TAIPEI (TVBS News) — Taoyuan Leopards CEO Johnny Chang offered comprehensive clarifications on Wednesday (June 7) in response to U.S. basketball player Dwight Howard's recent claims concerning his contract and wages.
Chang first addressed Howard's dissatisfaction at the airport on the day he departed for the United States. He highlighted that the athlete had initially scheduled his departure for May 18. However, due to personal reasons, Howard requested a postponement, extending his stay in Taiwan until May 31.
From May 23 to June 4, however, Chang and several senior members of the Leopards' organization were obligated to attend a business trip, which prevented them from adequately bidding farewell to Howard. Chang recalled that he had instructed the team's camera crew to document Howard's departure and invited fans to join in saying goodbye to the player at the airport.
The CEO further explained that the issues with the basketball player's final month's wages resulted from complexities associated with their contractual agreement.
He emphasized that their arrangement explicitly stated that the company would cover the athlete's rent. At the same time, the players were responsible for utility expenses such as water, gas, electricity, and any fees related to restoration repairs upon leaving the premises.
Chang noted that Howard was likely unaware of this requirement, as in other parts of the world, such expenses are typically included in the rental fee. Nevertheless, he stressed that the company had transferred Howard's salary for the previous month, minus the stipulated deductions, on June 6.
Lastly, regarding the team's revised salary proposal for Howard, Chang explained that they had introduced a modified wage package that combined
performance-based bonuses for victories and losses with a "no-show, no-bonus" arrangement, all while maintaining a consistent salary.
He underscored that the incentive-based bonuses could not be integrated into the fixed salary, which was the version presented to Howard's team, leading to the misunderstanding.
Both parties appeared to bear no significant animosity towards each other. Still, it was evident that further communication would be necessary to bridge the comprehension gap regarding the situation, he continued.
