Re: From the negotiating room
Spoken like a true businessman, HD. I agree with a strictly business approach to this. Dykes wants an extension/raise? I'm sure he does. Well, like everything else, that comes with a price. For Tech, that will mean a substantial buy-out clause. As for his "raise," I'd like to see that more in the way of incentives, rather than just a flat salary increase. Sure, raise his base salary a little...no problem....but most of his real compensation should be tied to specific accomplishments.
Need to also give Dykes control over some of the compensation for his staff. Most people like having control over their organization and direct reports. Give Dykes a budget that he can distribute to his coaches as bonuses, based on incentives that he sets. Would only be a small % of the staff's overall compensation package, but would mean a lot to them, and give Dykes more managerial control of his staff's performance.
Re: From the negotiating room
Where do we get the money to give Dykes a raise when we didn't have the money for the video cameras?
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DONW
Where do we get the money to give Dykes a raise when we didn't have the money for the video cameras?
The spin is that it will come from private sources.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DONW
Where do we get the money to give Dykes a raise when we didn't have the money for the video cameras?
Don- Don't worry, be happy! "Give Sonny Mo Money"
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DONW
I think a 5 million buyout in his contract would be appropriate. That way we could give the next coach a 5 yr, 5 million contract.
That was my line of reasoning. Probably not doable, but I would think that $2-$2.5M might be.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LookingForResults
1. CUSA already wants Tech for reasons far removed from the salary of our HC. Further, the salary of the HC is not a criterion used to evaluate conference candidacy worthiness. Overall athletic budget is evaluated, but not specifics. Money would be far more wisely spent improving facilities than increasing a salary.
BS. You've got it backwards. The winning needs to come first. The WINNING will drive more revenue (via increased donations, increased gate, etc....), which will in turn be spent on improved facilities. And our best chance at continued winning is to maintain a PROVEN championship coaching staff.
2. Raising the salary at this time does not raise the interest level of future potential candidates. Only what is being offered at the time that the job becomes available is all that matters.
Raising the level of future potential head coaching candidates is NOT the primary goal, rather it's a collateral goal. The primary goal is to continue WINNING (there's that word again), and we have a better chance of doing that if we can keep an already proven "winning" coaching staff in place.
3. All HC's want money and prestige. But they know that if they don't win they'll get neither. Dykes would be foolish to, and won't, leave for money alone if it means going to a Tulane or similar situation where it will be difficult to win. That's of no concern so remove that argument.
Tulane is a real bad example. We need to be more concerned with such lower AQ programs as Kansas and Ole Miss, as well as some non-aq's like Houston, New Mexico, and Fresno St (if they ever wise up and fire Pat Hill), etc......
4. Increase his salary because he had a good year? Because he did what he was hired to do? Because he did his job? Well then, let's have that street run both ways. Let's deduct from his salary for underperforming last year, or deduct from his salary if he should unexpectedly stumble next year. His reward should be a discussion with the AD and being informed that at the end of the contract term, IF he continues to perform well, that he can THEN expect a very generous new contract.
You're not thinking prudently. It's cheaper --and more prudent-- for us to do this NOW.
Dyke's --and LA Tech-- could very likely win 10 to 12 games in 2012. Assuming we win the Poinsettia Bowl this year and 10 games in 2012, Dykes will very likely be sporting a 24-13 W-L record a year from today. He'll also have 3 full years of head coaching experience under his belt. He will VERY likely be one of America's hottest coaching commodities.
The only reason Dykes is not getting more attention today is because he's still a relatively new head coach. But next year, if he wins a minimum of 10 games (which is very possible against our watered down schedule), he'll almost certainly be poached by a bigger school. We need to renegotiate NOW, so that his contract includes the best possible outcome for LA Tech.
HD
Re: From the negotiating room
HD, Dykes won't be here after next year anyway. That's why many of us think renegotiation without the buyout increase is a mistake.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
detltu
The only reason you renegotiate this contract IMO is to increase the buyout. You pay Dykes more to increase the buyout.
He is set up for success next year and the coaching carousel is not slowing down. If we are going to give him an extra 250k next year, we need to make sure that anyone that wants to hire him has to give us an extra 750k if they come to grab him. If we can't do that, there is no reason to renegotiate.
Now HERE'S a guy that "get's it".
HD
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maddawg
HD, Dykes won't be here after next year anyway. That's why many of us think renegotiation without the buyout increase is a mistake.
I've never proposed renegotiating without the buyout increase. The two go hand in hand.
HD
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HogDawg
I've never proposed renegotiating without the buyout increase. The two go hand in hand.
HD
That little nugget seems to be getting lost in the debate.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DogsWin
The man has a contract through Jan. 2015. His contract stipulates that if he leaves prior to 2014 he must pay Tech $800K. He has approximately 40 seniors back next year (the largest Tech senior class I have ever seen since 1978!).
If there is no increased buyout clause amount to AT LEAST $1M then LFR is correct.
I agree. I am not opposed to discussing additional compensation for Dykes, but only if Tech is getting something in return.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maddawg
That little nugget seems to be getting lost in the debate.
Nope. I've been consistent. I've said all along that we INCREASE his money (salary and incentives) and RAISE his buyout clause - which btw, will be a one-way buyout clause applicable only to poaching schools.
Some of you (you & LFR included) have argued that it's makes no sense to renegotiate his contract period. That's a mistake. This thread is full of those foolish arguments.
HD
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maddawg
The spin is that it will come from private sources.
Private sources =alumni foundation endowment.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
maddawg
Don't forget to up the buyout and require a home and home series.
HD, this is the first post I made on this thread. Take it for what you want, but I have been consistant in my opposition because BVDV does not intend to do either of the above.
Re: From the negotiating room
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DONW
Private sources =alumni foundation endowment.
Of course, but with brand new funds being ear marked for the raise. Hopefully raisES. Our strength coach should be given special attention.
