-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
A legal question about FHCMR contract.
- Thread starter Huskerthom
- Start date
I feel honored that you took so much time to sit down and google something with me in mind. But really, I have enough groupies, I do not need anymore.I found a pic of you.
C
Hey, I am about to go out tonight, since it is Friday. While I am out having a good time, stay in your room and keep googling me. I do find that kind of weird, but it is what it is. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.I found a pic of you.
C
Last edited:
Ooooh, can I take his turn?
I am an attorney, so perhaps I can address this issue. I did it in the other thread others have talked about in this one, but I'll give a brief synopsis here as well.
You keep going on about this, but it's a non-issue. The contract was between NU and MR. NU fired MR, so, in accordance with the terms of the contract, NU has to pay a certain sum of money to MR. It was never going to be a lump sum payment, but instead, was going to be calculated based on the original sum due MR reduced by any mitigated amount MR receives for employment. MR had a duty under the contract to TRY to find employment, and to not structure payment from that new employment to avoid mitigating the amount owed by Nebraska.
You, and a few others, have your undies in a bunch because you think his $50k salary is an obvious attempt to screw NU. This is simply not the case, or at least one that would be very difficult to prove in court, and one that probably would not rise to the level of voiding the entire contract (meaning NU wouldn't have to pay anything). Instead, NU will simply reduce it's payments to MR by a reasonable amount considering his new employment. This isn't something NU will have to go to court to prove, they will simply inform MR and his attorney of the amount of the reduction. If MR and his attorney don't agree with that amount, they could attempt to negotiate a different amount, or take NU to court. At court, however, they would have to prove that the $50k salary is a reasonable salary. They aren't going to do that. A reasonable salary for what he has been employed to do at OSU would probably be $200k - $500k (and probably closer to the lower end), therefore, NU will reduce the amount paid to MR by about that much over the duration of the contract.
There was nothing nefarious here. MR and OSU didn't think they were pulling a fast one. If they didn't inform NU of the terms of the new contract in advance, or already engaged in negotiations regarding the buy-out, they knew NU would take the action I described above. If it is as obvious to non-attorneys like you and a few others on the board carping on about this, MR and OSU knew NU's smart legal folks would catch on at some point as well. This is all pretty standard, basic contract law.
Last edited:
Ooooh, can I take his turn?
I am an attorney, so perhaps I can address this issue. I did it in the other thread others have talked about in this one, but I'll give a brief synopsis here as well.
You keep going on about this, but it's a non-issue. The contract was between NU and MR. NU fired MR, so, in accordance with the terms of the contract, NU has to pay a certain sum of money to MR. It was never going to be a lump sum payment, but instead, was going to be calculated based on the original sum due MR reduced by any mitigated amount MR receives for employment. MR had a duty under the contract to TRY to find employment, and to not structure payment from that new employment to avoid mitigating the amount owed by Nebraska.
You, and a few others, have your undies in a bunch because you think his $50k salary is an obvious attempt to screw NU. This is simply not the case, or at least one that would be very difficult to prove in court, and one that probably would not rise to the level of voiding the entire contract (meaning NU wouldn't have to pay anything). Instead, NU will simply reduce it's payments to MR by a reasonable amount considering his new employment. This isn't something NU will have to go to court to prove, they will simply inform MR and his attorney of the amount of the reduction. If MR and his attorney don't agree with that amount, they could attempt to negotiate a different amount, or take NU to court. At court, however, they would have to prove that the $50k salary is a reasonable salary. They aren't going to do that. A reasonable salary for what he has been employed to do at OSU would probably be $200k - $500k (and probably closer to the lower end), therefore, NU will reduce the amount paid to MR by about that much over the duration of the contract.
There was nothing nefarious here. MR and OSU didn't think they were pulling a fast one. If they didn't inform NU of the terms of the new contract in advance, or already engaged in negotiations regarding the buy-out, they knew NU would take the action I described above. If it is as obvious to non-attorneys like you and a few others on the board carping on about this, MR and OSU knew NU's smart legal folks would catch on at some point as well. This is all pretty standard, basic contract law.
Great explanation (again).
One question. The original contract is available to the public. Would a re-structured settlement eventually also be disclosed? At least as far as payments given each year?
Question for the finder of fact. Never gonna get there.
Given that the salaries and contracts at each school are public, should any reduction in payments by Nebraska to Riley also be public?Ooooh, can I take his turn?
I am an attorney, so perhaps I can address this issue. I did it in the other thread others have talked about in this one, but I'll give a brief synopsis here as well.
You keep going on about this, but it's a non-issue. The contract was between NU and MR. NU fired MR, so, in accordance with the terms of the contract, NU has to pay a certain sum of money to MR. It was never going to be a lump sum payment, but instead, was going to be calculated based on the original sum due MR reduced by any mitigated amount MR receives for employment. MR had a duty under the contract to TRY to find employment, and to not structure payment from that new employment to avoid mitigating the amount owed by Nebraska.
You, and a few others, have your undies in a bunch because you think his $50k salary is an obvious attempt to screw NU. This is simply not the case, or at least one that would be very difficult to prove in court, and one that probably would not rise to the level of voiding the entire contract (meaning NU wouldn't have to pay anything). Instead, NU will simply reduce it's payments to MR by a reasonable amount considering his new employment. This isn't something NU will have to go to court to prove, they will simply inform MR and his attorney of the amount of the reduction. If MR and his attorney don't agree with that amount, they could attempt to negotiate a different amount, or take NU to court. At court, however, they would have to prove that the $50k salary is a reasonable salary. They aren't going to do that. A reasonable salary for what he has been employed to do at OSU would probably be $200k - $500k (and probably closer to the lower end), therefore, NU will reduce the amount paid to MR by about that much over the duration of the contract.
There was nothing nefarious here. MR and OSU didn't think they were pulling a fast one. If they didn't inform NU of the terms of the new contract in advance, or already engaged in negotiations regarding the buy-out, they knew NU would take the action I described above. If it is as obvious to non-attorneys like you and a few others on the board carping on about this, MR and OSU knew NU's smart legal folks would catch on at some point as well. This is all pretty standard, basic contract law.
Oops, beat me to it.
Coaching aside. Mike riley according to you has no character. No class. And is a phony. Totally opposite of anything ive ever read or heard about him. Link please. Thanks in advance. And no this clickbait article has no merit.
I'm guessing so but it may not actually be required. But since as a state employee contract it was required to be disclosed in the first place, I doubt there would be anything preventing it being disclosed. And I would think Moos then would disclose it.
Which brings up the question, why hasn't Moos already done something about this and announced it?!?!? This information has been out there for days already! Clearly Moos like Riley is a low life scum, conspiring with RIley to screw the good, honest Nebraska fan. Get 'em!
Last edited:
This is an excellent point.....one I may add was not noted during the last 16 page thread........
This really ends the discussion , $ 550 k is simply not worth it. Not worth the risks of bad PR.
Agree with above post, if anything happens, lawyers negotiate a new payment settlement. I will vote on the "nothing will happen" check
Does it suck? yup. Did I lose a bit a respect for Riley? yup a bit.
In the end $ 500 k is the cost of doing business in a $100 million enterprise.
Last edited:
I read in another thread where you don't use sarcasm, and I'm so happy that you don't. I appreciate your straight shooting honesty.I'm guessing so but it may not actually be required. But since as a state employee contract it was required to be disclosed in the first place, I doubt there would be anything preventing it being disclosed. And I would think Moos then would disclose it.
Which brings up the question, why hasn't Moos already done something about this and announced it?!?!? This information has been out there for days already! Clearly Moos like Riley is a low life scum, conspiring with RIley to screw the good, honest Nebraska fan. Get 'em!
Last edited:
