FIRE PAUL JOHNSON!!!!!

As far as I'm aware, the new CPJ extension (signed in early 2018) has not been released to the public yet. The AJC reported "terms were not made available" which means they'll have to get it via open records request. I don't think they've done that yet. Stansbury and Johnson both made comments to the effect that the general terms of the prior contract were continued, but I don't think that tells us much about buyouts. We need to see the contract to know what the buyout actually is.
 
BackstreetBuzz said:
TStan cannot fire Johnson, because, in maybe the dumbest decision ever, he just extended his contract to 5 years with a $15M buyout. If he had not done this, we would owe Johnson $1M if he was fired after this year. Johnson deserved a chance to turn things around, but the extension, along with the Danny Hall extension is basically financial malfeasance.
Click to expand...
Bingo! what was T.S. thinking on the extension? He's got another Hewitt on his hands now. Tech football is done for sure.
 
18in32 said:
As far as I'm aware, the new CPJ extension (signed in early 2018) has not been released to the public yet. The AJC reported "terms were not made available" which means they'll have to get it via open records request. I don't think they've done that yet. Stansbury and Johnson both made comments to the effect that the general terms of the prior contract were continued, but I don't think that tells us much about buyouts. We need to see the contract to know what the buyout actually is.
Click to expand...
Is that kinda like what Nancy said about Obama Care, we have to read it to see what's in it?
 
18in32 said:
As far as I'm aware, the new CPJ extension (signed in early 2018) has not been released to the public yet. The AJC reported "terms were not made available" which means they'll have to get it via open records request. I don't think they've done that yet. Stansbury and Johnson both made comments to the effect that the general terms of the prior contract were continued, but I don't think that tells us much about buyouts. We need to see the contract to know what the buyout actually is.
Click to expand...
Here it is. Scroll to bottom of page.
https://hkm.com/football/contracts/paul-johnson/
 
Last edited:
It’s a very favorable buyout from what I hear and now that we don’t have Hewitt and Gailey payouts around this is a slam dunk.
 
Never understood the thinking that we had to extend for recruiting purposes.

Why? So a coach doing a bad job recruiting will be given more time to continue to recruit badly?

Why not say “you have this year to prove you can motivate the guys you have already recruited, and prove you can recruit better than you have. Then we will talk about an extension with even better terms for you.”

But at GT, we just bend over for individuals with no regard for what is best for the school & team.
 
texstinger said:
Never understood the thinking that we had to extend for recruiting purposes.

Why? So a coach doing a bad job recruiting will be given more time to continue to recruit badly?

Why not say “you have this year to prove you can motivate the guys you have already recruited, and prove you can recruit better than you have. Then we will talk about an extension with even better terms for you.”

But at GT, we just bend over for individuals with no regard for what is best for the school & team.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Recruits see a coach with a 4 yr contract as more likely to be there for the duration of their college careers than a coach with <4 yr contract. That's not unreasonable. And obvs recruits don't want to commit to a school not knowing who's going to be coaching them.

It is interesting to consider how changing the transfer rules would affect the structure of coaching contracts. If recruits were free to transfer in the event of a HC change, it might reduce the schools' rationale for keeping coaches' contracts at 4+ years.
 
18in32 said:
That makes no sense. Recruits see a coach with a 4 yr contract as more likely to be there for the duration of their college careers than a coach with <4 yr contract. That's not unreasonable. And obvs recruits don't want to commit to a school not knowing who's going to be coaching them.

It is interesting to consider how changing the transfer rules would affect the structure of coaching contracts. If recruits were free to transfer in the event of a HC change, it might reduce the schools' rationale for keeping coaches' contracts at 4+ years.
Click to expand...

But supposedly grumpy ‘ol Paul doesn’t relate well with the youngsters, so what does it matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top