YoloinOhio Posted January 7, 2015 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/
Nanker Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Lurker Posted January 7, 2015 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...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2015 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.
I'm Spartacus Posted January 7, 2015 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.
YoloinOhio Posted January 7, 2015 Author 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).
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 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.
eball Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Cash Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Billsguy Posted January 7, 2015 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)
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Wing Man Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Lombardi1 Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Chilly Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 That $4 million opt-out is money well spent! My favorite part of his entire contract.
Gabe Northern Posted January 7, 2015 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."
Tenhigh Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I would be surprised if the Bills aren't insured for most if not all of this money.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2015 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.
Recommended Posts