Leach and Tech at Odds Over Contract

[mathman]

Leach contract: Communications reveal frustration
Don Williams AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach has been given a deadline of Feb. 17 to accept a contract-extension offer, but the elements of the proposal make it unacceptable, according to Leach and his agents.

In a letter sent to Tech athletic director Gerald Myers on Jan. 28, Matt Baldwin, one of Leach’s representatives, wrote in part: “We, like you, remain hopeful that Coach will remain the head football coach at Texas Tech for many years to come. However, absent a significant change in Texas Tech’s position in this negotiation, it is highly unlikely that an agreement can be reached for the aforementioned reasons. ...’’

Leach, who just finished his ninth season in Lubbock, has two years remaining on his current contract.

The Avalanche-Journal on Friday obtained a series of letters and e-mails between the two sides through the Texas Public Information Act.

The communications show a growing frustration on both sides, which includes a pointed response from the chairman of Tech’s Board of Regents, who resented Leach’s agents taking their argument to the regents.

Leach through his agents rejected a five-year, $12.1-million offer made in early December. On Jan. 9, Tech increased the offer to $12.7 million over five years while adding new provisions. Myers termed it “our best and final offer.’’

Myers put a Jan. 20 deadline on the offer, after which Myers wrote that it would be withdrawn “and your current contract will stay in place without change.’’

That deadline has been extended to Feb. 17.

Leach’s side rejected the Jan. 9 offer three days later.

On Jan. 12, Leach’s agent Gary O’Hagan wrote to Myers: “We do want to assure you that compensation is not the most significant issue we have with your offer. Both you and Chancellor (Kent) Hance have repeatedly explained to us that, at this time, the University has limited financial resources. We fully understand this and have taken this into account in our negotiations.’’

Subsequently, O’Hagan said the new offer represented “a significant step backward’’ with “markedly worse’’ terms than the original.

O’Hagan then detailed four new terms that were unacceptable:

— Tech reduces the guaranteed income due Leach should it fire the coach without cause. The most common occurrence of without-cause firings is the dismissal of coaches whose win-loss records are deemed unsatisfactory.

— Tech has increased Leach’s buyout clause from its current $500,000 if he leaves Tech to as much as $1.5 million. O’Hagan called the clause “among the highest in the Big 12 Conference’’ and said four Big 12 coaches — Oklahoma’s Bob Stoops, Texas’ Mack Brown, Kansas’ Mark Mangino and Kansas State’s Bill Snyder have no buy-out.

— Tech inserted a requirement that Leach ask permission before interviewing for other jobs. If he does not do so, he can be fired for cause and subject to a penalty clause of $1.5 million. There is no such penalty clause in Leach’s current contract.

— According to O’Hagan, Leach must “assign over to the university and its agent, Learfield Sports, all rights to his name and identity, so that the university can sell Mike’s time and the use of his name and identity to third parties.

“The University is asking for the right to dictate and have complete control over Coach Leach’s appearances, endorsements, book publishing, etc., and the right to profit off these activities,’’ O’Hagan wrote. “In all my years in the business, I have never seen such a request. Mike currently has the right to negotiate, independently or through his agent, all such agreements and retain all monies derived from them.’’

Leach referred to the four terms to which he objected on Wednesday during his national signing day news conference. He later declined to discuss them specifically, but said he won’t agree to them.

The letters and e-mails obtained by the A-J also made it clear that the actions of Leach and his agents have been a sore spot.

Baldwin took the step of sending a Jan. 15 e-mail to most members of the Tech Board of Regents, outlining Leach’s side. He was rebuked the next day by Regents Chairman F. Scott Dueser.

Dueser wrote to Baldwin: “I cannot adequately express the level of disappointment I feel that you would take the liberty of communicating directly with certain members of the Board of Regents regarding the status of your negotiations with Chancellor Hance, President (Guy) Bailey and Athletic Director Myers without, at the very least, showing them the courtesy and respect of receiving a copy of your communication. Be assured that I have addressed your lapse in judgment by forwarding your original message and attachments to the Chancellor, President and Athletic Director and to the other Regents not included on your original e-mail.

“If your message was calculated to divide the Board or undermine the Chancellor, President and Athletic Director, you have greatly misjudged us and the mutual respect we have for one another. You would be doing Coach Leach a great service if you would conduct your negotiations solely with and limit your communications solely to the Chancellor, President and Athletic Director. Speaking for the Board of Regents, please remove our names from your distribution list.’’

Tech originally gave Leach a deadline of Jan. 20 on the offer made 11 days before.

In a letter from Myers to Baldwin dated Jan. 26, Myers acknowledged the new provision of Leach having to notify Tech before he could interview for other jobs.

“This prior approval would not be withheld unreasonably,’’ Myers wrote to Baldwin, “but we want you as his agent to stop shopping Coach Leach everywhere and him not saying anything to deny that he’s looking for another job.’’

Leach traveled to Seattle in December when the University of Washington was conducting a coaching search. When he returned to Lubbock, he said he had no comment on the trip.

In his Jan. 28 letter, Baldwin referred to e-mail Myers sent to Leach’s agents on April 29 in which Myers wrote: “(I)f better opportunities occur for him somewhere else,, we will fully understand.’’

“The message sent by you was very clear,’’ Baldwin wrote, “and in an effort to serve our client we felt a duty to follow your instructions.’’

Myers also made reference to Baldwin’s e-mail to the regents and called it “insubordination.’’

“It was wrong to go around Chancellor Hance, President Bailey and myself to contact the Board of Regents individually,’’ Myers wrote. “I think the Chairman of the Board of Regents and other Regents have made it very clear that these negotiations are to be handled by us, and they do not want to be involved.’’

Two days later, in a portion of a letter from Baldwin to Myers, Baldwin objected to the accusation of insubordination.

“Just to clear, in order to be insubordinate, you first need to be subordinate,’’ Baldwin wrote. “IMG (the agency) is retained by Coach, not by Texas Tech; and thus IMG cannot be insubordinate to Texas Tech.’’

[OC Mustang]

Scott Dueser went to SWGSB at SMU for grad school.