Muschamp actually due over $15 Million

castlesl

Member
Aug 4, 2006
911
1,080
93
You can’t make this stuff up.


South Carolina’s board passed hefty cut to Muschamp buyout. It never went into effect
BY BEN BREINER
DECEMBER 09, 2020 03:35 PM,
UPDATED 12 MINUTES AGO
Play Video

South Carolina fires Will Muschamp after 2-5 start to football season


South Carolina has parted ways with head coach Will Muschamp, the school announced Sunday. BY ERIC GARLAND


Listen to this article now

02:52
Powered by Trinity Audio


An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.
The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.
At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.

However, the contract, which was obtained by The State this week following a Freedom of Information request, shows the amendment was never signed by Muschamp, athletic director Ray Tanner or board of trustees secretary J. Cantey Heath.
A school spokesman confirmed this was the version the school had on file — and not a draft. USC did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment.

The State also confirmed through a source that the amendment never went into effect.
Tanner has said several times, including as recently as Monday, that he will negotiate the buyout terms with Muschamp. Contract law expert Marty Greenberg, however, told The State there isn’t much to negotiate.
An unsigned contract typically isn’t enforceable. Since Muschamp has already been relieved of his duties, it’s not clear what incentive, if any, he has to give the school a break.
Muschamp could negotiate to receive less money from South Carolina, but his contract doesn’t require him to do that. Without mitigation language and with the buyout spelled out, Muschamp really only has to collect his money, spread out across four years, and perhaps earn a paycheck from a new job on top of it.
Last December, Tanner said the change in the contract came about after Muschamp suggested it. The team finished 4-8, but Tanner said Muschamp wanted to give running backs coach Thomas Brown a raise.
All-access digital subscription
Connect to local news for just $1 a month for 3 months
VIEW OFFER

Muschamp had already demoted a $1 million assistant from offensive coordinator to just a position coach (Bryan McClendon) and hired another assistant at more than $1 million (Mike Bobo at $1.2 million).
But Brown, who got a $200,000 raise, wasn’t around long. He took a job with the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams two months later. Two months after that, McClendon left for Oregon. Each paid the school $100,000 to get out of their USC deals, according to documents The State obtained through public records requests.
Brown’s spot was functionally filled by Rod Wilson, who earned $225,000 less per year. McClendon’s spot was filled by Des Kitchings, who got $700,000 less in his deal.
South Carolina replaced Muschamp with Shane Beamer, whose salary is not yet public, though multiple outlets report he will get $2.75 million a year for five years. His assistant salary pool is not yet public.

RELATED STORIES FROM THE STATE IN COLUMBIA SC
USC-FOOTBALL
Tanner working to negotiate Muschamp’s buyout. One factor puts him in a bad spot
DECEMBER 09, 2020 9:25 AM
 
Last edited:

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
4,227
4,113
113
Columbia
Troublesome. Although there is an estoppel argument for the lower amount.

RT: [dials the number for a booster]

B: Hello

RT: Hey there old buddy ole pal - how ya been?

B: Who is this?

RT: It's me. You know, the former baseball coach who won back to back Nattys.

B: Oh, what do YOU want?

RT: Say, you know a funny thing happened about that buyout I told you about. I'm gonna need a few more million.

B: Pay it yourself. <CLICK>
 

MScott64

Member
Jan 13, 2019
520
759
93
57
EYYtmXC.gif
 

castlesl

Member
Aug 4, 2006
911
1,080
93
Maybe, but at some point Estoppel can’t be used for poor due diligence. Where contracts are intended they should be used exclusively and precisely not Estoppel.

I don’t know if this is Ray’s fault or not. My guess is that Will and his folks will give this back but this will be their give and the $13 MM will have to be fully paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseCock

andersoncountycock

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
1,469
1,432
113
Troublesome. Although there is an estoppel argument for the lower amount.

RT: [dials the number for a booster]

B: Hello

RT: Hey there old buddy ole pal - how ya been?

B: Who is this?

RT: It's me. You know, the former baseball coach who won back to back Nattys.

B: Oh, what do YOU want?

RT: Say, you know a funny thing happened about that buyout I told you about. I'm gonna need a few more million.

B: Pay it yourself. <CLICK>
Hello buddy it's me again <CLICK>
 

viennacocks

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2011
5,694
4,128
113
You can’t make this stuff up.


South Carolina’s board passed hefty cut to Muschamp buyout. It never went into effect
BY BEN BREINER
DECEMBER 09, 2020 03:35 PM,
UPDATED 12 MINUTES AGO
Play Video

South Carolina fires Will Muschamp after 2-5 start to football season


South Carolina has parted ways with head coach Will Muschamp, the school announced Sunday. BY ERIC GARLAND


Listen to this article now

02:52
Powered by Trinity Audio


An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.
The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.
At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.

However, the contract, which was obtained by The State this week following a Freedom of Information request, shows the amendment was never signed by Muschamp, athletic director Ray Tanner or board of trustees secretary J. Cantey Heath.
A school spokesman confirmed this was the version the school had on file — and not a draft. USC did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment.

The State also confirmed through a source that the amendment never went into effect.
Tanner has said several times, including as recently as Monday, that he will negotiate the buyout terms with Muschamp. Contract law expert Marty Greenberg, however, told The State there isn’t much to negotiate.
An unsigned contract typically isn’t enforceable. Since Muschamp has already been relieved of his duties, it’s not clear what incentive, if any, he has to give the school a break.
Muschamp could negotiate to receive less money from South Carolina, but his contract doesn’t require him to do that. Without mitigation language and with the buyout spelled out, Muschamp really only has to collect his money, spread out across four years, and perhaps earn a paycheck from a new job on top of it.
Last December, Tanner said the change in the contract came about after Muschamp suggested it. The team finished 4-8, but Tanner said Muschamp wanted to give running backs coach Thomas Brown a raise.
All-access digital subscription
Connect to local news for just $1 a month for 3 months
VIEW OFFER

Muschamp had already demoted a $1 million assistant from offensive coordinator to just a position coach (Bryan McClendon) and hired another assistant at more than $1 million (Mike Bobo at $1.2 million).
But Brown, who got a $200,000 raise, wasn’t around long. He took a job with the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams two months later. Two months after that, McClendon left for Oregon. Each paid the school $100,000 to get out of their USC deals, according to documents The State obtained through public records requests.
Brown’s spot was functionally filled by Rod Wilson, who earned $225,000 less per year. McClendon’s spot was filled by Des Kitchings, who got $700,000 less in his deal.
South Carolina replaced Muschamp with Shane Beamer, whose salary is not yet public, though multiple outlets report he will get $2.75 million a year for five years. His assistant salary pool is not yet public.

RELATED STORIES FROM THE STATE IN COLUMBIA SC
USC-FOOTBALL
Tanner working to negotiate Muschamp’s buyout. One factor puts him in a bad spot
DECEMBER 09, 2020 9:25 AM
Sounds like this is in addition to the mitigation issue. He'll get $15m + another million per year as a DC. He is living the financial dream because of our incompetence.
 

CockofEarle

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 1999
60,119
4,264
113
Greenville, SC
You can’t make this stuff up.


South Carolina’s board passed hefty cut to Muschamp buyout. It never went into effect
BY BEN BREINER
DECEMBER 09, 2020 03:35 PM,
UPDATED 12 MINUTES AGO
Play Video

South Carolina fires Will Muschamp after 2-5 start to football season


South Carolina has parted ways with head coach Will Muschamp, the school announced Sunday. BY ERIC GARLAND


Listen to this article now

02:52
Powered by Trinity Audio


An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.
The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.
At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.

However, the contract, which was obtained by The State this week following a Freedom of Information request, shows the amendment was never signed by Muschamp, athletic director Ray Tanner or board of trustees secretary J. Cantey Heath.
A school spokesman confirmed this was the version the school had on file — and not a draft. USC did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment.

The State also confirmed through a source that the amendment never went into effect.
Tanner has said several times, including as recently as Monday, that he will negotiate the buyout terms with Muschamp. Contract law expert Marty Greenberg, however, told The State there isn’t much to negotiate.
An unsigned contract typically isn’t enforceable. Since Muschamp has already been relieved of his duties, it’s not clear what incentive, if any, he has to give the school a break.
Muschamp could negotiate to receive less money from South Carolina, but his contract doesn’t require him to do that. Without mitigation language and with the buyout spelled out, Muschamp really only has to collect his money, spread out across four years, and perhaps earn a paycheck from a new job on top of it.
Last December, Tanner said the change in the contract came about after Muschamp suggested it. The team finished 4-8, but Tanner said Muschamp wanted to give running backs coach Thomas Brown a raise.
All-access digital subscription
Connect to local news for just $1 a month for 3 months
VIEW OFFER

Muschamp had already demoted a $1 million assistant from offensive coordinator to just a position coach (Bryan McClendon) and hired another assistant at more than $1 million (Mike Bobo at $1.2 million).
But Brown, who got a $200,000 raise, wasn’t around long. He took a job with the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams two months later. Two months after that, McClendon left for Oregon. Each paid the school $100,000 to get out of their USC deals, according to documents The State obtained through public records requests.
Brown’s spot was functionally filled by Rod Wilson, who earned $225,000 less per year. McClendon’s spot was filled by Des Kitchings, who got $700,000 less in his deal.
South Carolina replaced Muschamp with Shane Beamer, whose salary is not yet public, though multiple outlets report he will get $2.75 million a year for five years. His assistant salary pool is not yet public.

RELATED STORIES FROM THE STATE IN COLUMBIA SC
USC-FOOTBALL
Tanner working to negotiate Muschamp’s buyout. One factor puts him in a bad spot
DECEMBER 09, 2020 9:25 AM

I want his lawyers name!.......he could come in handy later:) lol 😆

Or as they say at the used car lot, “It’s all in the fine print”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseCock

andersoncountycock

Active Member
Nov 12, 2019
1,469
1,432
113
Didn't Muschamp tell Tanner if he needs any help call him. Hey Will can you help us out on the buyout by reducing the buyout let's say $5 million less.
 

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
4,227
4,113
113
Columbia
Maybe, but at some point Estoppel can’t be used for poor due diligence. Where contracts are intended they should be used exclusively and precisely not Estoppel.

I don’t know if this is Ray’s fault or not. My guess is that Will and his folks will give this back but this will be their give and the $13 MM will have to be fully paid.
Contracts have never been my specialty, but if people changed position in reliance on the contract amendment (SC hired Bobo using the money they saved on Muschamp's contract) I think it's an argument that passes the red-faced test.

But it is stupid to have to rely on that kind of thing in this situation. To me it just demonstrates incompetence at worst and sloppiness at best.

How many times does an AD have to make these kinds of mistakes before someone says, "hey, wasn't this YOUR job."?
 

92Pony

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2011
8,021
8,332
113
Man when you said “do over” I thought it was going to say he was coming in as a consultant or something.
Same! Only coming back to the board later did it click; ‘due’......
 

gpcocks

Well-Known Member
Sep 13, 2007
3,508
1,111
113
Sounds like this is in addition to the mitigation issue. He'll get $15m + another million per year as a DC. He is living the financial dream because of our incompetence.
And his own incompetence. I have decided to point my son toward a career in coaching. Not many fields of employ that pay so handsomely for creating and leaving behind trainwrecks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: viennacocks

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
4,227
4,113
113
Columbia
Ray Tanner's negligence and incompetence is costing the University and the State of SC millions of dollars. Now granted, taxpayers are not on the hook because the AD and Gamecock Club will take care of it. But if they balked Muschamp could sue and he would win.

How can Ray Tanner still have a job?
 

cocknjax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 8, 2002
14,733
6,114
113
Jacksonville, Florida
You can’t make this stuff up.


South Carolina’s board passed hefty cut to Muschamp buyout. It never went into effect
BY BEN BREINER
DECEMBER 09, 2020 03:35 PM,
UPDATED 12 MINUTES AGO
Play Video

South Carolina fires Will Muschamp after 2-5 start to football season


South Carolina has parted ways with head coach Will Muschamp, the school announced Sunday. BY ERIC GARLAND


Listen to this article now

02:52
Powered by Trinity Audio


An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.
The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.
At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.

However, the contract, which was obtained by The State this week following a Freedom of Information request, shows the amendment was never signed by Muschamp, athletic director Ray Tanner or board of trustees secretary J. Cantey Heath.
A school spokesman confirmed this was the version the school had on file — and not a draft. USC did not respond to multiple requests for additional comment.

The State also confirmed through a source that the amendment never went into effect.
Tanner has said several times, including as recently as Monday, that he will negotiate the buyout terms with Muschamp. Contract law expert Marty Greenberg, however, told The State there isn’t much to negotiate.
An unsigned contract typically isn’t enforceable. Since Muschamp has already been relieved of his duties, it’s not clear what incentive, if any, he has to give the school a break.
Muschamp could negotiate to receive less money from South Carolina, but his contract doesn’t require him to do that. Without mitigation language and with the buyout spelled out, Muschamp really only has to collect his money, spread out across four years, and perhaps earn a paycheck from a new job on top of it.
Last December, Tanner said the change in the contract came about after Muschamp suggested it. The team finished 4-8, but Tanner said Muschamp wanted to give running backs coach Thomas Brown a raise.
All-access digital subscription
Connect to local news for just $1 a month for 3 months
VIEW OFFER

Muschamp had already demoted a $1 million assistant from offensive coordinator to just a position coach (Bryan McClendon) and hired another assistant at more than $1 million (Mike Bobo at $1.2 million).
But Brown, who got a $200,000 raise, wasn’t around long. He took a job with the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams two months later. Two months after that, McClendon left for Oregon. Each paid the school $100,000 to get out of their USC deals, according to documents The State obtained through public records requests.
Brown’s spot was functionally filled by Rod Wilson, who earned $225,000 less per year. McClendon’s spot was filled by Des Kitchings, who got $700,000 less in his deal.
South Carolina replaced Muschamp with Shane Beamer, whose salary is not yet public, though multiple outlets report he will get $2.75 million a year for five years. His assistant salary pool is not yet public.

RELATED STORIES FROM THE STATE IN COLUMBIA SC
USC-FOOTBALL
Tanner working to negotiate Muschamp’s buyout. One factor puts him in a bad spot
DECEMBER 09, 2020 9:25 AM
Take a couple million outta Rays’ petty cash account to balance things out.
 

ExpatCarolinian

Active Member
Jul 25, 2016
2,488
2,913
113
Contracts have never been my specialty, but if people changed position in reliance on the contract amendment (SC hired Bobo using the money they saved on Muschamp's contract) I think it's an argument that passes the red-faced test.

But it is stupid to have to rely on that kind of thing in this situation. To me it just demonstrates incompetence at worst and sloppiness at best.

How many times does an AD have to make these kinds of mistakes before someone says, "hey, wasn't this YOUR job."?
Agree with you. Muschamp may not push for the extra 2M because the university fulfilled its part of the restructure deal by hiring Bobo. He may be a gentleman about it since the agreement was clear, if not signed.

But yes, why even be in this position? If I exposed my organization to an extra 2M liability due to a negligent clerical oversight, I would and should be fired.

Others will argue there should not be accountability because Ray brings so much value as the AD - good with donors and better facilities. Honestly this should be table stakes for an SEC or B1G AD. They have a ton of money to spend and record low interest rates. Of course the facilities are going to be better than ever. That’s true across the conference, except Vandy.
 

cockgun

Active Member
Aug 3, 2002
2,266
806
113
In my old job, if I made such an enormous error in judgement and administration, I would have been not only fired, but prosecuted for negligence. It is time for the Ray Tanner era to end.
I was just getting ready to say the same thing. I have seen good people get fired for a lot less. This is ridiculous, he should at least resign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cadcock