ADVERTISEMENT

Bob Shoop owes PSU $891,856

It's hard to get through the article on the counter-suit without laughing but also not surprising. Textbook lawyers throwing everything in the kitchen sink trying, rather desperately it would appear, to settle.

For a guy that could have walked out of PSU and gotten a job just about anywhere to claim he signed under duress while he had a track record of flirting is pretty comical.

I don't begrudge a guy the opportunity to explore options but fact of the matter is Shoop's boss had gone to bat for him two years in a row to make and keep him one of the highest paid coordinators in the country. If PSU asks for some loyalty in writing in return that's their right too. Shoop was good at playing the game to his advantage but if he violated his contract he needs to be called out on it.
 
The "force part" is only referring to signing a defacto "Non-Compete Provision" without "Contractual Consideration" - when an Employer does this, it is a "voidable Contract Clause made by Adhesion" regardless of what it says (and the reason it is "voidable" is because the Employer is not paying the Employee any "Contractual Consideration" for the very clearly onerous and valuable term and condition).
Source for that copy and paste improv?
 
It's hard to get through the article on the counter-suit without laughing but also not surprising. Textbook lawyers throwing everything in the kitchen sink trying, rather desperately it would appear, to settle.

For a guy that could have walked out of PSU and gotten a job just about anywhere to claim he signed under duress while he had a track record of flirting is pretty comical.

I don't begrudge a guy the opportunity to explore options but fact of the matter is Shoop's boss had gone to bat for him two years in a row to make and keep him one of the highest paid coordinators in the country. If PSU asks for some loyalty in writing in return that's their right too. Shoop was good at playing the game to his advantage but if he violated his contract he needs to be called out on it.

Again, Labor Law is State-by-State, so it really depends what PA Law has to say about "Non-Compete Agreements" and what has to exist to make them "enforceable". The Employer can put whatever they want in the contract and demand a signature (same on the Policies & Procedures Manual), but just because the Employer puts language in the Contract that effectively amounts to a "Non-Compete Agreement" does not make it enforceable if the contract does not contain "Compensating Contractual Consideration" for the clause. Just because there is potentially language in the Contract doesn't mean squat that it is enforceable language if it amounts to an "uncompensated Non-Compete Demand".
 
Something of note (that I'm not sure whether it's been discussed) is that Shoop's dad is a big-time labor and employment attorney at a big law firm here in Pittsburgh. From my view, Penn State's case looks pretty open and shut and Shoop's counterclaims look questionable at best, but he won't be hurting for representation.
 
Again, Labor Law is State-by-State, so it really depends what PA Law has to say about "Non-Compete Agreements" and what has to exist to make them "enforceable". The Employer can put whatever they want in the contract and demand a signature (same on the Policies & Procedures Manual), but just because the Employer puts language in the Contract that effectively amounts to a "Non-Compete Agreement" does not make it enforceable if the contract does not contain "Compensating Contractual Consideration" for the clause. Just because there is potentially language in the Contract doesn't mean squat that it is enforceable language if it amounts to an "uncompensated Non-Compete Demand".

Fair enough and I don't pretend to be an expert in the area legally speaking. If Shoop's defense and counter argument though is that he was forced to sign the contract under duress and then proceeds to claim intolerable working conditions, he'll have a hard time painting himself in a sympathetic lite. As mentioned:

- He was paid in the top 1% of assistant coaches in the country.

- He had a 5 year history working with Franklin...and no one was forcing him to come along for the ride with the staff the previous 4 years.

- He had a habit in recent years of flirting with other schools so any notion that PSU was preventing him from seeking other employment is false. If he wanted a raise after '15 though, he needed to commit. This would appear at face value to be a very common and reasonable demand

- Are we seriously to buy the load of crap that his situation was so dire and conditions so intolerable that he left his son in the care of Frankin and PSU where he'll be entering his 3rd season at PSU this fall?

This just reeks of sour grapes. IMO, this is a guy that thought a year at UT was his ticket to a HC job and that hasn't exactly panned out. Again, I have no problem with a coach of his caliber listening to offers, but he shouldn't expect to keep going back to the teet without an understanding of enforceable commitment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judge Smails
Again, Labor Law is State-by-State, so it really depends what PA Law has to say about "Non-Compete Agreements" and what has to exist to make them "enforceable". The Employer can put whatever they want in the contract and demand a signature (same on the Policies & Procedures Manual), but just because the Employer puts language in the Contract that effectively amounts to a "Non-Compete Agreement" does not make it enforceable if the contract does not contain "Compensating Contractual Consideration" for the clause. Just because there is potentially language in the Contract doesn't mean squat that it is enforceable language if it amounts to an "uncompensated Non-Compete Demand".
Except, that doesn't appear to be their defense (at this point). I haven't heard them say that the contract is unenforceable.
 
Again, Labor Law is State-by-State, so it really depends what PA Law has to say about "Non-Compete Agreements" and what has to exist to make them "enforceable". The Employer can put whatever they want in the contract and demand a signature (same on the Policies & Procedures Manual), but just because the Employer puts language in the Contract that effectively amounts to a "Non-Compete Agreement" does not make it enforceable if the contract does not contain "Compensating Contractual Consideration" for the clause. Just because there is potentially language in the Contract doesn't mean squat that it is enforceable language if it amounts to an "uncompensated Non-Compete Demand".
Except, that doesn't appear to be their defense (at this point). I haven't heard them say that the contract is unenforceable.

Agreed, but seperation agreements generally deal with this issue and given his age he may had some time to think about it. We are not privy to the agreement, but he signed it and the burden is one him.

The fact he countered so quickly is interesting.
 
Agreed, but seperation agreements generally deal with this issue and given his age he may had some time to think about it. We are not privy to the agreement, but he signed it and the burden is one him.

The fact he countered so quickly is interesting.
Yeah. Not an attorney but my experience is that unless his constitutional rights were violated, he doesn't have a leg. (Meaning race age or sex)
 
Let's go back to when his UT contract was written up.

UT - Bob, do you have a buyout?
BS - No, I was fired, I'm in the clear
UT - OK good, then we'll put a clause in your contract that says you're responsible for paying the buyout that you don't have at Penn State.
BS - Great, that'll trick PSU into thinking I owe a buyout when I really don't. Suckers!
 
Except, that doesn't appear to be their defense (at this point). I haven't heard them say that the contract is unenforceable.

I think they more-or-less are given that they are saying he was "terminated without cause", owed a month of compensation ($75K which does equal 1/12th of 900K) and that PSU not only terminated him without cause, but evidence is the fact they did not pay him for merely visiting the State of Tennessee (i.e., he never submitted a resignation because he was terminated by PSU without cause as evidenced by them not paying him beyond Friday Jan 8, 2016).
 
After seeing that MM got 14 mil for supposedly slamming a locker, I'm sure he's likely taking a shot at winning in the PA courts. They'll just put a senior judge on this case and make him pay back his clothing and meal allowance, and seal all evidence.
 
I have to say, Shoop's rather lame response has led to a shifting of my position on this one. We'll never know the truth about what JF thinks of him, but it can't be positive. The question is when he started to realize that this guy was poisonous.
 
PENN STATE FOOTBALL
Fired coordinator countersues
Sued by PSU for breach of contract, Shoop strikes back at ‘intolerable’ work conditions.
Bob Shoop seeks dismissal of Penn State’s breach of contract suit against him, plus $75,000 in damages as part of a counterclaim against the university. (MORNING CALL file photo)
By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call
Former Penn State defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, sued by the university for breach of contract, has filed a counterclaim, saying he was subjected to intolerable work conditions before being forced to leave.
According to the claim filed Thursday, Shoop signed a contract with Penn State in 2015 “under duress” and was “constructively discharged/terminated” from his job in January 2016. Shoop seeks Penn State’s suit to be dismissed plus a minimum of $75,000 in damages from his counterclaim.
Penn State in June sued Shoop for breach of contract , saying the former coach owes the university $891,856 for not complying with the buyout language of his deal. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania this week.
According to a clause in Shoop’s contract, the coach would owe Penn State 50 percent of his remaining base salary if he did not become a head coach at another program within one year of leaving.
Tennessee named Shoop defensive coordinator in January 2016, a position he still holds. Penn State said it has asked Shoop to pay the damages, but the coach refused.
In his counterclaim, Shoop calls the buyout clause “unreasonable” and “unenforceable,” saying that it “constitutes a penalty.” In addition, Shoop claims that Penn State effectively terminated his contract, thus nullifying the buyout and triggering another clause in which Penn State owes Shoop compensation.
Shoop says that he signed the 2015 contract “under duress,” though the claim does not go into specifics regarding how or why. Shoop, who came to Penn State with head coach James Franklin in 2014, initially signed a two-year contract. After other schools showed interest in Shoop following that season, the coach received a new three-year contract worth $1 million annually.
But, according to court documents, Shoop’s “working conditions became intolerable” shortly after he signed the new contract. The counterclaim says Shoop experienced a “hostile, negative work environment” without citing specifics.
In January 2016, the counterclaim states, Shoop was “constructively discharged/terminated from, or forced or compelled to leave, his employment with Penn State.” As a result, Shoop seeks a pro-rated amount of his remaining salary. The claim asks for damages of at least $75,000.
Shoop’s counterclaim paints a different picture of his time at Penn State than the coach himself did just before leaving. In December 2015, as Penn State prepared to play in the TaxSlayer Bowl, Shoop said that he hoped Penn State would “have me forever and ever and ever.”
“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said after a Penn State practice near Jacksonville, Fla. “... I hope Penn State will have me forever and ever and ever. I love being part of coach Franklin’s program, I love what we’re building here and I’ve said this millions of times: I think we’re a [ESPN] 30-for-30 story ready to rock and roll.”
According to his memorandum of understanding with Tennessee, Shoop signed a three-year deal Jan. 11, 2016, worth $1.15 million per year. The contract also says that Shoop is “solely responsible” for his Penn State buyout.
 
PENN STATE FOOTBALL
Fired coordinator countersues
Sued by PSU for breach of contract, Shoop strikes back at ‘intolerable’ work conditions.
Bob Shoop seeks dismissal of Penn State’s breach of contract suit against him, plus $75,000 in damages as part of a counterclaim against the university. (MORNING CALL file photo)
By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call
Former Penn State defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, sued by the university for breach of contract, has filed a counterclaim, saying he was subjected to intolerable work conditions before being forced to leave.
According to the claim filed Thursday, Shoop signed a contract with Penn State in 2015 “under duress” and was “constructively discharged/terminated” from his job in January 2016. Shoop seeks Penn State’s suit to be dismissed plus a minimum of $75,000 in damages from his counterclaim.
Penn State in June sued Shoop for breach of contract , saying the former coach owes the university $891,856 for not complying with the buyout language of his deal. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania this week.
According to a clause in Shoop’s contract, the coach would owe Penn State 50 percent of his remaining base salary if he did not become a head coach at another program within one year of leaving.
Tennessee named Shoop defensive coordinator in January 2016, a position he still holds. Penn State said it has asked Shoop to pay the damages, but the coach refused.
In his counterclaim, Shoop calls the buyout clause “unreasonable” and “unenforceable,” saying that it “constitutes a penalty.” In addition, Shoop claims that Penn State effectively terminated his contract, thus nullifying the buyout and triggering another clause in which Penn State owes Shoop compensation.
Shoop says that he signed the 2015 contract “under duress,” though the claim does not go into specifics regarding how or why. Shoop, who came to Penn State with head coach James Franklin in 2014, initially signed a two-year contract. After other schools showed interest in Shoop following that season, the coach received a new three-year contract worth $1 million annually.
But, according to court documents, Shoop’s “working conditions became intolerable” shortly after he signed the new contract. The counterclaim says Shoop experienced a “hostile, negative work environment” without citing specifics.
In January 2016, the counterclaim states, Shoop was “constructively discharged/terminated from, or forced or compelled to leave, his employment with Penn State.” As a result, Shoop seeks a pro-rated amount of his remaining salary. The claim asks for damages of at least $75,000.
Shoop’s counterclaim paints a different picture of his time at Penn State than the coach himself did just before leaving. In December 2015, as Penn State prepared to play in the TaxSlayer Bowl, Shoop said that he hoped Penn State would “have me forever and ever and ever.”
“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said after a Penn State practice near Jacksonville, Fla. “... I hope Penn State will have me forever and ever and ever. I love being part of coach Franklin’s program, I love what we’re building here and I’ve said this millions of times: I think we’re a [ESPN] 30-for-30 story ready to rock and roll.”
According to his memorandum of understanding with Tennessee, Shoop signed a three-year deal Jan. 11, 2016, worth $1.15 million per year. The contract also says that Shoop is “solely responsible” for his Penn State buyout.
How does someone give an interview saying he hopes to stay @ PSU for a long time and then claim "intolerable work conditions"? If PSU caves on this, they are foolish. Any judge in their right mind should see through that bogus claim and throw it out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nitwit
How'd we ever survive without him.....oh...wait....

Side note, if this is what intolerable work conditions look like, I'd hate to see a day at Tennessee under Butch Jones


Big%20Ten%20Champs%20pg-1MS.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
I believe his son is on the football team, so go figure. My guess.. settlement with him paying 1/3 back or less.
 
PENN STATE FOOTBALL
Fired coordinator countersues
Sued by PSU for breach of contract, Shoop strikes back at ‘intolerable’ work conditions.
Bob Shoop seeks dismissal of Penn State’s breach of contract suit against him, plus $75,000 in damages as part of a counterclaim against the university. (MORNING CALL file photo)
By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call
Former Penn State defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, sued by the university for breach of contract, has filed a counterclaim, saying he was subjected to intolerable work conditions before being forced to leave.
According to the claim filed Thursday, Shoop signed a contract with Penn State in 2015 “under duress” and was “constructively discharged/terminated” from his job in January 2016. Shoop seeks Penn State’s suit to be dismissed plus a minimum of $75,000 in damages from his counterclaim.
Penn State in June sued Shoop for breach of contract , saying the former coach owes the university $891,856 for not complying with the buyout language of his deal. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania this week.
According to a clause in Shoop’s contract, the coach would owe Penn State 50 percent of his remaining base salary if he did not become a head coach at another program within one year of leaving.
Tennessee named Shoop defensive coordinator in January 2016, a position he still holds. Penn State said it has asked Shoop to pay the damages, but the coach refused.
In his counterclaim, Shoop calls the buyout clause “unreasonable” and “unenforceable,” saying that it “constitutes a penalty.” In addition, Shoop claims that Penn State effectively terminated his contract, thus nullifying the buyout and triggering another clause in which Penn State owes Shoop compensation.
Shoop says that he signed the 2015 contract “under duress,” though the claim does not go into specifics regarding how or why. Shoop, who came to Penn State with head coach James Franklin in 2014, initially signed a two-year contract. After other schools showed interest in Shoop following that season, the coach received a new three-year contract worth $1 million annually.
But, according to court documents, Shoop’s “working conditions became intolerable” shortly after he signed the new contract. The counterclaim says Shoop experienced a “hostile, negative work environment” without citing specifics.
In January 2016, the counterclaim states, Shoop was “constructively discharged/terminated from, or forced or compelled to leave, his employment with Penn State.” As a result, Shoop seeks a pro-rated amount of his remaining salary. The claim asks for damages of at least $75,000.
Shoop’s counterclaim paints a different picture of his time at Penn State than the coach himself did just before leaving. In December 2015, as Penn State prepared to play in the TaxSlayer Bowl, Shoop said that he hoped Penn State would “have me forever and ever and ever.”
“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said after a Penn State practice near Jacksonville, Fla. “... I hope Penn State will have me forever and ever and ever. I love being part of coach Franklin’s program, I love what we’re building here and I’ve said this millions of times: I think we’re a [ESPN] 30-for-30 story ready to rock and roll.”
According to his memorandum of understanding with Tennessee, Shoop signed a three-year deal Jan. 11, 2016, worth $1.15 million per year. The contract also says that Shoop is “solely responsible” for his Penn State buyout.

Honestly, I think neither party is going to collect shit in regards to "liquidated damages" under the contract. The contract specifies a "liquidated damages clause", NOT a "Non-Compete Agreement" as PSU is attempting to claim. If PSU stopped paying Shoop for merely going to the State of Tennessee (i.e., Shoop did not submit a "resignation" of any kind before going to merely speak with people in Tennessee who had approached him - not vice versa), as it appears they did, they can't very well claim that Shoop submitted a "resignation" prior to the end of his term triggering the "liquidated damages clause" in their favor - again, it's a "liquidated damages clause", not a bonafide "Non-Compete Agreement" over the term of the contract (i.e., a "Non-Compete" forbids you from even speaking with a competitor about employment and doing so would be a "for cause termination" action, but a "liquidated damages clause" does not prevent you from speaking with anyone - it merely says you must pay the prescribed amount IF you submit an early "RESIGNATION" which did not happen here apparently).

OTOH, Shoop is also not going to collect squat under the "liquidated damages clause" as it appears he was paid by PSU through Friday, Jan 8, 2016 and officially signed the UTenn Contract on Monday, Jan 11, 2016. While he can claim he was terminated by PSU without cause for merely making a trip to the State of Tennessee, he really has no "liquidated damages" to collect here as "liquidated damages" are "Lost Wages" in this instance and his taking a higher paying job at UTenn immediately effectively mitigates any damages that he potentially had in all likelihood.

Labor Law is State-by-State though, so it really depends on how PA typically rules on this stuff, but in the vast majority of States, you cannot enforce "Non-Compete Clauses" that the Employee is receiving NO DISCREET COMPENSATION FOR (i.e., there is no "Contractual Consideration" to the Employee for the "Non-Compete Clause" and the Employer attempting to prevent the Employee from working - especially after they did the "terminating" - is a violation of the Employee's fundamental right to work and make a livelihood).

My guess is that neither side sees a dime under the actual prescribed "liquidated damages clause" because neither of them have collectible damages under the clause......and this is just typical useless, hack lawyers being useless, hack lawyers arguing their own bull$hit trying to cover for their shoddy work in the first place - ESPECIALLY SO ON THE PSU SIDE!
 
I think he's going to have a hard time arguing that Penn State was trying to push him out. It was pretty apparent when he left that HE was the one bailing -- presumably because he knew the 2016 season was going to be a dropoff defensively. It sure LOOKs like his plan was to go to Tenn. for one season and then on to head coaching (so he wouldn't have to pay the buyout).

It just didn't work out the way he planned. Hard to see how it's Penn State's fault.

But who knows, maybe Franklin did want him out. Hard to argue with Shoop's coaching, but maybe there were other issues -- maybe he refused to work the schedule the rest of the staff worked, maybe he didn't want to go on the road recruiting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
PENN STATE FOOTBALL
Fired coordinator countersues
Sued by PSU for breach of contract, Shoop strikes back at ‘intolerable’ work conditions.
Bob Shoop seeks dismissal of Penn State’s breach of contract suit against him, plus $75,000 in damages as part of a counterclaim against the university. (MORNING CALL file photo)
By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call
Former Penn State defensive coordinator Bob Shoop, sued by the university for breach of contract, has filed a counterclaim, saying he was subjected to intolerable work conditions before being forced to leave.
According to the claim filed Thursday, Shoop signed a contract with Penn State in 2015 “under duress” and was “constructively discharged/terminated” from his job in January 2016. Shoop seeks Penn State’s suit to be dismissed plus a minimum of $75,000 in damages from his counterclaim.
Penn State in June sued Shoop for breach of contract , saying the former coach owes the university $891,856 for not complying with the buyout language of his deal. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania this week.
According to a clause in Shoop’s contract, the coach would owe Penn State 50 percent of his remaining base salary if he did not become a head coach at another program within one year of leaving.
Tennessee named Shoop defensive coordinator in January 2016, a position he still holds. Penn State said it has asked Shoop to pay the damages, but the coach refused.
In his counterclaim, Shoop calls the buyout clause “unreasonable” and “unenforceable,” saying that it “constitutes a penalty.” In addition, Shoop claims that Penn State effectively terminated his contract, thus nullifying the buyout and triggering another clause in which Penn State owes Shoop compensation.
Shoop says that he signed the 2015 contract “under duress,” though the claim does not go into specifics regarding how or why. Shoop, who came to Penn State with head coach James Franklin in 2014, initially signed a two-year contract. After other schools showed interest in Shoop following that season, the coach received a new three-year contract worth $1 million annually.
But, according to court documents, Shoop’s “working conditions became intolerable” shortly after he signed the new contract. The counterclaim says Shoop experienced a “hostile, negative work environment” without citing specifics.
In January 2016, the counterclaim states, Shoop was “constructively discharged/terminated from, or forced or compelled to leave, his employment with Penn State.” As a result, Shoop seeks a pro-rated amount of his remaining salary. The claim asks for damages of at least $75,000.
Shoop’s counterclaim paints a different picture of his time at Penn State than the coach himself did just before leaving. In December 2015, as Penn State prepared to play in the TaxSlayer Bowl, Shoop said that he hoped Penn State would “have me forever and ever and ever.”
“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said after a Penn State practice near Jacksonville, Fla. “... I hope Penn State will have me forever and ever and ever. I love being part of coach Franklin’s program, I love what we’re building here and I’ve said this millions of times: I think we’re a [ESPN] 30-for-30 story ready to rock and roll.”
According to his memorandum of understanding with Tennessee, Shoop signed a three-year deal Jan. 11, 2016, worth $1.15 million per year. The contract also says that Shoop is “solely responsible” for his Penn State buyout.


I guess the conditions must not have been too bad since his son stayed and is happy.
So Franklin held a gun to his head and made him sign in 15? Bull shit. I didn't see him turning down the raise and bump in salary
to go somewhere else. Its only when he thought his defense might not be as good and Tenn. was the bright sparkly object. Well Bob how did that turn out for you? I think your defense at Tenn gave up about 600 yards a game the last 4 games. Maybe you just suck.
 
I question the wisdom of this countersuit in terms of its possible impact on Shoop's career. I can't imagine schools are going to line up to hire a guy as HC who claims he signed a contract under duress and then found the working conditions to be intolerable. That does not sound like someone you want running a big time multi million dollar operation.
Also, I am making an assumption here, but I am guessing PSU is considered by most in the college football community to be a good place to work. I doubt the "hostile work environment" claim is going to be believed by other universities.
 
How does someone give an interview saying he hopes to stay @ PSU for a long time and then claim "intolerable work conditions"? If PSU caves on this, they are foolish. Any judge in their right mind should see through that bogus claim and throw it out!

The intolerable work conditions is almost certainly a reference to the fact that "PSU's Lawyers" forced him to sign an onerous contract that contained clearly "UNENFORCEABLE Non-Compete Language" (i.e., the employee is not compensated for it).

What happened in Jan 2016 bolsters his case as PSU is trying to collect damages under a "Liquidated Damages Clause" that has bupkis to do with the unenforceable non-compete language! PSU terminated Shoop immediately for merely visiting the State of Tennessee - he did not "resign". PSU's own contract says the Shoop must RESIGN EARLY for PSU to collect under the "Liquidated Damages Clause" - that is clearly not what happened here.

These "intolerable work conditions" have nothing whatsoever at all to do with CJF and everything to do with PSU's putz, corrupt, "imperialistic" LAWYERS! Keep in mind, these are the same inane, @sshole, politically-corrupt "PSU LAWYERS" who tried to claim they are not subject to PA RTK / Sunshine Laws despite PA Courts repeated ruling that PSU absolutely is subject to these Laws as a "Public Institution" via its very own FOUNDING CHARTER and the STATE LEGISLATION THAT CREATED IT!!!! They also received a threatened "Contempt of Court" from Judge Covey for their "imperialistic", we'll believe and act however the phuck we please - State Laws and Courts don't apply to us, behavior!

This case has everything to do with PSU's hack, hypocrite, corrupt LAWYERS put in their roles by the equally CORRUPT "Executive Committee of the PSU BOT" and their beholding relationships with CORRUPT Pennsylvania lawyers-turned-politicians and former politicians who are still corrupt, hypocritical, scumbag, exclusively self-dealing LAWYERS (kind of like Leroy Zimmerman, Wendell Courtney, Cynthia Baldwin, etc., etc., etc....).
 
Found this on "the sticking point", PSU_91:

Ten days before he got on a plane to Tennessee, Bob Shoop said he hoped to be at Penn State forever.

Things change quickly in the world of major college football.

Penn State’s celebrated defensive coordinator flew to Knoxville on Friday to discuss the same job at Tennessee with Volunteers coach Butch Jones. FOX Sports first reported that Shoop was in negotiations with the Vols.

“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said on Dec. 29 in Florida while preparing for the TaxSlayer Bowl. “This is really a time for our team and looking forward to being out there Saturday with these guys.

“I hope Penn State will have me for forever and ever and ever. I love being a part of Coach (James) Franklin’s program. I love what we’re building here.”

A year ago at this time, another SEC squad — LSU — made a strong pitch to hire Shoop away from the Nittany Lions. In the end, he took less money to stick with Franklin, getting a raise that put him around $1 million annually.

That amended contract may be a sticking point. According to the coaching search website FootballScoop, Shoop’s buyout from Penn State is at least $800,000. It’s a hefty fee for a coordinator, one that goes on top of a seven-figure salary as well as Tennessee’s own buyout paid to former defensive coordinator John Jancek, who was fired on Wednesday.

“We live in an industry that is very competitive, particularly in the SEC, and very market-driven,” Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart said Friday on WNML radio in Knoxville. “We will do what we feel like we need to do and still be fiscally responsible to keep the excitement, energy and progress moving forward with Butch.”

Though the Volunteers have recently been on a lower tier than LSU thanks to two disastrous head coaching hires before Jones, Tennessee may be more attractive to Shoop, who enjoyed his three years living in the state while coaching at Vanderbilt.

Regardless, it’s an upsetting development for Franklin, who laid out his beliefs on staff mobility pretty clearly before the season started.

“None of our coaches should ever leave for a lateral move,” Franklin said. “It should be to become a head coach (for a coordinator) or a coordinator (for a position coach).”

Shoop has made no secret of his desire to become a head coach again and was briefly linked to the opening at Tulane at the end of the regular season.

His first stint in the big chair did not go well, going 7-23 in three seasons leading Ivy League cellar-dweller Columbia.

Making better memories as a head coach has been a motivating factor for him.

“Oh, of course,” Shoop said last week. “I’m as competitive as anybody. Anybody who knows me knows that. And I was a head coach and did not have a successful conclusion to my head coaching experience.

“So if the right opportunity presented itself for me and my family and the people that are important to me, and we sat down and talked about it, sure, that’d be something I’d be interested in.”

If Shoop were to leave, it would mean Penn State would have its fifth different full-time defensive coordinator in six seasons, with Shoop following Tom Bradley, Ted Roof and John Butler out the door.

With that in mind, the Lions would likely give strong consideration to promoting linebacker coach Brent Pry — who already holds the titles of co-defensive coordinator and assistant head coach — to help with continuity.

A month ago, Pry himself was a finalist for the head coaching job at Georgia Southern for the second time in three years.

“They were rumors for you (reporters) — they were reality for me,” Franklin said upon arriving in Florida for the bowl game. “I wasn’t hearing the rumors. I was hearing what was actually going on firsthand. As I’ve told you guys before, I’m going to be very, very supportive of our staff when they have a chance to take steps professionally that are going to be the right things for their careers and more importantly, the right things for their families.

“Some places aren’t like that. Some head coaches aren’t like that. We’re very, very supportive. And because of that, I’m able to be part of the process and know what’s going on.”

Reach Derek Levarse at 570-991-6396 or on Twitter @TLdlevarse

>>
“I don’t plan on going anywhere,” Shoop said on Dec. 29 in Florida while preparing for the TaxSlayer Bowl. “This is really a time for our team and looking forward to being out there Saturday with these guys.

I hope Penn State will have me for forever and ever and ever. I love being a part of Coach (James) Franklin’s program. I love what we’re building here.”<<

So which is it BOB? Intolerable working conditions and a Hostile work environment or you love being part of Franklin 's program and you hope to be here forevs. Hmm BOB which one?
I guess your move was all about you and fuk your son huh?
Well have fun this year at Tenn. my guess is after another lackluster...actually godawful defense you put on the field you'll be looking for a new job. I hear Vandy is in the area. LOL.
giphy.gif
 
I guess the conditions must not have been too bad since his son stayed and is happy.
So Franklin held a gun to his head and made him sign in 15? Bull shit. I didn't see him turning down the raise and bump in salary
to go somewhere else. Its only when he thought his defense might not be as good and Tenn. was the bright sparkly object. Well Bob how did that turn out for you? I think your defense at Tenn gave up about 600 yards a game the last 4 games. Maybe you just suck.

This doesn't have $hit to do with Franklin - it has to do with the @sshole, scumbag, CORRUPT-BOT hired, HACK-LAWYERS who write contracts containing ONEROUS, UNENFORCEABLE bull$hit into "Employment Contracts" (i.e., "Non-Compete Language") and then attempt to claim it applies to an entirely separate "enforceable clause" of the contract - i.e., the "Liquidated Damages Clause" which is reciprocal to both parties......and then tell the counter-party "too bad you have to sign it because we say so", when the counter-party protests! PSU's actions in Jan 2016 prove Shoop's allegations to a tee! PSU is attempting to say the "Liquidated Damages Clause" is actually a "Non-Compete" and it absolutely is not - not only that but they are taking the position that they, PSU, TERMINATING SHOOP and not paying him effective immediately for merely visiting the State of Tennessee is equivalent to "Shoop Resigning", which is what is required for PSU to actually QUALIFY for the stipulated "Liquidated Damages". Shoop didn't in REALITY "resign" or submit a resignation of any kind and was actually TERMINATED by PSU for the "Not For Cause" action of visiting the State of Tennessee without PSU's "approval", huh??? The notion that PSU is the party acting eminently reasonable here (i.e., PSU's Lawyers and HR Dept) is laughable bull$hit - PSU's own actions in Jan 2016 are very strong evidence of just how intolerable these @ssholes truly are (the same @ssholes that Ira Lubert, Dave Joyner and the corrupt PSU OGBOT put into place and they are quite INTOLERABLE in the level of their INCOMPETENCE, ARROGANCE and @SSHOLINESS).
 
I think he's going to have a hard time arguing that Penn State was trying to push him out. It was pretty apparent when he left that HE was the one bailing -- presumably because he knew the 2016 season was going to be a dropoff defensively. It sure LOOKs like his plan was to go to Tenn. for one season and then on to head coaching (so he wouldn't have to pay the buyout).

It just didn't work out the way he planned. Hard to see how it's Penn State's fault.

But who knows, maybe Franklin did want him out. Hard to argue with Shoop's coaching, but maybe there were other issues -- maybe he refused to work the schedule the rest of the staff worked, maybe he didn't want to go on the road recruiting?

Utter nonsense - there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Shoop resigned on Friday, Jan 8, 2016. And BOATLOADS of evidence that Shoop was TERMINATED by PSU on Jan 8, 2016 - including PSU stopping paychecks to Shoop effective immediately apparently! For PSU to collect on the RECIPROCAL "Liquidated Damages Clause" for Shoop "resign early" on the term of his contract, they need to show he RESIGNED, not that they unilaterally TERMINATED HIM for the "not for cause" action and audacity of visiting the State of Tennessee without "Imperial PSU's" permission! LMFAO! The "liquidated Damages Clause" is not a "Unilateral Non-Compete Agreement" -- it is a "RECIPROCAL Liquidated Damages Agreement"!

These same ever-corrupt, scumbag OGBOT "PSU Hack Lawyers" also managed to unnecessarily cost The University hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars in regards to the "Sandusky Affair" while they were holding an INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT from The Second Mile, but never bothered attempting to ENFORCE it! (we only found out it existed and how absurdly Ira Lubert handled the "victim settlement" negotiations due the Insurance Company COUNTER-SUING these hack, jackal-PSU-lawyers!). These are also the same corrupt OGBOT hack-PSU-lawyers that RTK / Sunshine Laws don't apply to PSU despite PA Law emphatically saying it does via its very own FOUNDING CHARTER which is itself a piece of PA LEGISLATION (i.e., PA Law)! A corrupt OGBOT hack-lawyer Dept that was formerly run by Wendell Courtney and then Cynthia Baldwin.....but of course, we're now arguing their work is wonderful because their butchering of PA Law and PSU interests is now in relation to Shoop????

This entire suit and the "intolerable conditions" cited has ZERO to do with James Franklin and PSU Football.......and EVERYTHING to do with PSU's hack, corrupt, incompetent, scumbag, "politically placed" LAWYERS writing bull$hit, onerous, unreasonable, unenforceable (i.e., "illegal") CONTRACTS to please their corrupt OGBOT politically-subservient Masters! And Shoop is almost certainly correct that attempting to deal with these arrogant, scumbag, hypocritical, corrupt, "imperialistic" @ssholes is a very, very, very "intolerable workplace".
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT