I agree with Jeremy because....

Former pro wrote:

What if you made 100k and took home 30 - 35,000.

Pro sport is like the rest of the entertainment industry (acting in particular). The salaries account for agents, managers, et al.

Assume JW makes $1M. That $1M is not meant to be his actual pay. It is meant to include his pay, but also include the institutional costs of the biz (agents, etc.).

If there were no agents, coaches, managers, then the pay would be less.

I think this is a very good point-that the gross earnings contains an allowance for agents etc.

I also disagree with the notion that Hart should take a lower percentage because the gross earnings will be more.

If you take any amount of earnings as a percentage, it is a contingent fee. 10% of 0 is 0!

I would assume that Hart coached JW for free or for a nominal amount at the outset. Surely he is as entitled as JW to reap the rewards of success.

the grump wrote:

If there were no agents, coaches, managers, then the pay would be less.

Yes, and it would still be called amateur athletics.

Ah, there's the rub. Is Hart entitled to share, on a pro rata basis, with Wariner's success? My take would be only if he is a stakeholder in Wariner, Inc. If not then he is merely a consultant who is worth a finite price. By stakeholder I mean that Hart would have needed to have had some type of partnership agreement with Jeremy that would share the risk of loss as well as the potential for profits of Wariner, Inc. An example of shared risk would be, "JW, if you don't hit it big, I will promise to support you through a mutually agreeable period of time until you get back on your feet as an accountant or a letsrun.com poster in your Mom's basement, whichever comes first."I'm not familiar with Hart's and JW's agreement but I doubt that Hart took on that kind of risk of loss. So without that, what type of risk did Hart take? If Wariner pulled up lame when his earnings were meager what did Hart lose? Potential earnings? That's like you said, he got 10% of 0 which is only zero, not negative. He could have lost his time and effort but that loss was also spread over other athletes that he was coaching at the time so no real risk there. He only had upside. So unless I'm pulling a FPW, which could be the case, Hart is not entitled to a pro rata share JW's upside.My sense is that Hart is like any other coach; too emotionally connected to his athlete to think rationally or objectively. Emotions make for bad business decisions and rarely ever work when negotiating contracts.

another canuck wrote:

I think this is a very good point-that the gross earnings contains an allowance for agents etc.

I also disagree with the notion that Hart should take a lower percentage because the gross earnings will be more.

If you take any amount of earnings as a percentage, it is a contingent fee. 10% of 0 is 0!

I would assume that Hart coached JW for free or for a nominal amount at the outset. Surely he is as entitled as JW to reap the rewards of success.

Former Pro,

I don't care if you ran professionally or not, you're a tool dude. Give it up man.

Flagpole- get some hormone replacement therapy and maybe you'll understand that not everyone is a docile little hampster like you

the grump wrote:

If there were no agents, coaches, managers, then the pay would be less.

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"

Former Pro,

I don't care if you ran professionally or not, you're a tool dude. Give it up man

Run2Win,

It was just my opinion. The other stuff was all in a joking way. The more I read the true facts about the situation the more I lean toward the other side. I apologize if you think I'm a tool but it's just a message board full of opinions.

El Jefe,

I'm no expert in any of these business fields, just a spectator, so I must ask - what does JW lose if he doesn't succeed? You mention Hart doesn't lose anything because 10% of 0 is 0. JW must pay Hart for his services (assuming Hart has a 'salary' on top of his % bonus), but he has received the services paid for. If JW does not succeed, then how does he lose anything? Since these bonuses are on a success basis if JW loses every race, he will then get the 90% of 0 is still 0, not negative (well take away agents fees, managers fees and all that, but you get the idea). In fact, JW doesn't pay for gear probably, doesn't pay for entrance fees, etc.

So if you are basing this on the fact that Hart has nothing to lose, isn't JW in the same boat? Yes Hart may have other athletes, but JW should have the rest of his life with a different profession as well (or the same).

So since this is all on bonus money, % of 0 is 0 for all of them. Just my observations, please let me know your thoughts....

Good questions mooola and of course these are just my observations but JW is the one who has the intangible/wasting asset. His skills are in very short supply and are in high demand. Also, they will be valuable for a finite period.Hart has skills to enhance the asset but there are many more like him who can probably come close in results. So while JW doesn't technically lose anything he is the one who brings all the talent to the table. A good analogy may be a partnership where someone owns a valuable piece of land in a great location. Others will place a value on that asset and join the partnership by "buying into it". If the thing goes tits up they will lose their “buy in” value and therefore are at risk. If it does well they have every right to share pro rata in the upside. The person who owns the land gets value for having the asset and the location. Their downside is that the land may be useless or worth less after the thing implodes. Unless you buy into this partnership you are just another employee/consultant whose costs should be controlled. As previously mentioned, a “buy in” could be construed as deferred compensation or an agreement to forgo value today for more at a later date. There are many ways to skin a cat and I’m not privy to JW, Hart or MJ’s agreement but I just doubt that coach/athlete relationships are that well documented, especially in the beginning of a career. More likely than not, they just had a spit and a handshake type of agreement, which is probably why Wejo, FPW and Hart are so aghast at the termination of the relationship. I think the split was stupid but only because it appears to be so ill-timed and handled very unprofessionally.

serial repeater wrote:

No one cared that Allyson Felix has humped around with various coaches.

Are you serious? That is awesome and I care! I would loveto see pictures or videos of this. Allyson Felix humping. Yeah, baby. Yeah!

You are way off regarding Clyde Hart when you say that his value is limited there are many more coaches like him. You do not know track and field in this country if you make this statement. Check the Baylor record regarding the 4x400, something like placing in the top 3 in the NC's in the relay for 24 of the past 28 years. Warimer and Williamson have left the school / team during the last couple of years, and guess who still won the Nationals in the 4x400, the Baylor Bears.

There is a very short list of the best 400 meter runners (and 400 hurdlers) in the country over the last 20 years, and many have the same link, Clyde Hart. I hope that Jeremy isn't making a big mistake during the season that should be his biggest payday. Clyde was worth every penny.

MA Coach wrote:

Clyde was worth every penny.

I haven't read much of a debate about whether he was worth every penny that he was paid. I think the more relevant issue is whether he would be worth every penny that he was demanding for 2008. As far as I can tell, nobody here seems to know the terms that Wariner offered, the terms that Hart demanded, and the projected revenues upon which Hart's compensation might have been based under various proposals and scenarios, so -- even if I knew something about the value of a 400-meter coach -- I would find it difficult to judge whether he was asking for too much to act as Wariner's part-time coach for 2008.

It's hard to tell who, if anyone, was being greedy, or disloyal, or just plain stupid. All I've seen is an article based largely on Hart's comments, along with an inaccurate summary of Hart's position on the front page of letsrun.com and a bunch of speculation among the posters here.

I think greed is a silly word to use in general.

Wariner decided that in an Olympic year he would offer his coach a 50% reduction in his rate of pay (thereabouts). This, not surprisingly, led to Hart passing on the offer and the two parting ways. I just think from a track perspective it's a bad move. I assume Wariner will continue with the same type of training or close to it, but without Hart's input. It might pay off and Wariner might benefit. However, I think it's a gamble. Imagine if he gets injured during a 200 (which I've read is not something Hart likes him doing so much) or if he does anything that results in him not winning the gold this summer he'll be looked at as a fool and with good reason.

I don't see greed as a factor for either party, just a difference of opinion on the appropriate compensation, which happens in business all the time. The problem is that a lot is at stake. It would be like an NFL team firing a successful coach right as a playoff bye was secured. We're way too close to the Olympics for this to happen. I think Wariner will suffer and won't reach the same heights he would have if things had continued as they had, but it might not catch up to him this year.

There are two sides of every story.

What if Clyde was gradually doing less and less of actual personal coaching?

We don't know the whole story. Maybe Jeremy needs someone who can give him more attention that Hart can provide?

Maybe Jeremy isn't the dumb greedy prick as everyone is making him out to be.

Who knows.

serial repeater wrote:

Maybe Jeremy isn't the dumb greedy prick as everyone is making him out to be.

Well, not "everyone," but certainly the people at letsrun.com.

I've read the articles that have been cited on the front page of letsrun.com, and I don't think that any fair-minded person could confidently conclude that Wariner let his own greed get in the way of loyalty and good sense. One could just as easily conclude that the relationship fell apart because of Hart's unwarranted expectations, greed, or misplaced pride. Does letsrun.com have some inside information that hasn't been published, or is it just passing judgment on Wariner based on a few comments by his disgruntled former coach?

From what I can discern, Hart wanted his new contract to compensate him in an amount equal to the same percentage of a much larger and much more probable stream of income than in past years. In probabilistic terms, he was apparently seeking a much higher expected value for continuing to perform his part-time job of coaching Jeremy Wariner. I'm just guessing, of course, but considering that it's an Olympic year, and Wariner is in a sport and an event that no one in the U.S. cares about in non-Olympic years, Hart may well have been insisting on an expected value of at least 200% to 300% of the amount that he had received for the same job in past years. That's a heck of a pay raise. One could, of course, take the position that Hart was, in effect, seeking to recover deferred compensation for the lean years, but I haven't heard anyone say that he was grossly underpaid in past years.

Without knowing the details, I'm fairly confident that I would have acquiesced in Hart's demands if I had been in Wariner's position, and I probably would have felt guilty about even considering a smaller percentage. But I'm a pushover in such matters. These two guys apparently aren't.

The random ignorance that FW displays on this subject is scary. And he is trying to give financial advice to letsrun posters? I used to be a flaggie supporter but now I see how shallow he really is. Let it go flaggie, you are trying to offer advice on something you are alarmingly ignorant about.

Each yearly contract stands on its own. That is how Hart wanted it and that is what he now gets - he didn't want a long term contract previously because he thought he could maximize his profits each year as Wariner improved, and thus improve his own earnings. So who is greedy?

dave barry wrote:

well, i'd get rid of the agent and keep the coach. jeremy doesn't strike me as a bright guy but how hard is it to be the best in your event and ask for a satisfactory appearance fee?

I agree. Lose the agent.

I say the coach is a far more important factor to success (assuming success as a sprinter is a function of how fast you run... a resonable assumption, I think).

I don't care if the agent is Michael Johnson or Don King, he's not the one who will get you running WR's and winning gold medals.

Just because Hart can have multiple athletes doesn't mean a percentage agreement with Wariner is unfair. In your same case where Wariner gets injured, if Wariner had agreed to pay a flat fee, then he would have to have continued paying Hart even while injured, but if there's a percentage in place and he isn't earning anything then he pays nothing.