How does a club have a worldwide pool of managers to choose from, yet Petke apparently only has the US to choose from? I'm not saying he'd be a lock in another country, but given how many leagues there are out there, it's hard to say he's the least likely candidate for all of them.
First, there are always more applicants than openings. Always a question of the "right" applicant...but still far fewer openings than applicants, which gives an advantage to a club unless you are the next AF...but even then, JK lasted one season at NYCFC, Bradley paid a lot of dues in Europe only to get less than 90 days at Swansea...and he is one of our best MLS managers. Second, Petke has had all of 2 weeks on trial at a club abroad, if I have it right. It is just very hard for US managers to get a toehold overseas. Jesse Marsch has been an exception in that regard. With lesser leagues, you wonder if check is clearing each week, etc. That's pro. Now let's loo at college teams. Could be a possibility--a name that could recruit, etc. But if you are a university today...do you want a guy with temper issues that have gotten a lot of air play in court? It's a risk for him.
A lot going on here today: Waibel served a subpoena RSL files motion to dismiss case (arbitration as required remedy) One really interesting detail that came out: Mike Petke's 2017 contract
The last page is most interesting to me from an ongoing perspective. Those bonus tranches are interesting in comparison to one another. Win MLS cup: $25K Win SS: $10K Win Open Cup: same as MLS Cup, $25K [emoji2962] Win CCL: $30K And those youth clauses. Smart.
Man, there is a lot going on in that contract that I question Mike’s decision making with the lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, so I’d need someone to weigh in on how these items are affected by filing a suit, but these items stick out to me: 1) Item 1.01.J & L state Mike’s employment duties include “Institute, Disseminate and Enforce Team and League Rules” and “Attend Club mandated media/public relations training”. If he really performed these duties, there is zero chance that he did not understand the league’s stance and definition of the word “********”, and it is a bold faced lie in his suit that he thought the word meant chicken or coward. 2) Item 1.04 spells out the manner in which Petke can protest his termination and attempt to enforce the contract. Did his legal counsel not read the contract, or did they think they could just strong arm the team into paying the contract through pseudo blackmail (pay the contract or they go public with the information contained in the suit)? 3) Item 5.03 states “Non-Disparagement. Employee agrees that during the Term and for one (l) year thereafter, he shall refrain from making any disparaging remarks regarding the Club or the Team, its players, management, ownership, employees, or fans.” How does this affect the suit? Petke’s entire suit is predicated on the belief that RSL and DLH have victimized him and DLH has created a toxic work environment. It paints him in a bad light and is the definition of disparagement. According to the contract, he has breached this agreement by making disparaging comments within one year of his termination. 4) Item 7.13 states “Attorney Fees. In the event that either party seeks to enforce this Agreement, whether by the filing of a legal action or otherwise, the parties hereby agree that each party shall be liable to pay their own attorney fees, court costs, and other related costs and expenses incurred in connection with prosecuting or defending any such claim.” Isn’t one of Petke’s pursuits in the lawsuit that RSL pay the attorney fees if the suit is won? Why pursue that if the contract you are trying to enforce clearly states how attorney fees will be paid? Another interesting item not really pertaining to the lawsuit that I find interesting is Petke’s compensation. On top of his salary he was given a car stipend of $12k per year, 8 season tickets per season, 4 round-trip plane tickets per year to anywhere in the US, and a $100k mortgage forgiveness agreement if he served the complete contract. Petke landed this contract, one he was in no way qualified to earn (he hadn’t even completed his coaching license), and he couldn’t learn to control his temper in order to maintain his job? That’s just crazy in my mind. Edit: I didn’t censor my post and spelled out the p-word. Looks like BS has been proactive and included the word as one that should be censored. Kudos to them.
Matt Montgomery (I don’t remember his handle here. Crossbar?) appeared on Miki Turner’s podcast recently. It’s a decent recap of what’s happened so far and worth a listen. However, one item that seems to have been glossed over since Petke’s lawsuit filing is the meeting DLH and co had with sponsors. The main talking point right now is the video of DLH talking to fans at a Royals game and how everything that happened after that was DLH trying to backpedal and save face. But didn’t he meet with sponsors after the video took place, and several big ones, Zions Bank included, stated they would withdraw as sponsors if Petke stayed aboard? Or am I misremembering that set of events?
I do not necessarily disagree with any of this. But for the sake of discussion, here are some counterpoints (because I’m me): 1. Did team and league rules presented in the trainings specifically call out the referenced word? There’s a good chance they did not. Also, Petke can probably argue: 1a. If it was actually included in the trainings the fact is that RSL fans repeatedly and publicly yell the word at opposing GK’s....and the organization has not actively enforced a prohibition. Therefore, it must not be important and is not a grounds for termination. 1b. Petke has almost certainly used that word previously, with no action taken by the club. In this case the suspension is supported, but not termination. 2. By law, a citizen cannot sign away their rights as a citizen. Petke has every right to file the lawsuit, regardless of the contract language. This is actually very common in termination cases. 3. Again, Petke has the right to file suit and the suit has to include evidence, even if that evidence casts the team owner in a bad light. RSL’s recourse to enforce this clause would be to file suit against him for breach of contract in order to collect whatever damages they are entitled to, as specified in the contract. Since his attorneys probably advised him to make the information public, they must believe this clause is worth ignoring. 4. The Attorney’s Fees thing is a typical contract clause that is included as a scare tactic to intimidate former employees from filing suit. Mostly these types of clauses achieve their aim. Petke’s attorney’s have correctly advised him that it has no teeth. If Petke wins any portion of the suit, this clause will be disregarded by the judge. As to the paragraph about controlling temper, I agree with your sentiment. He needed to be an adult. However, it seems obvious to me that the club never censored his behavior previously and, as a result, enabled it... and maybe even condoned it. A significant part of his lawsuit is built upon this premise imo. A lot of people out there would not control various egregious behaviors if there were no consequences to those behaviors. Petke is an example of how an organization’s failure to enforce consequences can eventually lead to ugly and preventable situations.
There are a lot of crazy things in that contract and, I agree, if this unqualified of a candidate is getting paid that much with those types of bonuses, then imagine what someone actually qualified is getting... Also, the bonuses for the playoffs and Open Cup are very home game focused. There is a possibility that Petke could have got the team to the Open Cup final and not got a single penny for it. Same with the playoffs - Petke would only get a bonus if the team hosted a game and/or reached MLS Cup. I find that a bit troubling and, if I were Petke/Petke's agent would have had a problem with it. Also, this notion that a Open Cup home game is pretty much the same as the CCL is ********ing bonkers. Oh, and the tournament that really undid Petke? Not a mention of it in this contract. Now, that tournament didn't exist until this year so I'm really curious if Petke pushed to have it included in his bonus pool. If not, it makes his explosion all the more confusing. oh, another weird one: $7500 for the Monarchs making the playoffs. It's placed in the "youth development" section but has literally nothing that ties it to youth development. I don't quite follow how this is a bonus for him. and if it is, how other more important factors (given his job responsibilities with the Monarchs) aren't included. man I really should read the whole doc before commenting: why is Waibel the one who signed the bonuses tranches page but DLH the rest?
Am I missing something? I was looking for an arbitration clause and didn't see it. This section 1.04 discusses sanctions and disciplinary (fines), which is nowhere near close to adjudication of the contract itself. Unless it's in another document that Petke signed, I'm a bit puzzled where RSL/MLS is getting the arbitration requirement from. Generally speaking, I understand that Arbitration cannot be unilaterally required but must be agreed upon by both parties. While I think this whole situation has reflected extremely poorly on Petke, and likely had a huge adverse impact on his earnings potential as a soccer coach, I think RSL has already "lost" this lawsuit in many ways. Just having it out there is really negative from a PR perspective for RSL, which likely explains their claim (and IMO an accurate one) that part of this was done by Petke's team to inflict some damage. However, I think the longer this goes on, the more damage it does to the RSL brand. Imagine an off-season where we're speculating about this, and hanging on every development in this case - along with wondering when RSL will hire a coach, and hire a GM.
And the pool of desirable coaches and GMs all watching from afar and shaking their heads. DLH canned a successful management team and brought in his own guys, who apparently dislike/disliked working for him, and who have now been canned or are in the process of being canned. Not the kind of stuff that screams, “Man, I want to work THERE.”
My bad. Section 1.04 discusses that Petke acknowledges that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the League Commissioner, and then spells out the ways he can be sanctioned or terminated. The MLS Constitution calls out the manner in which he can protest and states that the commissioner is the arbitrator. Matt Montgomery mentions this in his article, but I can't find a copy of the constitution to read the entire section. Matt includes the following:
That’s pretty clear. The judge might dismiss it because Petke has not exhausted his other options. If so, the parties would go to The Don for arbitration. After that, Petke can re-file the lawsuit against RSL if he wishes.
The way I read RSL's response is that they wanted this to go to The Don and MLS. When DLH talked about sponsors, I'm sure it wasn't limited to local sponsorship and, if I remember right, there was mention that Don Garber spoke with DLH on the matter. This really doesn't look great for either party, but I have a really hard time seeing what Petke is arguing for here. His actions were dumb, he then tried to act like they weren't as bad as they were, and is fighting for 1.5 years of salary based on it. The club looks bad because of the extra shit included in the complaint, but that same complaint opens with excuses around the wording used... As to how bad this makes us look in the league: lets remember Orlando is a complete and utter shit show right now. The cRapids seemed to have found a short term answer in Fraser but that doesn't address the GM issues they've had for... maybe ever?
I personally don't see it as being particularly bad for the team. I guess I already knew that there were issues with DLH's ownership, so I'm not really getting anything new from it. Since Petke got so much negative press from his outburst, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of less informed readers view the lawsuit as just more bad behavior from a guy who can't control his temper, and discount his claims about the team's other problems.
An honest question, on the limited things I look at (here, soapbox, league site, team site) this hasn't seemed to garner a whole lot of attention/discussion. At least not as much as you would think a former coach suing the team would. Is this because fans have become exhausted by it? Is it that the team is still playing so attention is split? Is it just being discussed in mediums I don't look at? Is it because its pushed away the fans that tended to be the most vocal?
It's been talked about on Twitter by fans and media pundits, but it's not a continual thing like here or Soapbox. The vocal fans seem to side with Petke, while the media pundits just reference the team performing amidst the chaos.
I find it interesting that, most of the more vocal fans I know (almost a complete overlap with Soapbox writers/contributors) were HUGE critics of Petke. So this thing puts them in a spot of, on one side, talking about a manager they've long said isn't fit for the job. And on the other hand, an owner they've not been shy to criticize - especially with his tendencies to insert himself - for being an ass and, by their claims, the reason for most (if not all) of the failed contracts Waibel signed Also interesting in that space: reading the comments on the "top 10 coaching candidates" article, the name Petke was dropped and then further discussion was made about how he will/wont ever coach in MLS again. Public sentiment there (purely based on the replies and +/- votes) is that the club appears to be in a losing position. I don't really see that from the documents Petke has published, but I found it really interesting how much swing was in Petke's favor on the complaint.
It's also interesting that in all those comments in support of Petke, non of them give an argument other than "go read the contract".
I'm not sure about other states, but my understanding in Utah is that arbitration cannot be forced unilaterally. In other words, just because MLS states that arbitration is a requirement in it's Manifesto...er...Constitution, doesn't make it legally binding. As I understand, IHC's attempt to force customers to arbitration as a binding legal resolution a few years ago led to legal restrictions on forced arbitration, and generally arbitration must be agreed upon by both parties. Someone with a legal background may be able to confirm this, but that's my understanding of the law around arbitration as it stands in Utah. I'm sure we'll find out as this continues to play out in a very public setting. The latest round of legal manuevering made the headlines in the Trib and on the nightly news, so I'm sure whatever happens, we'll hear about it...and so will everyone else. Hard to see that as anything but negative for the club, even if a judge ultimately rules in RSL's favor.
Funny. I see...and hear about it all over the place. It's all over social media. I hear it in the office. I see it on the news. I read about it in the paper. If you read the comments on online articles about RSL (like I do), it seems to come up all the time. Not sure what else we'd expect. Obviously if it was the Jazz or Utah football it would be on a whole other level, but as far as a local soccer story, I'd say this is pretty major.
You make a great point. My perspective is that forcing patients to arbitration is different than a high ranking employer signing a contract with an arbitration clause. The Judge could see it this way too. But, I’m certainly not an expert in this field, so the legislation very well might be relevant.
Yes, I'm also not an expert on this, but I did follow the IHC issue in the news when it happened and I got the sense that the new arbitration rule in the state was universal - not just healthcare or consumer related. Google didn't help me out much. Either way...we'll have to wait and see how this one plays out.