I agree with Jeremy because....

I think Former Pro is mistaking where the greed lies in this situation. It seems he is implying that Hart needs the the extra 5% and is being "greedy" because he didn't accept the new contract. Keep in mind the status quo on the contract has been 10% every year. It isn't losing the "5% of a million", it is the slap in the face that went along with the paycut that made Hart turn down the new contract. The Dallas news article quotes Hart saying something along the lines of 'I don't want to coach someone who doesn't want me as a coach'. Hart probably feels this paycut is Wariner telling him he isn't AS important as previous years.

It seems like a case of the CEO (Wariner) of a very large company (Oly Gold and WR Hopeful, INC) thinking he is the one getting the results, not the entry level position (Hart) actually doing the dirty work and turning results. He becomes successful, sees a particularly promising year ahead in terms of pay and decides to take a larger cut. For whatever reason (whether justified or not) that Wariner cut Hart's pay, the fact that he is not taking care of Hart like he has in the past is low - for as much as Hart has given to him, this is disrespectful.

It isn't about the money, it is about Hart feeling the slap.

1. Whose idea was it to reduce the pay, Jeremy's, Michael's, or someone else?

2. Did he also offer his agent a 50% reduction on the contract?

Flagpole, you are right on with this. Why didn't jerkass Wariner cut his agents fee down to 5%? Is the agent now coaching dickhead. Seems like the coach is much more important. Sounds like asshole dipshit greedy scumbag Wariner is not the sharpest man on the track.

I agree with RON Jeremy.

Adam Smith wrote:

Flagpole, you are right on with this. Why didn't jerkass Wariner cut his agents fee down to 5%? Is the agent now coaching dickhead. Seems like the coach is much more important. Sounds like asshole dipshit greedy scumbag Wariner is not the sharpest man on the track.

Who could argue with such eloquent reasoning? Have you thought about debating as a vocation?

I've never read or heard of such total ignorance as what is being displayed here by posters. Your 7-11 jobs are in no way descriptive of what is going on.

Apparently Hart was getting ten percent of everything W made, plus all travel expenses to Meets, Trials, Worlds, Olympics etc. plus a guaranteed flat coaching fee (the ten percent would normally cover this flat fee for a successful athlete).. Add to this the fees and expenses of agents and managers. As more than one athlete has found out, they are being nickel and dimed to death. After awhile these people become like leeches, especially the agents and managers. This probably could have been worked out if Hart had settled for a flat fee instead of wanting ten percent of everything Wariner makes the rest of his athletic life?

Wariner is not making the kind of money Johnson made.

Nice to hear you people mouth off when you are completely ignorant of the complete facts. Hart is NOT a victim on this. Real life interceded. I believe Wariner rightly feels that he does not owe ten percent of the rest of his life's income to a coach who is becoming less influential in his life. Such is real life - for Hart, Wariner and everyone else. Events out distance the best of us.

I am surprised at Flaggie's ignorant take on this. But then why would he know?

Grammerian wrote:

Who could argue with such eloquent reasoning? Have you thought about debating as a vocation?

Only if you agree to be my agent/coach and agree to a 5% commission.

One more comment here. Most employees that work for public companies have a bonus plan. When the company makes large profits, all employees get more because (in theory)they all have contributed to the success of the company. It's called an INCENTIVE plan for a reason. The company doesn't sit back and say, "We've made alot of money this year and because of that we're going to change the Bonus formula because we think are employees would get too much". Only if you're Wariner I guess.

I've run out of adjectives to go with the name Wariner.

Glad to see JW reads letsrun.

1) If he didn't like the terms, he shouldn't have agreed to them initially.

2) Lots of people make deals based on percentages. That's actually the most fair way -- the more you make the more I make. That way it behooves both to give their best effort.

3) I never said Hart was a victim. He has other athletes and can get more still. But, just because he's not a victim doesn't mean that Wariner isn't greedy...and Wariner is greedy, pure and simple.

I tend to agree with "I know what letsrun is like." The coach to an athlete is much more of a CONSULTANT than he is an EMPLOYEE.

If you want to talk straight business, which is what it seems a lot of people on here want to do, then J. Wariner is a business who had the resources but needed help with organizing and making the best out of those resources, thus "hiring" coach Hart. Once the business realizes such consultation is no longer necessary or not worth the price they are paying for it, the consultant leaves to consult another business with the previous successful business on its resume. whether or not the business can thrive without the consultant is something the business (we are still talking about J. Wariner here if you are confused) will have to find out and live with. simple.

From a strictly subjective, more human standpoint, I certainly would not tinker with all of the success in an Olympic year and would be glad to take the financial hit and reevaluate after the olympics. but that is me and I am not J. Wariner.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

[

2) Quit complaining about taxes. We all pay them. If someone has a salary of $100,000, THAT'S how they think of it. The don't think of it as taking home closer to $65,000.

Yeah, it's a shame the guy thinks about seeing $35,000.00 of HIS money that HE EARNED disappear in taxes.

Idiot of the year post wrote:

Flagpole Willy wrote:

[

2) Quit complaining about taxes. We all pay them. If someone has a salary of $100,000, THAT'S how they think of it. The don't think of it as taking home closer to $65,000.

Yeah, it's a shame the guy thinks about seeing $35,000.00 of HIS money that HE EARNED disappear in taxes.

You're right, your's was the idiot post of the year.

...no state income tax in Texas...

Idiot of the year post wrote:

Flagpole Willy wrote:

[

2) Quit complaining about taxes. We all pay them. If someone has a salary of $100,000, THAT'S how they think of it. They don't think of it as taking home closer to $65,000.

Yeah, it's a shame the guy thinks about seeing $35,000.00 of HIS money that HE EARNED disappear in taxes.

1) The original poster was adding costs up for Wariner and included something that we all have to pay. Boo hoo.

2) Anyone who complaines that they have to pay taxes AT ALL is just a complainer. Two things are for certain -- death and taxes. Waste of time to complain about either. Can't escape death. Can make up for the taxes by making so much money that you don't care about paying taxes. That's why you should invest 15% OR more each year so that when you retire you've got a shitpile so big that even big taxes won't matter.

first off, Hart's 10% is tax deductible if you know how to do your taxes.

Second, I can't believe that him and MJ fired Hart without even talking to the man. That's the part I really don't get.

Third, JW should have asked MJ to take a 50% pay cut instead.

Just caught up to this thread and will have to agree with KWLIL.

I've consulted with numerous businesses and now run several smaller ones. Our focus is and always has been on margin improvement.

When you are a start up you try to convert everyone to a variable cost formula. By variable cost I mean try to get everyone paid as a percentage of sales. You have crappy margins but your carrying costs and associate risk are reduced. For this you pay out higher percentages.

Now when you have stabilized and are looking at larger revenue sources down the road you then need to convert everyone to a fixed cost basis. A reduced or capped percentage of sales would work in this situation. The reduced percentage will earn them more than when you were a start up but not so much that you don't realize the goal of improving your margins.

Sooooooo, when Wariner hadn't yet hit his stride, a 10% of earnings was appropriate to coach Hart. Now that he is about to hit a huge payday Wariner has to restructure his costs or he will miss out on a huge opportunity.

It is not disrespectful to Hart. He will make more at 5% next year then he would ever have made at 10% in years past. His assertion that he is taking a "pay cut" is absolutely false. He would have made more pay but a smaller percentage of Wariner's gross. The way I see it, Hart maybe more eligible for the FPW's "greedy" tag than Wariner.

I'm shocked that FPW sees this as greed on Wariner’s part. It is not even remotely greedy. It is a sound and fundamental business move on Wariner's part. The only thing wrong about this transaction is that it should have been taken care of last year in a mutually agreeable manner instead of a last second jab with everyone feeling jilted. For this I blame not Hart or Wariner but whoever is his business advisor/agent.

Former pro wrote:

What if you made 100k and took home 30 - 35,000. You go to school get a great degree make $100,000 out of school but you have to pay 10% on top of the other percentages to a professor that helped you during your whole college experience. You may do it because your such a loyal person but it would be tough to swallow.

I know people have helped him including Clyde but should he also give his parents,teachers,high school coaches,AAU coaches,gym teachers etc. a percentage. Clyde helped but so did many others.

I think NIKE should step up even more and pay the % for Jeremy. They should know that this could kill his chances of winning GOLD especially with this going down less than 6 months until Trials and less than 9 to the SHOW.

What's with the past tense? He was paying Hart for being his coach in the present tense.

And why is it that everyone expects the shoe companies to foot the bill? Why doesn't MJ foot the bill? If Wariner gets his ass handed to him this year, he makes less money so MJ makes less money. The agent, who is supposed to have a fiduciary duty to the client (to work in his best interest), should recognize that Clyde Hart is in Wariner's best interest, and should do all he can to not have his client's or his own interests devalued.

We might just see how good of a coach Hart is. If Wariner goes to someone else or coaches himself and wins gold, sets a WR, etc then it takes a little shine off of Hart. However, if Wariner falls short (and anything less than a gold is going to be a failure) then it will show Hart was worth the money.

As someone else noted a reduction to 5% could lead to the same gross pay if the pot from which it comes is larger. If Wariner wins gold again, his appearance fees (does the coach get a cut of that?) will increase dramatically and might yield the same return.

As I see it this is a common situation, the employer and employee differ offer compensation. They do not agree so the relationship ends. It is not personal, it is business. However, I do not think that with 191 days before the games begin that breaking with your coach is the smartest move if the results have been as good as they have been.

That's pretty much where I'm at on this. The summary on the front page of letsrun.com says this:

"The specifics of the split have now come out. Apparently Wariner tried to reduce Hart's percentage of his winnings from 10% to 5%. Hart is a class act and man of principal."

Aside from the amusing misspelling of "principle" (although "principal" may actually be more accurate), Hart's assertion (apparently unconfirmed by anyone else) was that Wariner's proposal would have reduced Hart's take to "about" five percent. That word "about" says a lot. My guess is that there was some sort of guarantee plus bonus, with the bonus tied to all or part of Wariner's gross income. Hart's characterization of Wariner's proposal was probably based upon all kinds of assumptions about what Wariner would make for (as examples) winning an Olympic gold medal, breaking a world record, breaking a world record in the Olympic final, anchoring a winning 4x4 at the Olympics, getting a lucrative Coca-Cola endorsement and his picture on the Wheaties cereal box, and so on. My guess is that, if Wariner pulled up lame at the Olympic trials and missed the Olympics and most of the outdoor track season, Wariner's proposal might look pretty good next to a straight 10% of a much smaller-than-anticipated gross.

Also, keep in mind that Hart isn't even a full-time coach for Wariner. In economic terms, Hart is able to -- and does -- diversify his financial risks by coaching other athletes, including Sanya Richards. Wariner, on the other hand, is being paid to be Jeremy Wariner, full-time. He's always one step away from disaster.

Finally, the idea that Wariner is breaking some longstanding compact is, at the least, unsubstantiated. Apparently, in the past, Hart has stuck a one-year fee agreement in Wariner's face each year, and Wariner has signed it. I don't see anything magnanimous about Hart's past fee arrangements. It's not as though these guys exchanged wedding vows some years ago, with Hart promising to stand by Wariner for better or for worse, rich or poor, in sickness or in health . . . .