[Goose]

I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.
<snip>

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

Unless I misunderstand you, the "entire amount owed for the last two years" is exactly that. That is not "the entire amount owed less whatever somebody else will pay him". So that does on the face of it waive the offset clause, doesn't it? Clearly Dawkins is saying that he  believes that was the agreement. Here is the operative information from the Wilner article.

According to court documents, Dawkins agreed to release any claims (financial or otherwise) against Stanford upon his dismissal. In exchange, the university agreed to pay him $2.3 million and drop the mitigation provision in his contract — future earning would not be used to offset his lump-sum payment from Stanford.

So it is clear that Dawkins is saying the mitigation clause was waived, in which case the structure of the subsequent employment contract wouldn't matter to Dawkins. There are other good reasons that Dawkins may have accepted a back-loaded contract. One very good reason would be that UCF couldn't afford to pay him that much if they had to start right away. This way, they have two years to raise the money. That may have been OK with Dawkins because he gets more money, he just has to wait for it. There could be other reasons, like tax issues, that make it reasonable to Dawkins even with the mitigation clause not operative. As to why Stanford might have waived the clause, it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford. We don't know if it is true (yet), but it clear from the Wilner article that Dawkins asserts the mitigation clause was waived.

[Goose]

I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.
<snip>

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

Unless I misunderstand you, the "entire amount owed for the last two years" is exactly that. That is not "the entire amount owed less whatever somebody else will pay him". So that does on the face of it waive the offset clause, doesn't it? Clearly Dawkins is saying that he  believes that was the agreement. Here is the operative information from the Wilner article.

According to court documents, Dawkins agreed to release any claims (financial or otherwise) against Stanford upon his dismissal. In exchange, the university agreed to pay him $2.3 million and drop the mitigation provision in his contract — future earning would not be used to offset his lump-sum payment from Stanford.

So it is clear that Dawkins is saying the mitigation clause was waived, in which case the structure of the subsequent employment contract wouldn't matter to Dawkins. There are other good reasons that Dawkins may have accepted a back-loaded contract. One very good reason would be that UCF couldn't afford to pay him that much if they had to start right away. This way, they have two years to raise the money. That may have been OK with Dawkins because he gets more money, he just has to wait for it. There could be other reasons, like tax issues, that make it reasonable to Dawkins even with the mitigation clause not operative. As to why Stanford might have waived the clause, it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford. We don't know if it is true (yet), but it clear from the Wilner article that Dawkins asserts the mitigation clause was waived.