• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rich Rodriguez (official thread of last laughs)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Here is RichRod's answer:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/uploads/RodResponse_01.pdf

Some highlights:

- Claims WVU waived its right to object to the removal of the case by filing an amended complaint with the district court and by claiming in its original complaint that it was a resident.
- Admits that he didn't give written notice of WVU's breaches, but claims that WVU officials admitted to him that they were in material breach
- Claims that the liquidated damages is unreasonable and thus void as against public policy (a better argument than some might think - liquidated damages are supposed to approximate actual damages. To the extent they are punitive in nature or well beyond actual damages, they are unenforceable as against public policy)
- Claims that the Foundation is an indispensable party and must be joined in the action. Asks that the Foundation be forced to open its books to determine if any damage was suffered by RichRod's resignation
- Countersues claiming breach of contract, false inducement, and misrepresentation based, in part, on representations made during the negotiating and around the time of the signing
 
Upvote 0
Dispatch

College football: Rodriguez files response to suit, draws WVU Foundation into matter

Saturday, February 2, 2008 5:48 AM

Rich Rodriguez says opening the books of West Virginia's private fundraising arm is the only way to determine whether his abrupt resignation as coach harmed the school financially.
That was a key demand in the formal response that Rodriguez filed to WVU's lawsuit over the $4 million buyout clause in his contract. He also said it was the administration's actions -- not a better offer -- that forced him to resign in December and take the coaching job at Michigan.

Continued.....
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
OSUBasketballJunkie;1081571; said:
He also said it was the administration's actions -- not a better offer -- that forced him to resign in December and take the coaching job at Michigan.
Click to expand...

[sarcasm]The timing of the resignation and the acceptance of a new job were, of course, coincidental.[/sarcasm]
 
Upvote 0
It is instructive to look at some other court cases involving RR just to see what his mindset is:

Rodriquez v. Wade -

RR argued for legal abortion of a fetus up to 225 months following conception.

If the courts had ruled in his favor he would have been able to free up scholarships of freshman recruits who simply did not work out.

Dred Scot v. Rodriquez -

RR argued that any player from the state of WV who committed to a school outside of the state would be returned to the state upon request.
 
Upvote 0
"She was iffy on coach Rod," Saddler said. "She just didn't trust him. She kept saying, 'Something about him I don't trust.' We talked about (Wannstedt and Rodriguez) and she kept saying something isn't right. Once she was like I'm sure about (Wannstedt), that made me think, whoa. You know how your mom's always right? Well, my mom's right about everything from girlfriends to school work, just the weirdest things."

Momma Saddler is a good judge of character!!

Recruiters push to land a big-time player - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck;1082350; said:
If RRod's penalty clause is stated in the contract to be "liquidated damages," then WVU may be hosed.
Click to expand...

Actually, that raises an interesting point, one on which the suit presented is unclear - and frankly as a non-lawyer I am unclear about.

Is a penalty clause the same thing as a liquidated damages clause, either effectively, or in actual fact, or not at all in this instance?

The point comes to mind because of this - in the suit they choose to cite (quote) one paragraph from the amended contract RR signed in late 2007. They do so to underscore a point concerning the periodicity of the 3 payments demanded.
Lead in:
Defendant further states that the Second Amendment to the Contract of Employment
provides that if the Defendant left the employ of the Plaintiff University he would be
required to pay a penalty of $4,000,000.00 but that the first payment due was not required
to be made until thirty days after the resignation of the Defendant which date is January 18,
2008.
Click to expand...
Cited portion of the amended contract setting forth the schedule ...
?. . . or (b) Four Million Dollars, ($4,000,000.00), payable, as
further described below, within two years of termination if
termination occurs after August 31, 2007 and on or before
August 31, 2008; . . . All sums required to be paid by Coach to
the University under this section within two years shall be
payable according to the following schedule; one-third due (30)
days after termination; one-third due on the one year
anniversary of termination; and one-third due on the second
anniversary of termination.
Click to expand...
Now, why, if the basis for their counter-suit is that a liquidated damages clause is punitive in scale do they not cite a portion of the contract that uses exactly that language - from a clause titled "Liquidated Damages" for instance?

I suspect (though clearly do not know) that no such emphatic language is in the contract at issue. But, that still leaves open the possibility that the penalty clause, the buy-out, would itself be treated as a liquidated damages clause under contract law.

So, is a penalty / buy-out clause considered under contract law to be a liquidated damages clause?

EDIT: The definition of liquidated damages at the "Free Legal Dictionary" along with the contrasted definition of a penalty clause.
 
Upvote 0
all this talk about shady dealings, dick wad, questionable suits, liquidation, and penalties only serves to bring one image to mind...

Tarlek.jpg
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1082362; said:
Actually, that raises an interesting point, one on which the suit presented is unclear - and frankly as a non-lawyer I am unclear about.

Is a penalty clause the same thing as a liquidated damages clause, either effectively, or in actual fact, or not at all in this instance?

The point comes to mind because of this - in the suit they choose to cite (quote) one paragraph from the amended contract RR signed in late 2007. They do so to underscore a point concerning the periodicity of the 3 payments demanded.
Lead in:
Cited portion of the amended contract setting forth the schedule ...
Now, why, if the basis for their counter-suit is that a liquidated damages clause is punitive in scale do they not cite a portion of the contract that uses exactly that language - from a clause titled "Liquidated Damages" for instance?

I suspect (though clearly do not know) that no such emphatic language is in the contract at issue. But, that still leaves open the possibility that the penalty clause, the buy-out, would itself be treated as a liquidated damages clause under contract law.

So, is a penalty / buy-out clause considered under contract law to be a liquidated damages clause?

EDIT: The definition of liquidated damages at the "Free Legal Dictionary" along with the contrasted definition of a penalty clause.
Click to expand...

Liquidated damages (attempts to forecast actual damages) are good (enforceable). Penalty clauses are not enforceable. Penalty clauses disguised as liquidated damages provisions are not enforceable.

Here is an excerpt from the Trial Handbook for West Virginia Lawyers:

Parties may properly contract for liquidated damages (1) where such damages are uncertain and readily capable of ascertainment in amount by any known or safe rule, whether such uncertainty lies in the nature of the subject, or in the particular circumstances of the case; or (2) where from the nature of the case and tenor of the agreement, it is apparent that the damages have already been the subject of actual fair estimate and adjustment between the parties. Stonebraker v Zinn (1982) 169 W Va 259, 286 SE2d 911.
While the parties may contract for liquidated damages where the damages are not readily ascertainable, when the amount is grossly disproportionate to the damages actually incurred, such clause is a penalty clause rather than a liquidated damages provision, regardless of how the provisions are denoted in the contract. A penalty clause will not be enforced unless justice clearly demands. W. Va. Public Employees Ins. Bd. v Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc. (1985, W Va) 328 SE2d 356, later app (W Va) 375 SE2d 809.
Click to expand...

You can see now why RichRod wants to bring the WVU Foundation into this fight.
 
Upvote 0
Enter the expert witnesses who will no doubt have their financial models in place to show in the case of WVU that the liquidated damage amount reasonably relates to the actual damages sustained by the university or in RR's case that the liquidated damage amount is excessive an unenforceable. Remember the retired former CEO of one of the large NY finance houses who pulled back his $12 million pledge to WVU after siding with RR in this mess? I would expect that WVU will lead off with this loss to relate actual losses to the stated liquidated damage amount in RR's WVU contract.
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;1082485; said:
Enter the expert witnesses who will no doubt have their financial models in place to show in the case of WVU that the liquidated damage amount reasonably relates to the actual damages sustained by the university or in RR's case that the liquidated damage amount is excessive an unenforceable. Remember the retired former CEO of one of the large NY finance houses who pulled back his $12 million pledge to WVU after siding with RR in this mess? I would expect that WVU will lead off with this loss to relate actual losses to the stated liquidated damage amount in RR's WVU contract.
Click to expand...

Does that mean (should this arise) that this former CEO is potentially helping WVU instead of hurting them?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top