HawkShack.com

Usually someone tackles this subject so Ill give it a shot. It seems to me there's less coaches gone than I would have expected. Rivera obviously has already been snapped up. Kitchens got the Jim Mora treatment, one and done although he never looked or acted the part of NFL HC. Shurmer had to go, just a dreadful coach in the mold of the Seattle Tom Flores.

I was surprised Patricia got a 3rd year. Caldwell has to be scratching his head after the quick hook he got after providing playoff teams a couple of years. Marone in Jacksonville was reportedly fired and then he wasn't, apparently will survive.Obviously the deal with Garrett in Dallas gets weirder by the minute, especially when you consider Jones fired Tom Landry in a phone call and booted Jimmy Johnson after back to back lombardi's. 10 years and 3 playoff teams and breaking up is hard to do??????. Is he going to keep him? Would the fans really go for that?Try to put him in the front office so he doesn't lose him to someone like the Giants? Too weird.

Black Monday ain't what it used to be. It wasn't very often that teams fired their head coaches before the end of the regular season. Now they're firing them with 3 or 4 games left in the regular season.

If Garrett is indeed let go, that would make just 4 HC's to be fired as he would join Jay Gruden, Ron Rivera, and Freddy Kitchens, which is as few that have bitten the dust in one season that I can remember. I was surprised to see Dan Quinn get a reprieve. Doug Marrone was another HC that was rumored to be on the hot seat but somehow escaped the gallows.

The rumor is that Jerruh will reach down into the colleges for his next yes man, with Urban Meyer and Oklahoma's Lincoln Riley being the two most often mentioned.

It looks like Jerruh finally pulled the trigger on Jason Garrett. Silly that it took this long.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/284 ... ource-says

RiverDog wrote:It looks like Jerruh finally pulled the trigger on Jason Garrett. Silly that it took this long.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/284 ... ource-says

Oh no kidding Riv, what a drama session!

According to PFT, he's not yet gone:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -thursday/

Hawktawk wrote:Usually someone tackles this subject so Ill give it a shot. It seems to me there's less coaches gone than I would have expected. Rivera obviously has already been snapped up. Kitchens got the Jim Mora treatment, one and done although he never looked or acted the part of NFL HC. Shurmer had to go, just a dreadful coach in the mold of the Seattle Tom Flores.

I was surprised Patricia got a 3rd year. Caldwell has to be scratching his head after the quick hook he got after providing playoff teams a couple of years. Marone in Jacksonville was reportedly fired and then he wasn't, apparently will survive.Obviously the deal with Garrett in Dallas gets weirder by the minute, especially when you consider Jones fired Tom Landry in a phone call and booted Jimmy Johnson after back to back lombardi's. 10 years and 3 playoff teams and breaking up is hard to do??????. Is he going to keep him? Would the fans really go for that?Try to put him in the front office so he doesn't lose him to someone like the Giants? Too weird.

Although the Jags didn't can their coach, I think there might be a change in philosophy there without Coughlin. They may even make other player personnel changes, too that they otherwise wouldn't have.

Hawktawk wrote:Usually someone tackles this subject so Ill give it a shot. It seems to me there's less coaches gone than I would have expected. Rivera obviously has already been snapped up. Kitchens got the Jim Mora treatment, one and done although he never looked or acted the part of NFL HC. Shurmer had to go, just a dreadful coach in the mold of the Seattle Tom Flores.

I was surprised Patricia got a 3rd year. Caldwell has to be scratching his head after the quick hook he got after providing playoff teams a couple of years. Marone in Jacksonville was reportedly fired and then he wasn't, apparently will survive.Obviously the deal with Garrett in Dallas gets weirder by the minute, especially when you consider Jones fired Tom Landry in a phone call and booted Jimmy Johnson after back to back lombardi's. 10 years and 3 playoff teams and breaking up is hard to do??????. Is he going to keep him? Would the fans really go for that?Try to put him in the front office so he doesn't lose him to someone like the Giants? Too weird.

Edit:
Double post...

North Hawk, here's the article you were trying to link about Garrett:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... oys-coach/

Hard to tell WTF Jerry Jones is up to.

Jerruh has said he'd never fire Garret, so he's not. He's just going to let his contract expire. The fact that he's interviewing replacement candidates before that contract expires has to be agonizing for Garrett, but it keeps Jerruh 'true' to his word.

c_hawkbob wrote:Jerruh has said he'd never fire Garret, so he's not. He's just going to let his contract expire. The fact that he's interviewing replacement candidates before that contract expires has to be agonizing for Garrett, but it keeps Jerruh 'true' to his word.

Most labor law considers the refusal to renew a contract the same as a termination, but I suppose Jerry could tell himself that he was true to his word.

Allowing a contract to expire is just that, allowing it to expire, not a termination.

When the plant I worked at in Colorado was sold and got mothballed, and my former employer offered to keep me on at a gas pumping station at a substantial decrease in pay and I declined, it was my decision to terminate our employment contract, no one got fired. Then when I started working contract for Pro Energy and/or North American Energy Services I worked several jobs over the next three years ranging from 6 weeks to 14 months in length (that one was originally a 4 month contract that got extended twice) and at the expiration of none of those contracts was I ever considered 'fired'.

c_hawkbob wrote:Allowing a contract to expire is just that, allowing it to expire, not a termination.

When the plant I worked at in Colorado was sold and got mothballed, and my former employer offered to keep me on at a gas pumping station at a substantial decrease in pay and I declined, it was my decision to terminate our employment contract, no one got fired. Then when I started working contract for Pro Energy and/or North American Energy Services I worked several jobs over the next three years ranging from 6 weeks to 14 months in length (that one was originally a 4 month contract that got extended twice) and at the expiration of none of those contracts was I ever considered 'fired'.

I'll bet that if you filed for unemployment compensation that the state would consider a failure to extend a contract in the same light as a termination. You are still available for work yet your employer chose not to continue the arrangement.

RiverDog wrote:I'll bet that if you filed for unemployment compensation that the state would consider a failure to extend a contract in the same light as a termination. You are still available for work yet your employer chose not to continue the arrangement.

Sorry, no. My availability to work is only half the equation. There has to be work available. You need to bone up on contract work.

RiverDog wrote:I'll bet that if you filed for unemployment compensation that the state would consider a failure to extend a contract in the same light as a termination. You are still available for work yet your employer chose not to continue the arrangement.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry, no. My availability to work is only half the equation. There has to be work available. You need to bone up on contract work.

I apologize in advance for being nit picky, but I took your advice and "boned up". It would seem that we're both right and we're both wrong. The answer would depend if there was an "employment relationship":

Is non renewal of a contract the same as termination?

Someone working on a 1099 is not an employee but an independent contractor. There is no termination because there was never an employment relationship in the first place. The contract simply expires just like any other contract for goods or services. If there was an employment relationship under the 1099 you have a mis-classification and a violation of labor law."

"If it is for one year and your year comes up they have the option to not renew your contract, so yes it is the same as termination except as contractor you can not get unemployment and you do not receive any benefits from the employer."

https://www.quora.com/Is-non-renewal-of ... ermination

A review of the IRS guidelines regarding 1099 employees indicates that there clearly there was an "employment relationship" between Jason Garrett and the Dallas Cowboys. I doubt very seriously if he could be considered a 1099 employee. It's only in Jerry Jones' mind that he's not firing Jason Garrett. Everyone else considers him to be canned.

My bad on the unemployment compensation.

Sorry but I don't believe anything I said was incorrect. You say:

A review of the IRS guidelines regarding 1099 employees indicates that there clearly there was an "employment relationship" between Jason Garrett and the Dallas Cowboys.

How so? You might be able to make that argument with a player as their contract are collectively bargained and unionized, not so with coaches. What criteria are you using to establish this employment relationship? I still contend coaches are clearly independent contractors.

c_hawkbob wrote:How so? You might be able to make that argument with a player as their contract are collectively bargained and unionized, not so with coaches. What criteria are you using to establish this employment relationship? I still contend coaches are clearly independent contractors.

From the IRS website:

Determining Whether the Individuals Providing Services are Employees or Independent Contractors

Before you can determine how to treat payments you (Cowboys) make for services, you must first know the business relationship that exists between you and the person performing the services (Garrett). The person performing the services may be -

An independent contractor
An employee (common-law employee)
A statutory employee
A statutory nonemployee
A government worker

In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered.

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence (of Jason Garrett) fall into three categories:

Behavioral: Does the company (Cowboys) control or have the right to control what the worker (Jason Garrett) does and how the worker does his or her job? This criteria is a slam dunk. Clearly Jerry Jones controls his "worker" Jason Garrett.

Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.) It's pretty obvious that Garrett gets reimbursed for expenses, doesn't use his own tools/supplies. Not sure how he's paid.

Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business? The HC of an NFL team's work is obviously a "key aspect of the business", and I'm pretty sure that coaches get "employee type benefits" like group health insurance, pension, and other benefits through the league and/or individual teams and that they're not written into the coach's individual contract, but I'm only guessing.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-bu ... r-employee

You haven't convinced me, at all. Your quoted criteria are incomplete at best, it lays out the facts that need to be gathered but do not tell you what those facts mean once established.

For instance,

Behavioral: Does the company (Cowboys) control or have the right to control what the worker (Jason Garrett) does and how the worker does his or her job? This criteria is a slam dunk. Clearly Jerry Jones controls his "worker" Jason Garrett

Ok, so Jerry controls Jason (a fact never in question). Where does it say exactly what that means as to the determination of his status as an employee or a contractor?

And:

Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.) It's pretty obvious that Garrett gets reimbursed for expenses, doesn't use his own tools/supplies. Not sure how he's paid.

Ok, I got reimbursed, in the form of perdiem, it's standard practice in contract assignments, it didn't mean I wasn't a contractor. And nothing in your post (not gonna bother with the link today) says how that fact effects the issue.

So some facts have been established but their is nothing that says which directions those facts point, and your added assumptions are still just assumptions, and even given that they may be correct, there is nothing to indicate which side of the scale they may fall on.

Also, your link is as applicable to small businesses, which the NFL clearly is not, so all of that research is questionable in it's application anyway.

c_hawkbob wrote:Ok, so Jerry controls Jason (a fact never in question). Where does it say exactly what that means as to the determination of his status as an employee or a contractor?

It's one of the criteria that speaks to "the business relationship that exists between you (employer ie Cowboys) and the person performing the services (Garrett)" when "Determining Whether the Individuals Providing Services are Employees or Independent Contractors".

c_hawkbob wrote:And:

Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)" It's pretty obvious that Garrett gets reimbursed for expenses, doesn't use his own tools/supplies. Not sure how he's paid.

Ok, I got reimbursed, in the form of perdiem, it's standard practice in contract assignments, it didn't mean I wasn't a contractor. And nothing in your post (not gonna bother with the link today) says how that fact effects the issue.

That's correct, how you were compensated doesn't necessarily mean you weren't a contractor. It is simply one of several criteria in establishing a business relationship, and it includes things like if you get regular paychecks, if they're withholding taxes and other deductions from your compensation, if you're part of their pension plan, 401K contributions, etc.

c_hawkbob wrote:So some facts have been established but their is nothing that says which directions those facts point, and your added assumptions are still just assumptions, and even given that they may be correct, there is nothing to indicate which side of the scale they may fall on.

True. From what I read, it's not black-and-white, and I'm simply venturing an opinion, as are you.

c_hawkbob wrote:Also, your link is as applicable to small businesses, which the NFL clearly is not, so all of that research is questionable in it's application anyway.

If you don't like that one, then here's another that makes no distinction between large and small businesses:

Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The U.S. Supreme Court has on a number of occasions indicated that there is no single rule or test for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of the FLSA. The Court has held that it is the total activity or situation which controls. Among the factors which the Court has considered significant are:

The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal's business.
The permanency of the relationship.
The amount of the alleged contractor's investment in facilities and equipment.
The nature and degree of control by the principal.
The alleged contractor's opportunities for profit and loss.
The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.
The degree of independent business organization and operation.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-s ... lationship

Undoubtedly Garrett's services are an integral part of the Cowboys, the permanency of the relationship goes all the way back to 2007, and the principal (Jerry Jones) had a very large degree of control over the alleged contractor. Those 3 criteria are unquestioned. My view is that the nature of the business relationship between Garrett and the Cowboys would be considered employee/employer and not that of an independent contractor.

As it turns out, the Cowboys DID fire Jason Garrett, and was almost simultaneously replaced by former Packers HC Mike McCarthy. Additionally, the Redskins hired former Panthers HC Ron Rivera, Carolina turned to Baylor University's Matt Rhule, and the Giants made the most surprising move by hiring former Patriots Special Teams and WR coach Joe Judge.

That leaves the Browns as the only NFL team with a HC opening.

In the case of Garrett, he wasn't fired, but he obviously didn't do the job well enough for Jerry to retain him. He gave him more than a few chances. Jerry let his personal relationship with Garrett affect his business decision making as to who would be head coach.

The Panthers are getting a lot of blow back from the other owners over Matt Rhule's $60M, 7 year contract. Only a handful of veteran, proven coaches earn more:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/287 ... m-contract