Who doesn't love this guy?

H

hawkeye12345

Well-Known Member
Seriously. He is going to get eaten alive at UCLA.

"I don't know those things. I know it's not April 1. My agreement that I signed starts on April 1. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an Indiana grad that likes basketball. The lawyers will have to get together to figure that out," Alford said Saturday during a conference call."

For those of you that have trouble reading between the lines, good ol' Alf is trying to avoid paying the $1m buyout that he agreed to because he 'resigned' prior to April 1st. UNM is having nothing of the sorts. Alf is playing the, "I'm a stupid hayseed from Indiana" wow.


New Mexico Lobos gives Steve Alford of UCLA Bruins deadline for $1M buyout - ESPN Los Angeles

ABQJournal Sports » UNM: Alford owes us $1 million
 


I actually think he is right if his new deal did not start until April 1, which is what has been reported.

If he does have to pay, wouldnt UCLA just pay it for him?
 








He is correct: the lawyers will work it out. I strongly doubt he ends up footing the $1 million himself.
 


IIRC, part of the UCLA deal was that SA paid any buyout. That's why they (UCLA) aren't paying it.

GO HAWKS!!!
 




Pretty well known what I think of Alford but this is one he should probably get out of having to pay since the deal was not in effect until April 1st. Either way expect Alford to throw his lawyers under the bus.
 


Section136 said:
I actually think he is right if his new deal did not start until April 1, which is what has been reported.

If he does have to pay, wouldnt UCLA just pay it for him?
Click to expand...

The way I read it, Alford and the University agreed to terms that are listed on the term sheet dated March 18, 2013. Alford is required to give 30 days notice of leaving employment. He gave notice on March 30, 2013, so the last day of his employment with UNM would actually be April 29, 2013, which means the contract would be in effect then.

I think he will end up owing that amount and it will come out of his pocket as his deal with UCLA specifically states that he will pay any and all buyouts required to his former employer.

I love it!
 


But if his new deal was not effective until April 1st and he gave his notice on March 30th, wouldn't he just owe the buyout under his previous agreement?
 


ssckelley said:
But if his new deal was not effective until April 1st and he gave his notice on March 30th, wouldn't he just owe the buyout under his previous agreement?
Click to expand...

That's certainly for lawyers to figure out based on previous case law. But in my opinion, the 30 day notice clause implies that he is a paid employee of the University for 30 days from the day the notice was first given. Since he would be an official employee after April 1, and he agreed to written terms in the term sheet, then I think the terms in that sheet apply until April 29th (30 days from his notice date of March 30th).
 


New Mexico is going to have an uphill battle in attempting to collect the $1,000,000 based on a Terms Sheet when the definitive agreement had not yet been signed. The termination of his employment is likely governed by his existing, signed agreements and is likely unmodified by the Terms Sheet.

This will settle for less than $200,000.
 


SpiderRico said:
That's certainly for lawyers to figure out based on previous case law. But in my opinion, the 30 day notice clause implies that he is a paid employee of the University for 30 days from the day the notice was first given. Since he would be an official employee after April 1, and he agreed to written terms in the term sheet, then I think the terms in that sheet apply until April 29th (30 days from his notice date of March 30th).
Click to expand...

Although it happens from time to time, courts are pretty unlikely to enforce a Terms Sheet. It likely even has statements to the effect that it is "non-binding".
 


His love, affection and admiration for the University of New Mexico has limitations. He has a million reasons and excuses why it's limited.
 


We live in a day and age that a man's word is not worth a nickel. IF Alford, or any man, had any integrity they would pay the money no questions asked. He knows what he did and he should pay it. Why do lawyers even need to get involved? Really it comes down to, this is signed, and this is not signed. Alford said in a presser before the tourney that they reached a deal on the extension. He went on DP show and talked about it. Legally he might not owe it, but morally he does, but morals no longer count in this world.

It's not like the guy is going to be hurting to make his mortgage payment.

This is not just an Alford thing it is the ethics of all of society right now, but it is also another reason this proves Alford is a POS.

p.s. say the word morals to yourself it’s really a strange sounding word.
 


I think he should have to pay buyouts from both contracts he signed. Even if the one hasn't take effect, he signed it days prior, showing his intent to be their coach.
 


Even if they hold his feet to the fire there UcLa will probably foot that for him anyway. I don't think Alfords pocket will be anything but more full after it's all said and done.
 


Hawkfnntn said:
Even if they hold his feet to the fire there UcLa will probably foot that for him anyway. I don't think Alfords pocket will be anything but more full after it's all said and done.
Click to expand...
Except his contact with UCLA says they won't pay it and he has to pay.
 


SpiderRico said:
The way I read it, Alford and the University agreed to terms that are listed on the term sheet dated March 18, 2013. Alford is required to give 30 days notice of leaving employment. He gave notice on March 30, 2013, so the last day of his employment with UNM would actually be April 29, 2013, which means the contract would be in effect then.

I think he will end up owing that amount and it will come out of his pocket as his deal with UCLA specifically states that he will pay any and all buyouts required to his former employer.

I love it!
Click to expand...
This is correct. Which is also why UNM is adamant about pointing this out in all of their communication between UNM and alford's reps.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top