I agree with Jeremy because....

The "ME" generation includes Jeremy Wariner. Whatever happened to loyalty and appreciation?

indycar wrote:

The "ME" generation includes Jeremy Wariner. Whatever happened to loyalty and appreciation?

it died in the 80s. the me generation was full strength then.

1) all agents these days take 15%, even Ray Flynn

2) Most coaches are only making a flat fee, I assume Adidas took care of Hart's flat fee, and I am sure it's pretty generous. Maybe when JW was a newbie on the international scene, he needed a lot more coaching re: race strategy, maybe he wasn't getting into the biggest meets. Well now he is a veteran so I think it makes sense for tht % to decrease. I think it was very generous to have a % in the contract at all.

3) Most pro runners are making 30-50k a year. They pay their agents 15%, would you think it was fair for them to have to give their coaches a % on top of a flat fee? You are talking about people who barely make enough anyway.

I think that win % thing was an exception, not the norm, anyway. I wonder if Sanya is paying him the same way?

indycar wrote:

The "ME" generation includes Jeremy Wariner. Whatever happened to loyalty and appreciation?

You're saying a person should stay in a bad business situation because of loyalty? If Jeremy is not happy with the level of service, or the price of that service, he should be free to negotiate new terms or end the relationship. The same goes for Clyde. If he's unhappy with something, renegotiate or part ways.

You don't stay in a bad situation because of loyalty.

Not sure I agree wrote:

Moes Tavern wrote:

Yes, and it would still be called amateur athletics.

It's not called "amateur athletics" now. It's called "professional athletics". Or just "athletics"

Yes, thank you. Due to agents it is called professional athletics. That was the point of my using plain english to say it would STILL be called "amateur athletics" a reference topre-agent days. Agents along with the athletes stood up to meet promoters who used to bank big time when they didn't need to pay jack for the athletes.

I want to say I support all the arguments stating we don't know enough about this specific situation, but all of this is based on assumption either way.

I have to say I feel I'm missing something because everybody continues to say JW is paying this % out of his pocket. I am under the impression that this 10% is not of JW's salary (that he makes from his contract from Adidas) but that it is 10% of his winnings (which does include sponsorship? which would differ from his contract?). So if Hart is paid a flat fee contract (from Adidas?) as well as Wariner, then this % based on winnings should not go down as winnings go up.

I agree, if JW was upset with the situation then change it or end (same goes for Hart). But was it a bad relationship? JW was going for another double gold (400, 4x400?) and a possible world record in the 400. It seems everything was on track. So if everything is the same (if not better than before) why cut the %? To my understanding, its a bonus and always has been. Just because JW's bonus is expected to be larger in amount doesn't mean the % should be any different for Hart (unless there were reasons unknown to us right now).

No matter what adjective you want to use to describe the move (greedy on either's part, stupid on either's part, etc) nobody can deny that it is a bad track move, made even worse with the timing of the move. I cannot believe that one man would be so oblivious to obvious reasons not to screw with your coaching/athlete relationship. Either way, JW needs new people to watch what he does - either they advised him to make this bad track move, or they turned a blind eye to this bad track move.

I want to add that if you feel the % should go down as the winnings increase (essentially saying you will make too much if you keep the same %) then that is effectively making it a flat rate. Hart would then be entitled to INCREASING his % when the winnings drop in order to continue making the same. This basically creates a flat rate, so if JW wants to be consistent with this method of bonus pay, then he should be ready to pay him that amount when the winnings aren't so good.

Again, all of this is assuming that there weren't any unusual relationship problems or if Hart's role was changed at all in the last year.

If the athlete is good enough - he/she does not need an agent. What is wrong with doing your own negotiation with the meet director!!!

Can someone tell me what the hell a manger is?

I see the need for an agent and a coach but a manager? Is it someone who like holds his hand as he drives from the meet to the hotel. I hope he's not on a percentage basis.

Perhaps the term manager should be changed to hanger on.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Hart has skills to enhance the asset but there are many more like him who can probably come close in results.

[/quote]

The key word here is CLOSE. He is competing in a sport where wins and losses and hundreds of thousands of dollards are determined by fractions of a second.

Fortunately Jeremy is about half a second faster than the rest of the world, but he still doesn't have too much room for error. If he doesn't think his coach makes that much of a difference then fine.

But the same logic for taking a coach off a percentage basis exists for the agent as well. He does no more work if Jeremy gets $20,000 for a meet or $50,000.

It's why Grant Hill went for a flat fee for his agen. Makes a lot of since in sports with a set payscale.

wejo wrote:

Can someone tell me what the hell a manger is?

The manager is the guy who would have stepped in and told Wariner not to dump his coach six months before the Olympics. I don't think many track athletes have managers, though.

wejo,

Please explain the flat rate for an agen benefitting an athlete. I always assumed that with a flat rate an agent will do the same work no matter what (ex: if JW gets 20k or 50k at a meet, agent still gets $10k). whereas if the agent has a % he ALWAYS wants to do the extra work get more, therefore JW getting more. just my thoughts on the subject, but honestly please explain the flat rate benefitting either the athlete or the agent (in my mind it benefits the agent before the athlete)?

Me guy wrote:

You're saying a person should stay in a bad business situation because of loyalty? If Jeremy is not happy with the level of service, or the price of that service, he should be free to negotiate new terms or end the relationship.

As many people have pointed out, we don't really know the dynamics of what went on prior to the split. As you say, if Wariner is not happy with the level or price of serive, he should be free to renegotiate or split. No one disputes that.

BUT: we're looking at a guy who has been the best in the world for four years, and shows every sign of continuing to improve. I think most of the posters here just think he should take a careful look around before he concludes that the grass is greener somewhere else. If he does ANYTHING other than win Olympic gold this summer, his earnings over the long term decline far more than the 5% of one year's earnings he's saving now. As of now, he's on a trajectory pointing towards a possible world record, and potentially the ability to command significant appearance fees for the rest of his life. If he deviates from that trajectory -- say by jumping to a new and untested coaching situation -- his potential downside is immense, and his upside is just 5% of one year's earnings.

indycar wrote:

The "ME" generation includes Jeremy Wariner. Whatever happened to loyalty and appreciation?

Very good question. I'm assuming however its not a concept that Mr. Wermwood can appreciate.

Also, I think I know why Wermwood Wariner wanted to cut his coach's fee to 5%. Have you seen the price of gold lately? Wow, talk about inflation - close to a grand an ounce. How the heck is Wermwood going to pay for all that fancy jewelry he wears on the track? I'm sure the cost of those fancy dancy sunglasses have gone up as well. I will now start cutting the guy some slack. However, I certainly expect that he will look all fancy dancy and flashy in the olympics. Hey, its the olympics, you don't expect the guy to wear the old jewelry do you?

If Hart is still coaching at Baylor? If he is just think of the PR that Warner is giving him. This helps for recruiting to Baylor.

Gee Sus, can we get back to the question?

You guys are like herding cats!

I agree with Jeremy because...

... I am a college drop out

... I cut my nose off to despite my face all the time

... Bejing's pollution and weather makes it a dice roll anyways

Jeremy is so right. Why on earth would he go to the starting line working on about 50 cents on the dollar. MJ and the coach teamed up on the kid when he first started and put large percentages on the kid. One is taking 20 and the other is taking 10 and on top of that , he is probably paying him another 50,000 or more for training. he strikes me as a kid that doesn't come from a silver spoon family. Well he has a mother , father , probably sisters and brothers. he's got no commericals. aside from Adidas, he is running for his life. i'm surprise That Baylor allows the coach to run a business on their campus and still be the director of track and field.

Not sure if this has already been asked but does anybody know what percentage Alan Webb's coach gets? What about the distance coaches?

"i'm surprise That Baylor allows the coach to run a business on their campus and still be the director of track and field".

Are you crazy? Baylor loves having Hart run his pro operation on the Baylor track. Why would every talented 400m kid in America would want to come to Waco to train next to Wariner and Co, and hang around MJ? Hart coaching Wariner is the best tool that Baylor recruiting ever had.

Coach Hart deserves better.

Jeremy Wariner, who will likely be the greatest 400m runner of all time, is, to be frank, a dick in this situation.