(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

(12-31-2015 07:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 07:28 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 07:11 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 05:12 PM)Irish Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 04:54 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Tomorrow, 6 years & 30 days after being fired, is Charlie Weis' last day on Notre Dame's payroll. His buyout likely comes to $19 million.

It seems assumed by many, across many threads, that we won't owe Pastner $10.6M if he is let go around April 1st. And the reasoning is . . ., just because we want him to take a lower buyout, I guess.

Seems like I hear that a lot of fired coaches just take their normal payments and let the contract play out. My guess is that Pastner would do the same.

IMO, let's hope we have a good year, and Pastner gets another job offer and leaves on his own.

It would have to be a really good year for him to get an offer equal to what he has here. And if that good, why would we want him to leave?

For same reason Yates was gone after 5 years and Finch was given 11 even though Yates had better winning percentage. Yates followed Bartow and expectations were higher. If another coach had been hired after Cal and then Pastner came in and did the same thing he has. We would be looking to give him a life time contract. It all has to do with timing.

I've got a hunch playing one tournament game in 5 years had a little something to do with Yates being fired, but who knows? Maybe they were calculating his winning percentage and forgot to carry a one.

Smaller field in those days. The biggest field of his Memphis career was 32 teams. With field of 64 he very easily could have gone in 3 of his 5 years. Still made the NIT at 20-9 after Gunn passed in Dec of 77. Easioly coudl have gone that year and the next with Gunn in the middle of the lane.

I watched nearly every game he coached. Not a good one.

(12-31-2015 06:41 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:35 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 04:54 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Tomorrow, 6 years & 30 days after being fired, is Charlie Weis' last day on Notre Dame's payroll. His buyout likely comes to $19 million.

It seems assumed by many, across many threads, that we won't owe Pastner $10.6M if he is let go around April 1st. And the reasoning is . . ., just because we want him to take a lower buyout, I guess.

Seems like I hear that a lot of fired coaches just take their normal payments and let the contract play out. My guess is that Pastner would do the same.

IMO, let's hope we have a good year, and Pastner gets another job offer and leaves on his own.

The logic behind Pastner doing so has to do with the concept of the present value of future payments.

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.

[/quote]

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.
[/quote]

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.
[/quote]

What adjustment period? For the Fed to raise rates? Do you think the Fed raising rates 25 basis points somehow means Josh settles for $6M on his $10.6M payout?

Josh will demand every penny as he should. Not his fault Bowen/Raines gave him an insane contract.

And how often do fired coaches feel charitable to the institution that just fired them? After Josh donated $250K for facilities. Not gonna happen.

Back to my OP, we need to hope for a good year, and for Josh to leave on his own.

Regardless, imo he will be gone and the buyout won't be anywhere near $10 million.

(12-31-2015 07:16 PM)tigerpride96 Wrote:  If Pastner were a responsible, moral and ethical person he would have already resigned from his duties as head coach. He saw his one big opportunity and is taking it and will continue to take it as long as he can keep taking free money from our beloved university. It's despicable.

I don't read the boards often enough to know if you are joking.
But I hope you are.

(12-31-2015 08:47 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

In your opinion......

(01-01-2016 01:14 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:47 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

In your opinion......

Another speculator?

(01-01-2016 01:17 AM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 01:14 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:47 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

In your opinion......

Another speculator?

TigerGreg how many back and forth nit picking arguments do you have going at one time?

I guess I just have a bad habit of calling a spade a spade. Does that bother you?

(01-01-2016 01:37 AM)tigers1125 Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 01:17 AM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 01:14 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:47 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

In your opinion......

Another speculator?

TigerGreg how many back and forth nit picking arguments do you have going at one time?

TigerGreg + Smith =hmmmm

(12-31-2015 10:42 PM)tigers1125 Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:41 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:35 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 04:54 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Tomorrow, 6 years & 30 days after being fired, is Charlie Weis' last day on Notre Dame's payroll. His buyout likely comes to $19 million.

It seems assumed by many, across many threads, that we won't owe Pastner $10.6M if he is let go around April 1st. And the reasoning is . . ., just because we want him to take a lower buyout, I guess.

Seems like I hear that a lot of fired coaches just take their normal payments and let the contract play out. My guess is that Pastner would do the same.

IMO, let's hope we have a good year, and Pastner gets another job offer and leaves on his own.

The logic behind Pastner doing so has to do with the concept of the present value of future payments.

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.

The concept of present value will very much be in play when & if JP is fired. And it will have little to do with the Fed & interest rates. Instead it will have everything to do with what JP would like to do with his money. The procedure will be to pay JP what he is due when it is due over the period of the contract as executed OR it will be something less than that in a different pay structure to which JP would rather have those payments - and to which our university would have to agree. It could be, in the absence of another coaching job of interest, that JP might "settle" from something less in a lump sum, just because JP might want to make an investment which required up front cash. So the settlement could be less than the amount owed. It could also be that JP or our university is able to negotiate a payment schedule over a much longer period, either to facilitate a university ability to pay or JP desiring a longer payout to provide income security and lessen a tax burden. Point being there are many reasons why a payout will likely be different than the contract amount owed.

(01-01-2016 09:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 10:42 PM)tigers1125 Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:41 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 06:35 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 04:54 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Tomorrow, 6 years & 30 days after being fired, is Charlie Weis' last day on Notre Dame's payroll. His buyout likely comes to $19 million.

It seems assumed by many, across many threads, that we won't owe Pastner $10.6M if he is let go around April 1st. And the reasoning is . . ., just because we want him to take a lower buyout, I guess.

Seems like I hear that a lot of fired coaches just take their normal payments and let the contract play out. My guess is that Pastner would do the same.

IMO, let's hope we have a good year, and Pastner gets another job offer and leaves on his own.

The logic behind Pastner doing so has to do with the concept of the present value of future payments.

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.

The concept of present value will very much be in play when & if JP is fired. And it will have little to do with the Fed & interest rates. Instead it will have everything to do with what JP would like to do with his money. The procedure will be to pay JP what he is due when it is due over the period of the contract as executed OR it will be something less than that in a different pay structure to which JP would rather have those payments - and to which our university would have to agree. It could be, in the absence of another coaching job of interest, that JP might "settle" from something less in a lump sum, just because JP might want to make an investment which required up front cash. So the settlement could be less than the amount owed. It could also be that JP or our university is able to negotiate a payment schedule over a much longer period, either to facilitate a university ability to pay or JP desiring a longer payout to provide income security and lessen a tax burden. Point being there are many reasons why a payout will likely be different than the contract amount owed.

Excellent post but, with this bunch they would better understand it if you just told them the concept was similar to taking the lump sum lottery payout.

[/quote]

The logic behind Pastner doing so has to do with the concept of the present value of future payments.
[/quote]

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.
[/quote]

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.
[/quote]

The concept of present value will very much be in play when & if JP is fired. And it will have little to do with the Fed & interest rates. Instead it will have everything to do with what JP would like to do with his money. The procedure will be to pay JP what he is due when it is due over the period of the contract as executed OR it will be something less than that in a different pay structure to which JP would rather have those payments - and to which our university would have to agree. It could be, in the absence of another coaching job of interest, that JP might "settle" from something less in a lump sum, just because JP might want to make an investment which required up front cash. So the settlement could be less than the amount owed. It could also be that JP or our university is able to negotiate a payment schedule over a much longer period, either to facilitate a university ability to pay or JP desiring a longer payout to provide income security and lessen a tax burden. Point being there are many reasons why a payout will likely be different than the contract amount owed.
[/quote]

True, a buyout would be less. But that misses the point.

The point is it won't be much less. Josh and his reps are not idiots, why should he take a huge discount? Especially with inflation almost non-existent.

Let's say Josh would agree to a lump sum $9.5M payout. Does that really move the needle at all? I don't think so. And I am skeptical the money is there to do this.

And why in the world would Josh care about facilitating the university's ability to pay? He is the one with the contract. He has the hammer.

(01-01-2016 01:17 AM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 01:14 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:47 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:44 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(12-31-2015 08:21 PM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  As usual, lose the argument, move the goal line.

What do you not get about "even playing field?" If Pastner were playing against the teams that Yates had to play, under the same circumstances, he wouldn't have made a tournament game and would've been gone quicker than Yates was. There's not a lot of speculation to that, having watch both sets of teams play.

Your opinion is not representative of the facts.

In your opinion......

Another speculator?

Speculating on your speculation.

The logic behind Pastner doing so has to do with the concept of the present value of future payments.
[/quote]

Obviously Penny Lane. Do you actually think people don't understand the concept of the time value of money?

Two problems: 1st, it's Josh's decision whether or not to accept a buyout. 2nd, it would only be 4 remaining years on his contract, and with interest rates/inflation at historic lows, there is almost no financial reason for Josh to take a haircut on what would be owed him.
[/quote]

Maybe maybe not. But interest rates and inflation will not stay like this for the remainder of his contract. We are way past adjustment period.
[/quote]

The concept of present value will very much be in play when & if JP is fired. And it will have little to do with the Fed & interest rates. Instead it will have everything to do with what JP would like to do with his money. The procedure will be to pay JP what he is due when it is due over the period of the contract as executed OR it will be something less than that in a different pay structure to which JP would rather have those payments - and to which our university would have to agree. It could be, in the absence of another coaching job of interest, that JP might "settle" from something less in a lump sum, just because JP might want to make an investment which required up front cash. So the settlement could be less than the amount owed. It could also be that JP or our university is able to negotiate a payment schedule over a much longer period, either to facilitate a university ability to pay or JP desiring a longer payout to provide income security and lessen a tax burden. Point being there are many reasons why a payout will likely be different than the contract amount owed.
[/quote]

True, a buyout would be less. But that misses the point.

The point is it won't be much less. Josh and his reps are not idiots, why should he take a huge discount? Especially with inflation almost non-existent.

Let's say Josh would agree to a lump sum $9.5M payout. Does that really move the needle at all? I don't think so. And I am skeptical the money is there to do this.

And why in the world would Josh care about facilitating the university's ability to pay? He is the one with the contract. He has the hammer.
[/quote]

Has nothing to do with JP "accommodating" the university & everything to do with the university & JP finding common ground versus paying out the contract as it is presently structured. Why speculate, a contract settlement, if different from the contract terms will occur if the parties to that contract can agree on something different. Maybe JP wants to retire & is willing to take $500K per year for 25-30 yrs? That might be attractive to both JP & the university & might put more money in JP's pocket & accommodate the the university at the same time. Point is it's between the parties to agree on some alternative to the status quo IF the parties can agree.

I just hope we beat South Carolina...

(12-31-2015 05:53 PM)ricole14 Wrote:  Lawdy! Lawdy! Will it ever end?

I can tell you that I have been observing this kind of bullshyt off and on for about 45 years. The theme is essentially constant - only the coaching names and sports vary. If our fans would spend one fourth as much time thinking about how they can help move our program forward as they do judging coaching, there is no telling what we could do.

(01-01-2016 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I just hope we beat South Carolina...

Me too. But my expectation level has been lowered to just hope we are competitive in such games. Pulling for us to win & I'll be watching.