[BostonCard]

Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches.

If Stanford had waived the mitigation clause and would be paying the money regardless, why would it take umbrage at the back-loaded contract.  The only reason that a backloaded contract would bother Stanford is if it meant that Stanford was paying more than it reasonably should have, but that would only be the case if the mitigation clause were still in force.  Otherwise, it makes no difference to Stanford if Dawkins coaches for millions of dollars (and collects Stanford's termination settlement) or sits on his butt collecting his Stanford termination settlement or coaches for peanuts because he knows he's still getting paid by Stanford.

The only thing I can think of is that when Stanford saw Dawkins back-loaded contract, that it insisted on paying him based on the Dawkins average annual salaries with UCF rather than the actual salary for the first two years, as is becoming the practice (per oldalum on this thread).  That might make more sense if Dawkins retorts that the settlement did not include an average salary clause, and that is the source of the disagreement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches.

If Stanford had waived the mitigation clause and would be paying the money regardless, why would it take umbrage at the back-loaded contract.  The only reason that a backloaded contract would bother Stanford is if it meant that Stanford was paying more than it reasonably should have, but that would only be the case if the mitigation clause were still in force.  Otherwise, it makes no difference to Stanford if Dawkins coaches for millions of dollars (and collects Stanford's termination settlement) or sits on his butt collecting his Stanford termination settlement or coaches for peanuts because he knows he's still getting paid by Stanford.

The only thing I can think of is that when Stanford saw Dawkins back-loaded contract, that it insisted on paying him based on the Dawkins average annual salaries with UCF rather than the actual salary for the first two years, as is becoming the practice (per oldalum on this thread).  That might make more sense if Dawkins retorts that the settlement did not include an average salary clause, and that is the source of the disagreement.

BC