YoloinOhio Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 To be the man in charge... January brings another round of head coaching shake-ups. A look at how their contracts typically work (players wish they had this kind of security), the unusual case of Doug Marrone, and Chip Kellys rise to power in Philly http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/07/chip-kelly-howie-roseman-doug-marrone/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Innarestin' statement from your linky thingy Yolo: "As for the hiring process, my view is that it should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. This is hopefully a decision that will last a long time, so a team might as well use the opportunity to do it done right rather than do it quickly. This is also a time when teams can gain competitive edges by picking the brains of coaches and executives from other organizations—something I always tried to do—and coopting those the best methods and practices. The interview season, in essence, presents legal tampering opportunities." By that measure, Whaley is getting a huge dose of insider info and should make this process as thorough as he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 "...with all due respect to Marrone, he is not Bill Parcels." Could it be that Brandon and Whaley realized this as well--and never in their wildest imagination believed a rookie NFL head coach with Marrone's pedigree would ever exercise that clause. So why argue over it and bog down negotiations? The odds of the opt-out happening had to be single digits. But then again, lightning strikes do happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 "...with all due respect to Marrone, he is not Bill Parcels." Could it be that Brandon and Whaley realized this as well--and never in their wildest imagination believed a rookie NFL head coach with Marrone's pedigree would ever exercise that clause. So why argue over it and bog down negotiations? The odds of the opt-out happening had to be single digits. But then again, lightning strikes do happen... the first issue is Ralph couldve passed year one (no chance he opts out) or held on to years 3-4 (you are either extending him or parting ways anyway) then you get into it being a bit of a "not my problem" clause for ralph as it wouldnt be his money, so why not go get the guy and the list can go on for reasons why it wouldnt be a huge stumbling block for negotiations, despite some posters making it one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 "...with all due respect to Marrone, he is not Bill Parcels." Could it be that Brandon and Whaley realized this as well--and never in their wildest imagination believed a rookie NFL head coach with Marrone's pedigree would ever exercise that clause. So why argue over it and bog down negotiations? The odds of the opt-out happening had to be single digits. But then again, lightning strikes do happen... I'm not sure about the odds. If you're after more money, and you are perceived or perceive yourself as doing well, why wouldn't you quit and double dip? My feeling is that Sexton may have known that Marrone wasn't all that good, and was convincing him to opt out because he thought he could get a new 4-16m deal for him now. That's 20m v the 8m he would have got if he stayed and then was fired after not doing so well next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Spartacus Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm not sure about the odds. If you're after more money, and you are perceived or perceive yourself as doing well, why wouldn't you quit and double dip? My feeling is that Sexton may have known that Marrone wasn't all that good, and was convincing him to opt out because he thought he could get a new 4-16m deal for him now. That's 20m v the 8m he would have got if he stayed and then was fired after not doing so well next year. Double-Dipping is like a$$holes = everybody's got one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Innarestin' statement from your linky thingy Yolo: "As for the hiring process, my view is that it should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. This is hopefully a decision that will last a long time, so a team might as well use the opportunity to do it done right rather than do it quickly. This is also a time when teams can gain competitive edges by picking the brains of coaches and executives from other organizations—something I always tried to do—and coopting those the best methods and practices. The interview season, in essence, presents legal tampering opportunities." By that measure, Whaley is getting a huge dose of insider info and should make this process as thorough as he can. I would not be the least bit surprised if the plan to make Schwartz the HC, but they are literally talking to everyone for this reason (and also trying to vet OC candidates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 If Marrone's agent was insisting on the opt-out clause as a condition to Marrone taking the job, and in light of Ralph's age at the time, the Bills had to - or certainly should have - assumed that it was a serious possibility that Marrone would exercise the clause (or at least use it as serious leverage). More than that, when you're looking to hire a coach for the long-term who wants to be in Buffalo, wouldn't it give you serious pause if said coach is insisting on an opt-out window? The lack of accountability at OBD remains stunning. Pegula should fire whomever signed off on that clause. It was incompetence at the highest level. That said, personally, I'm thrilled that the opt-out existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Innarestin' statement from your linky thingy Yolo: "As for the hiring process, my view is that it should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. This is hopefully a decision that will last a long time, so a team might as well use the opportunity to do it done right rather than do it quickly. This is also a time when teams can gain competitive edges by picking the brains of coaches and executives from other organizations—something I always tried to do—and coopting those the best methods and practices. The interview season, in essence, presents legal tampering opportunities." By that measure, Whaley is getting a huge dose of insider info and should make this process as thorough as he can. I said essentially the same thing this morning in one of the "why is this taking so long" threads...the Bills are getting free advice from every candidate about how to fix that offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 If Marrone's agent was insisting on the opt-out clause as a condition to Marrone taking the job, and in light of Ralph's age at the time, the Bills had to - or certainly should have - assumed that it was a serious possibility that Marrone would exercise the clause (or at least use it as serious leverage). More than that, when you're looking to hire a coach for the long-term who wants to be in Buffalo, wouldn't it give you serious pause if said coach is insisting on an opt-out window? The lack of accountability at OBD remains stunning. Pegula should fire whomever signed off on that clause. It was incompetence at the highest level. That said, personally, I'm thrilled that the opt-out existed. Most of it seems pretty unremarkable, given Ralph's age at the time Marrone was hired. It's the no-offset aspect of where Marrone really made out like a bandit. I still find it kind of hard to believe the Bills agreed to that. But I think ultimately two factors made it happen: 1.) Sexton is a better negotiator than whomever pulled the trigger for the Bills (likely Brandon, Overdorf, or a combo of both), and 2.) Everyone on the Bills' side had Ralph Wilson's best interests in mind, and the clause could never cost him a dime. It's a lot easier to agree to a clause like that when you're only spending the next guy's money. Likewise, you can see why Ralph would sign off on such a thing. Now, obviously agreeing to it won't endear anyone to the new owner, but let's face it: most new owners wind up replacing the whole front office within a few years anyway. Their best bet for sticking around was building a winner in time for the new owner to come in. They thought (hoped?) Marrone gave them the best chance to do that, and so they got bent over a barrel in the negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Most of it seems pretty unremarkable, given Ralph's age at the time Marrone was hired. It's the no-offset aspect of where Marrone really made out like a bandit. I still find it kind of hard to believe the Bills agreed to that. But I think ultimately two factors made it happen: 1.) Sexton is a better negotiator than whomever pulled the trigger for the Bills (likely Brandon, Overdorf, or a combo of both), and 2.) Everyone on the Bills' side had Ralph Wilson's best interests in mind, and the clause could never cost him a dime. It's a lot easier to agree to a clause like that when you're only spending the next guy's money. Likewise, you can see why Ralph would sign off on such a thing. Now, obviously agreeing to it won't endear anyone to the new owner, but let's face it: most new owners wind up replacing the whole front office within a few years anyway. Their best bet for sticking around was building a winner in time for the new owner to come in. They thought (hoped?) Marrone gave them the best chance to do that, and so they got bent over a barrel in the negotiations. Very good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 To be the man in charge... January brings another round of head coaching shake-ups. A look at how their contracts typically work (players wish they had this kind of security), the unusual case of Doug Marrone, and Chip Kellys rise to power in Philly http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/07/chip-kelly-howie-roseman-doug-marrone/ Another reason why Russ Brandon needs to go. He basically got out-negotiated by the agent and cost the owner $4 million dollars. The man in the Teflon suit (Brandon) seems to avoid all responsibility and blame for his blunders. Brandon is the ultimate politician. (no, that's not a compliment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Another reason why Russ Brandon needs to go. He basically got out-negotiated by the agent and cost the owner $4 million dollars. But not his owner. The new owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Man Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Brandon is a great marketer and skillfully guided the Bills through the painful ownership transition which is great but he's no "football man" in any sense of the word. The point behind bringing in an experienced President of Football Operations (czar or whatever) is to repartition the business side from the football side. Brandon may be enjoying life on the football side but shouldn't be offended by being dispatched back to the business side where his strengths lie. Still, egos are easily bruised in this industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Do the Bills organization want more catchy sound bites amid even more of a playoff drought? If so, retain Russ Brandon Are Mr. & Mrs. Pegula serious about changing the culture at OBD? If so, show Russ Brandon the door. Building a championship playoff caliber contender year in and year out takes more than hollow, empty phrases like "lead the charge" or "it's our time". How about canning Brandon, and let the team do their talking on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 That $4 million opt-out is money well spent! My favorite part of his entire contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 This ^^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Northern Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 As explained in the article, the Marrone deal was highly unusual and should put to rest the idea that Russ Brandon is a good businessman. He is a sycophant who rose to the top in an organization by sucking up. Anyone who agreed to this deal should be fired. Period. Let's break it down. (1) An out clause in the event of a change of ownership -- Standard. Fully makes sense. What if the team was moving to LA, installed a new CEO, etc? Solid protection for the coach. (2) An out clause that guarantees next year's income -- Very, very generous. Hard to believe it was required to complete the deal. (3) An out clause that guarantees next year's income with No Offset -- OK STOP RIGHT THERE -- THIS IS WHERE IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. If you want to leave, ok. But every cent you earn somewhere else after you leave should reduce our obligation to you. You cannot give someone an option whose exercise makes them richer in almost all scenarios. So while (1) is reasonable given uncertainty, and (2) is borderline, (3) is STRAIGHT UP CRAZY and would not be agreed by ANYONE who had the faintest clue of what he or she was doing. Jeff Littmann probably laughed his ass off over this one, knowing that the $4M payday would come after the Wilson estate had disposed of team. "Russ - if you want to pay this guy $25M of the next owner's money NOT to coach here, you go right ahead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I would be surprised if the Bills aren't insured for most if not all of this money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I would be surprised if the Bills aren't insured for most if not all of this money. Under what, a Key Man? Good luck arguing that Marrone was key to anything except continued mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I would be surprised if the Bills aren't insured for most if not all of this money. Also, this out clause was disclosed during the bidding process. The $4M was, or should have been, budgeted into the bill of sale between the Wilson trust and the Pegulas. As far as pocket change, it's most likely a wash. For terry and Kim, this is "cost of business". I wonder what kind of golden parachute Brandon has in his contract. Maybe that is part of the reason why he's not already gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Also, this out clause was disclosed during the bidding process. The $4M was, or should have been, budgeted into the bill of sale between the Wilson trust and the Pegulas. As far as pocket change, it's most likely a wash. For terry and Kim, this is "cost of business". I wonder what kind of golden parachute Brandon has in his contract. Maybe that is part of the reason why he's not already gone. While 4m is a lot of friggin money, and should be to anyone, the Pegulas basically spent 400m more than they had to, for no reason. I doubt it means anything to them. Plus, they owed him 8m. With what they found out about his arrogance, both in the meeting and in the subsequent days, I'm sure they look at it as saving 4m. If they fired him, they would have paid him 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OP Class75 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 An interesting article....I particularly found interesting the statement: "...The NFL has to quietly intervene to resolve these disputes in more cases than most fans really know..." You mean it's not all happy and lovely in the NFL???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ralph wouldn't have paid it out without a fight, you can bet your life. He would hold back the $4M, and tell Camp Marrone that they believe there was tampering, if not breaches of fiduciary duty (undermining Whaley during the season, making decisions based on his own best interests and not the teams', etc.). Ralph would've forced Marrone to sue for the payout and would counter-claim to force a settlement somewhere below $4M; at the very least the league would have to intervene and negotiate a resolution. Ralph was such a dick when he wanted to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snamsnoops Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) So Dougie opts out n gets to do nuffin, if he so chooses or coach.4M Or, as it seems a lot of fans wanted him gone,fired! Well. 8M So he saved us 4M. I think we won. especially since we r hearing more n more how he is a richard. Edited January 8, 2015 by snamsnoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martifal Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I said essentially the same thing this morning in one of the "why is this taking so long" threads...the Bills are getting free advice from every candidate about how to fix that offense. What they need 14 people to tell them they need two guards and a quarterback.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffalo Ills Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 But not his owner. The new owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESSEFEFFER Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ralph wouldn't have paid it out without a fight, you can bet your life. He would hold back the $4M, and tell Camp Marrone that they believe there was tampering, if not breaches of fiduciary duty (undermining Whaley during the season, making decisions based on his own best interests and not the teams', etc.). Ralph would've forced Marrone to sue for the payout and would counter-claim to force a settlement somewhere below $4M; at the very least the league would have to intervene and negotiate a resolution. Ralph was such a dick when he wanted to be... Ralph reacted badly when he thought he was dealing with someone who was not loyal and/or was downright deceitful. I remember when he tried to get John Butler resigned and Butler balked. I think Ralph sensed a man that was ready to flee. Given the salary cap issues to be dealt with, his "opting out" to San Diego was even more attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HT02 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ralph wouldn't have paid it out without a fight, you can bet your life. He would hold back the $4M, and tell Camp Marrone that they believe there was tampering, if not breaches of fiduciary duty (undermining Whaley during the season, making decisions based on his own best interests and not the teams', etc.). Ralph would've forced Marrone to sue for the payout and would counter-claim to force a settlement somewhere below $4M; at the very least the league would have to intervene and negotiate a resolution. Ralph was such a dick when he wanted to be... Ralph was a dishonest bitter petty cheapskate who never spent enough money on this team to keep it competitive, what he and his minions like Jeff Littman did to Polian, Butler and Wade Phillips was shameful and a big part of the reason there hasn't been a play-off game at Rich Stadium since 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ralph was a dishonest bitter petty cheapskate who never spent enough money on this team to keep it competitive, what he and his minions like Jeff Littman did to Polian, Butler and Wade Phillips was shameful and a big part of the reason there hasn't been a play-off game at Rich Stadium since 1996. Go easy my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 "...with all due respect to Marrone, he is not Bill Parcels." Could it be that Brandon and Whaley realized this as well--and never in their wildest imagination believed a rookie NFL head coach with Marrone's pedigree would ever exercise that clause. So why argue over it and bog down negotiations? The odds of the opt-out happening had to be single digits. But then again, lightning strikes do happen... A change of ownership opt-out was likely to be asked for by anyone that took the job. ESP someone like Marrone who had gotten other interviews. Any coach was going to want some sort of get out of jail free card so to speak. The odds of someone opting out after being offered an extension was so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Good management, flipping burgers to running an NFL organization, is largely about being able to predict what potential consequences could happen in the future as a result of the actions you take now. Weighing those consequences against the potential benefits and determining what the best course of action is. This is not an easy skill, not for one man or a group of advisors. It takes a special way of thinking to not only predict what potential future events could ocur but at what liklihood is the chance they will. In sum, the Bills failed in this regard when it pertains to the negotiation of Marrones contract. Edited January 8, 2015 by KzooMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Ralph reacted badly when he thought he was dealing with someone who was not loyal and/or was downright deceitful. I remember when he tried to get John Butler resigned and Butler balked. I think Ralph sensed a man that was ready to flee. Given the salary cap issues to be dealt with, his "opting out" to San Diego was even more attractive. Ralph also offered Butler a contract that was far below market rate. Butler was a good GM. What Ralph did was the definition of penny wise and pound foolish. In his first draft with SD, he picked cornerstone players - Tomlinson and Brees. Of course, Brees left, but after Butler passed away. Both are first ballot hall of famers. Edited January 8, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts