appears there is not a buyout clause in Ferentz's contract but there should be one:

A USA TODAY Sports analysis of coaching contracts and other documents finds that after paying a variety of transition costs, schools like Northern Illinois, Western Kentucky and Arkansas State each stand to add several hundred thousand dollars this school year from buyouts being triggered by their head football coaches' departures for other jobs. Those can be difference-making amounts in athletics budgets that range from $15 million to $25 million, modest by Football Bowl Subdivision standards. Nearly any head coach who breaks his contract to accept a position elsewhere in football must compensate the school he leaves. The new employer routinely agrees to cover those damages....

Schools losing a football coach can gain from buyout
 
PJHawk said:
It appears there is not a buyout clause in Ferentz's contract but there should be one:

A USA TODAY Sports analysis of coaching contracts and other documents finds that after paying a variety of transition costs, schools like Northern Illinois, Western Kentucky and Arkansas State each stand to add several hundred thousand dollars this school year from buyouts being triggered by their head football coaches' departures for other jobs. Those can be difference-making amounts in athletics budgets that range from $15 million to $25 million, modest by Football Bowl Subdivision standards. Nearly any head coach who breaks his contract to accept a position elsewhere in football must compensate the school he leaves. The new employer routinely agrees to cover those damages....

Schools losing a football coach can gain from buyout
Click to expand...

Also, I believe a provision restricting the schools to which the coach can leave for is common--i.e., no in-conference schools, etc.
 
NCHawker said:
I wondered the same thing. I'm no attorney either, 2 semesters of business law tells me athat a contract can't be slanted in favor of 1 party or it could be invalid / unenforcable / voidable.

Not necessarily. Bad contracts are negotiated everyday. (no better example than what we're talking about here). If the terms are within the law, both parties not coerced or misled and some form of consideration for each... it's fair game. Consider the oft-used token "1 dollar purchase" to achieve a legal sale and transfer of ownership. Doesn't get much more one-sided than that. But it's quite common.

As with many things, it's caveat emptor. We can all come up with examples of "bad deals" we've experienced, that doesn't make them invalid contracts. (there are of course exceptions, as is usually the case)

I'm not an attorney either... just speaking from my own business and personal experience.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NCHawker said:
I wondered the same thing. I'm no attorney either, 2 semesters of business law tells me athat a contract can't be slanted in favor of 1 party or it could be invalid / unenforcable / voidable.

I don't think that there is anyone at the U who is thinking about letting KF GO right now.

Seems to me that it would be a negotiated settlemnt if push came to shove.
Click to expand...

As Kobe Bryant recently said about Pau Gasol, The UI had their big boy pants on when they negotiated this deal. They won't get bailed out now.

I wonder if they could invoke the "serious and deliberate" portion of the "for cause" portion of the contract, by claiming that Ferentz is "seriously and deliberately" turning the clock back on football to the UI's detriment? Otherwise, they're screwed.
 
I wondered about this too, but not from the position of can we get rid of Kirk, but more - was Barta trying to protect the U from having KF leave
 
BSpringsteen said:
I wondered about this too, but not from the position of can we get rid of Kirk, but more - was Barta trying to protect the U from having KF leave
Click to expand...

Well, he clearly did that. The only thing missing from that contract is "for richer or poorer, til death do us part".
 
homes;1009325 [B said:
I wonder if they could invoke the "serious and deliberate" portion of the "for cause" portion of the contract, by claiming that Ferentz is "seriously and deliberately" turning the clock back on football to the UI's detriment?[/B] Otherwise, they're screwed.
Click to expand...

Good luck on that one. Remember we're dealing with an educational institution here. You practically have to be a sexual predator to be fired. And then... only once it leaks out into the public.

Brings to mind a great quote from the movie Ghostbusters. Upon losing their University funding and being forced into "the real world". Dan Aykroyd worriedly laments.. "You've never been in the private sector. They expect results!"

Ironically, college football is probably the closest thing on campus to real "business", (ignoring UIHC) yet due to the incompetence of our "CEO" (AD) we're locked into a terrible contract which negates our ability to dismiss for poor performance. The share holders should demand a new CEO, our stock price has been in steady decline for nearly 3 years.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
Good luck on that one. Remember we're dealing with an educational institution here. You practically have to be a sexual predator to be fired. And then... only once it leaks out into the public.

Brings to mind a great quote from the movie Ghostbusters. Upon losing their University funding and being forced into "the real world". Dan Aykroyd worriedly laments.. "You've never been in the private sector. They expect results!"

Ironically, college football is probably the closest thing on campus to real "business", (ignoring UIHC) yet due to the incompetence of our "CEO" (AD) we're locked into a terrible contract which negates our ability to dismiss for poor performance. The share holders should demand a new CEO, our stock price has been in steady decline for nearly 3 years.
Click to expand...

I do not know how common in comaprison this is to other coaches conracts but I have neogtiated a few contracts to say this is pretty one sided. Some other things that stand out are a Signing Bonus for a coach that is already employed, Longevity is pretty one sided, and the tax shelter section. He can't do that himself?
 
Nice to finally read the entire contract. For some inexplicable reason, Ferentz signed/dated the contract to become effective on 09/02/18, at least appears that way to me. Perhaps that's Iowa's "out".

What am I saying though? We love the guy. He is like Bill Clinton. He can do anything, and we will all reward him for doing it.
 
JonDMiller said:
A friend of mine asked me this: "Is it possible that Ferentz's buyout was Gary Barta's idea to make it impossible for another school or NFL team to lure Ferentz away?"

So I was curious to see what sort of protections the contract has for Iowa...we all know how sweet a deal it is for Kirk Ferentz, but what protections does Iowa have?

I need you guys to take a look at it, as I am not a lawyer. But I don't see much in it that protects Iowa's interests if Kirk would want to leave for another job. I see the following two sections dealing with leaving:

"Termination by University for Cause"

and

"Termination by University without Cause; Liquidated Damages"

Take a look at this and help me out. I have to be either missing something or just unaware how contracts like this work, but as I am reading it, I see it only protecting Kirk and there being no protection for Iowa.

Now, I don't think Kirk would ever leave Iowa for another college job..and the sweetness of this deal being a big factor. But do you do a contract like this without any protection for your own University?

I have to be missing something here.

Here is the contract
Click to expand...

Seems like you are looking for the opinion of an attorney. I am one. The contract says what the contract says. You are not reading it incorrectly. 75% of full salary to be paid through 2020 if he is fired without cause. Having a losing football program is not "cause" as defined in the contract. Only if the UofI proved that KF was not using his best efforts could the University fire him without paying the liquidated damages (barring code violations, etc. which are unlikely with him). The answer to your friend's question is most likely, yes. What "protection" does the University get with this contract? That the University only has to pay 75% of his full salary if they fire him, instead of 100%? Surely not. With this contract, the University was "protected" from any substantial risk that KF will leave.

Whoops.

We were NOT protected from the risk of Norm Parker leaving.
 
so it appears out best hope is this:

Form a conspiracy to commit some kind of NCAA violation that's not so serious it will harm the program, but gives Barta enough leverage to ask for a negotiated resignation.

I'm on it.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
so it appears out best hope is this:

Form a conspiracy to commit some kind of NCAA violation that's not so serious it will harm the program, but gives Barta enough leverage to ask for a negotiated resignation.

I'm on it.
Click to expand...

That's a tough one -- as risk-averse as KF demonstrates on the field, I'm sure he steers clear of any situations that could remotely be deemed as questionable violations. Either that, or, as evidenced by his agent's ability to take Barta from behind and make him squeal, Deliverance-style, more than once, he has "people" who make sure the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" crossed.

I think it would be much easier to invoke an incompetency case against Barta to void the contract. Reviewing the terms of the document, it's not a giant leap for most reasonable people to exclaim, "Were you f-ing crazy?!!" At the very least, one would reasonably presume he was incapacitated (i.e., drunk, high or otherwise intoxicated by his man-crush for The Corporal) in some manner to sign off on such financially irresponsible terms. Or, perhaps, going back to how KF's agent has worked him over the years, perhaps there was some element of coercion to avoid the continued abuse.
 
JonDMiller said:
But only in the form that the contract was so sweet as to never want to leave it, correct?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes, in that if he moves to another school or NFL franchise before 2021, he is in breach and doesn't get the paycheck, obviously. But interesting is that there is very little contract language addressing what happens in that event (other than that he doesn't get paid).

And why not simply add to the list defining what constitutes "for cause", a subparagraph that states something like: "the Football team finishes the regular season with more losses than wins in three consecutive years", or make it two, whatever you want. Why not? Would KF's attorney or agent not have agreed to that? Really? What would the attorney or agent's explanation have been to the University as to why they would not be agreeable to that? What could they have said in response to Barta's proposal to add that to the list of things constituting cause? "Mr. Ferentz should get paid regardless of performance". I don't think so, and certainly they would have had no leverage to reject that provision because they certainly weren't going to find such a deal in the NFL or somewhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top