Does anyone have legit info on the status of the Pats' assistants?

[BTTA]

As it relates to the pension situation?

If not, feel free to add the usual speculation. (As if anyone needs an invitation.)

 

[jmt57]

I am going to guess that the reason you are asking this question is due to the retirement of the two coaches on the Colts. The Pats were one of nine teams to opt out of the league-wide pension plan, but the Colts did not. That means that for now the Pats coaches will not be in a similar situation as the Colts coaches were, as the Colts did not opt out of the plan. In addition, I do not believe the Pats have any coaches on their staff that are at retirement age like Tom Moore and Howard Mudd were.

As far as what kind of pension or retirement plan Robert Kraft has put together for the coaches to replace the old plan, that I have no idea. Typically that type of thing is not publicly announced, but I would guess that the Patriots new plan will be good enough that it will keep the current coaches happy and will not deter any coaches from joining the Pats in the future.

 

[BTTA]

Yup, and thanks.

I am going to guess that the reason you are asking this question is due to the retirement of the two coaches on the Colts. The Pats were one of nine teams to opt out of the league-wide pension plan, but the Colts did not. That means that for now the Pats coaches will not be in a similar situation as the Colts coaches were, as the Colts did not opt out of the plan. In addition, I do not believe the Pats have any coaches on their staff that are at retirement age like Tom Moore and Howard Mudd were.

As far as what kind of pension or retirement plan Robert Kraft has put together for the coaches to replace the old plan, that I have no idea. Typically that type of thing is not publicly announced, but I would guess that the Patriots new plan will be good enough that it will keep the current coaches happy and will not deter any coaches from joining the Pats in the future.

 

[Jimke]

Yup, and thanks.

No one knows the answer to your question except the Patriots.

Bob Kraft is not Santa Claus. Anything he does in this matter

will be fiscally responsible.

 

[jmt57]

No one knows the answer to your question except the Patriots.

Bob Kraft is not Santa Claus. Anything he does in this matter will be fiscally responsible.

Very true, none of us knows for sure except for the Patriots themselves. While Bob Kraft has been fiscally responsible, he does not have a history of being cheap either. That is why I speculate that whatever plan the organization has come up with, it will be competitive enough in comparison to what other teams are offering in order to retain current coaches and attract other coaches in the future.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No one knows the answer to your question except the Patriots.

Bob Kraft is not Santa Claus. Anything he does in this matter

will be fiscally responsible.

I believe opting out was about being fiscally responsible because the old plan required teams maintain 80% funding in order for participants to opt to take lump sum benefits. Teams are trying to control rank and file employee benefit costs, just like everyone else does (so they can afford all those golden parachutes for the big wheels who screw up...).

The plan in question is a defined benefit, non contributory plan. Those are the ones that treat low and mid level employees best, and therefore industries have been phasing them out for years...

The problem with NE opting out is coaches who have close to the number of years of service to "vest" will not be getting any more credit towards that vesting of benefits unless they leave here and go to a team who remains in the plan... We have one coach here who has 11 years in as an assistant, 3 of them working for NE, and unless he gets 4 more years credit under the plan (and probably within a certain span of time) he will lose that retirement altogether. The new ST coach O'Brien has 18 years into the plan and will get no more credit unless he returns to a team still in the plan. His case is what the association is concerned about. He's worked for 4 teams in amassing those 18 years and under the opt out plan he'd have never vested in anyone's plan...

Dante is our longest tenured coaching staffer, but while he is fully vested with 28 years in the league he is not yet 65 ergo not in the same position as Moore and Mudd where he has a choice to opt out now with the lump sum. He apparently will never have that option as a result of the changes. Ivan Fears is 65 and does have more than 15 years in so he might be mulling this for all we know... For guys like Moore and Mudd the thought of taking a monthly $$ benefit that will either die with them or be reduced dramatically to provide survivor benefits for the wife is apparently a no brainer because of their ages. The offset would be the salaries they earn as coordinators, but since both almost retired this winter before all this, they likely didn't intend to remain that much longer anyway. And if they have/had other investments earmarked for retirement, those have likely taken a hit recently that given the time frame in their cases they may never recover.

 

[efin98]

I am going to guess that the reason you are asking this question is due to the retirement of the two coaches on the Colts. The Pats were one of nine teams to opt out of the league-wide pension plan, but the Colts did not. That means that for now the Pats coaches will not be in a similar situation as the Colts coaches were, as the Colts did not opt out of the plan. In addition, I do not believe the Pats have any coaches on their staff that are at retirement age like Tom Moore and Howard Mudd were.

They have a few guys who might qualify for retirement under the old pension system...Dante Scarnecchia, Ivan Fears, Ernie Adams, Mike Wicik, and Scott O'Brien might qualify under the formula of their age plus years in the league equaling 75.