MORGANTOWN - Perhaps the most interesting part of the transcript of Rich Rodriguez's April deposition is not what is in it, but what isn't.

For the most part, the testimony of the former West Virginia football coach merely reaffirms and details his stance on most of the major issues regarding the disputed $4 million buyout clause in his contract as WVU's coach, including his assertion that he was pressured by Gov. Joe Manchin and others to sign the deal.

He was not permitted by his attorney, however, to answer any questions dealing with any arrangement he might have made to pay the buyout before agreeing to become the coach at Michigan in December.

The information is contained in a deposition that was taken April 21 at a hotel near the Detroit airport and lasted from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. A transcript of the deposition was provided to West Virginia University attorneys Tuesday.

Rodriguez, who left WVU in December to become the football coach at Michigan, is contesting the $4 million buyout that was a part of a contract amendment to which he agreed in December of 2006 - following a flirtation with the University of Alabama - and was signed on Aug. 24, 2007, just prior to last football season.

Rodriguez admitted that when he signed a contract amendment just prior to the 2007 season that he did not ask that the $4 million buyout be reduced or eliminated. He reiterated his contention that he had been told by new WVU president Mike Garrison that the buyout would be reduced or eliminated should he choose to leave.

"I trusted what he told me,'' Rodriguez said.

But after also admitting that he asked that a $2 million buyout clause in his new contract at Michigan be doubled to the same $4 million figure he is contesting at WVU, Rodriguez's attorneys refused to allow him to answer questions designed to discover whether he made arrangements with Michigan to cover the cost of his West Virginia buyout.

It seems to be the contention of WVU's attorneys that not only did Rodriguez understand that he would have to pay the buyout, but that when negotiating the terms of his agreement with Michigan two days before he resigned at WVU he asked that some arrangement be made to cover his West Virginia buyout.

Rodriguez was presented with a document that appears to be the term sheet he signed at Michigan, but with some of the provisions redacted.

"Is there a provision blackened out there that deals with your $4 million liquidated damages clause with West Virginia and who was going to pay it?'' asked WVU attorney Tom Flaherty.

"Objection,'' said Rodriguez's attorney, Marv Robon. "I instruct you not to answer.''

"You instruct him not to answer?'' Flaherty asked.

"Of course,'' Robon said. "It's irrelevant.''

Flaherty pressed on, but only got an "I don't remember" from Rodriguez.

When Flaherty asked specifically if Michigan had agreed to pay any or all of the buyout or if Rodriguez had any discussions with anyone at UM or any boosters about the buyout, Robon again refused to allow him to answer.

The majority of the deposition concerns contract matters, with Flaherty quizzing Rodriguez at length regarding the specifics of his negotiations on not just the latest amendment to the contract, but to all versions of it dating back to his hiring in 2000. Many of the same terms are present throughout all of the deals, although the amount of compensation and other factors varied greatly.

The central conflict between the two sides is and always has been Rodriguez's contention that Garrison told him that he did not believe in buyouts and that if Rodriguez signed the contract he would not be held to the entire $4 million amount should he decide to leave.

"He said ... he didn't believe in buyouts,'' Rodriguez said, referring to a conversation he had with Garrison just prior to signing his contract amendment in August. "And if it ever came to that fact, the lawyers would get together and reduce it anyway. That's what he said.''

MORGANTOWN - Perhaps the most interesting part of the transcript of Rich Rodriguez's April deposition is not what is in it, but what isn't.

For the most part, the testimony of the former West Virginia football coach merely reaffirms and details his stance on most of the major issues regarding the disputed $4 million buyout clause in his contract as WVU's coach, including his assertion that he was pressured by Gov. Joe Manchin and others to sign the deal.

He was not permitted by his attorney, however, to answer any questions dealing with any arrangement he might have made to pay the buyout before agreeing to become the coach at Michigan in December.

The information is contained in a deposition that was taken April 21 at a hotel near the Detroit airport and lasted from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. A transcript of the deposition was provided to West Virginia University attorneys Tuesday.

Rodriguez, who left WVU in December to become the football coach at Michigan, is contesting the $4 million buyout that was a part of a contract amendment to which he agreed in December of 2006 - following a flirtation with the University of Alabama - and was signed on Aug. 24, 2007, just prior to last football season.

Rodriguez admitted that when he signed a contract amendment just prior to the 2007 season that he did not ask that the $4 million buyout be reduced or eliminated. He reiterated his contention that he had been told by new WVU president Mike Garrison that the buyout would be reduced or eliminated should he choose to leave.

"I trusted what he told me,'' Rodriguez said.

But after also admitting that he asked that a $2 million buyout clause in his new contract at Michigan be doubled to the same $4 million figure he is contesting at WVU, Rodriguez's attorneys refused to allow him to answer questions designed to discover whether he made arrangements with Michigan to cover the cost of his West Virginia buyout.

It seems to be the contention of WVU's attorneys that not only did Rodriguez understand that he would have to pay the buyout, but that when negotiating the terms of his agreement with Michigan two days before he resigned at WVU he asked that some arrangement be made to cover his West Virginia buyout.

Rodriguez was presented with a document that appears to be the term sheet he signed at Michigan, but with some of the provisions redacted.

"Is there a provision blackened out there that deals with your $4 million liquidated damages clause with West Virginia and who was going to pay it?'' asked WVU attorney Tom Flaherty.

"Objection,'' said Rodriguez's attorney, Marv Robon. "I instruct you not to answer.''

"You instruct him not to answer?'' Flaherty asked.

"Of course,'' Robon said. "It's irrelevant.''

Flaherty pressed on, but only got an "I don't remember" from Rodriguez.

When Flaherty asked specifically if Michigan had agreed to pay any or all of the buyout or if Rodriguez had any discussions with anyone at UM or any boosters about the buyout, Robon again refused to allow him to answer.

The majority of the deposition concerns contract matters, with Flaherty quizzing Rodriguez at length regarding the specifics of his negotiations on not just the latest amendment to the contract, but to all versions of it dating back to his hiring in 2000. Many of the same terms are present throughout all of the deals, although the amount of compensation and other factors varied greatly.

The central conflict between the two sides is and always has been Rodriguez's contention that Garrison told him that he did not believe in buyouts and that if Rodriguez signed the contract he would not be held to the entire $4 million amount should he decide to leave.

"He said ... he didn't believe in buyouts,'' Rodriguez said, referring to a conversation he had with Garrison just prior to signing his contract amendment in August. "And if it ever came to that fact, the lawyers would get together and reduce it anyway. That's what he said.''

At one point during the deposition, Flaherty asked Rodriguez to read the integration clause that was in the 2002 version of his contract and which also applied to the 2007 amendment. That's the clause that stipulates that the agreement contains all the terms and conditions and that there are "no other understandings or representations, either oral or written'' that will change the written contract, such as the alleged statement by Garrison.

After Rodriguez read the section aloud, Flaherty asked, "As someone with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, you understand that paragraph, don't you?''

"I may have not understood it completely,'' Rodriguez answered.

Again, though, for the most part the testimony by Rodriguez is nothing new, but simply mirrors the contentions he and his representatives have been making all along, including that "the environment" in the WVU athletic department was deteriorating.

For instance, regarding his supposed deteriorating relationship with athletic director Ed Pastilong, Rodriguez was being asked about any discussions that were held regarding some of the demands that he had made in addition to what was in the contract, items such as text books for students, establishing a Rodriguez Web site and distribution of sideline passes. Rodriguez said he talked with Craig Walker, Garrison's chief of staff, about those issues, but that a lot of his discussions with Walker also concerned Pastilong.

"Some of the conversations [with Walker] focused on the relationship between Eddie and myself, and Eddie and the administration, and how it was, in my opinion, very dysfunctional. It was very unfortunate,'' Rodriguez said. "I felt a little bit kind of caught in the middle where Eddie and Craig weren't on the best of terms, and that it was going to make things more difficult to get some of these issues and promises done.''

In an earlier deposition, Pastilong said that in the days leading up to Rodriguez's resignation he had promised to work with the coach on the issues he wanted to address, but that he couldn't give him definitive answers on any of them. It is Rodriguez's stance in the deposition that the only answers he got from Pastilong and Garrison were "no, no, no, no, no.''

Rodriguez also admitted during the deposition that he received a call on Dec. 9 from someone at Arkansas inquiring if he would be interested in that head coaching job. The call lasted nine minutes and Rodriguez told them he was not interested.

Flaherty also produced a document that appears to have been prepared by Rodriguez's agent, Mike Brown, listing buyout clause amounts in some other coaches' contracts. He said Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville had a buyout twice that of Rodriguez's $4 million and that Georgia coach Mark Richt's buyout was $10.2 million.

"Were you aware of that?'' Flaherty asked.

"No, I wasn't,'' Rodriguez answered. "Do you have the Big East facts?''

"Richt was the guy you beat in the Sugar Bowl just a couple of years before,'' Flaherty said.

"Does it have his assistant coaches' salaries in there?'' Rodriguez asked.

As for whether Michigan approached Rodriguez or vice versa, Rodriguez said it wasn't he who contacted Michigan. But when told that e-mail correspondence showed that it was at least one of his representatives, Brown, that initiated the contact, he didn't deny he was aware of it.

"I may have been [aware]. I don't recall,'' Rodriguez said. "But I wouldn't - I didn't object to it if he did, obviously.''

He also admitted that he contacted potential recruit Terrelle Pryor and told him of his decision to go to Michigan before he informed anyone at WVU, including his players. But he said it was just two minutes before the meeting in which he told his team he was leaving and that there was no NCAA violation because he was calling on behalf of WVU and not Michigan, merely to let him know.

To contact staff writer Dave Hickman, use e-mail or call 348-1734.

Download a PDF copy of Rodriguez's deposition (8.3 MB)

Download a PDF copy of Pastilong's deposition (4.4 MB)