Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

Spot on. Although I'm willing to bet someone else is behind this besides Rudd.

Great points

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

Name them.

I do think the USC offer is bs. They ended up paying a guy 1.5

(03-23-2016 01:07 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  I do think the USC offer is bs. They ended up paying a guy 1.5

Agreed. USC is trying to make themselves look good-have NEVER paid top $ in CBB.

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

I agree Penny Lane. Again, all this supposed butting of heads between Josh and Bowen has happened after March, '13, so is moot.

Re #5, I wish I knew the answer, but I don't blame Rudd. Public university, and Rudd probably felt he had to do it. I agree it will probably be quick, and no impropriety will be found.

But, what if Rudd is trying to fire Bowen with cause, so the U of M doesn't have to pay the rest of his contract. Bowen just got his contract extended last October until 2019. Could things have gotten so bad between Rudd and Bowen in the last 6 months that Rudd is looking for a reason to can him? Wish we all knew.

(03-23-2016 01:07 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  I do think the USC offer is bs. They ended up paying a guy 1.5

100% agree Bluto. 100% revisionist history to cover their butts.

See, we can agree on something.

(03-23-2016 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

Name them.

Smarter than you? Get me the phone book. Anyone with a little common sense knows the only legal issue than will arise from investigating this contract will be whether proper (written as required by University policy) notice of conflict of interests were made. That's it; the outrageous contract?-incompetence but not illegal.

Burnsauce

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

Perfect summary.

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  ....

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

You like to make strong declarative statements without having any idea what you are talking about.

(03-23-2016 03:01 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  ....

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

You like to make strong declarative statements without having any idea what you are talking about.

My statement was strong and to the point. AGAIN: All of this is immaterial anyway; if you know as much law as you claim, you know the only issue here is disclosure of conflict of interest by employees as required by University policy.

(03-23-2016 12:43 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Spot on. Although I'm willing to bet someone else is behind this besides Rudd.

Jamammy Whitey?

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

Agree 100%, particularly on point #5.

(03-23-2016 12:43 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Spot on. Although I'm willing to bet someone else is behind this besides Rudd.

Who? Boosters?

Bowen and Fuente weren't exactly buddies either. Bowen and Rudd are not buddies. Bowen and many of the boosters are not buddies. Bowen and the media aren't buddies. Bowen and the 49ers weren't buddies for long either.

The buddy situation is apparently fluid depending on how nasty it gets.

Pastner being let go would've fixed this thing before it surfaced at such at inopportune moment.....right? Would it work just to send him packing now?

I'm looking for the easiest solution here without unraveling the whole program to find who dun it.

(03-23-2016 03:38 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Bowen and Fuente weren't exactly buddies either. Bowen and Rudd are not buddies. Bowen and many of the boosters are not buddies. Bowen and the media aren't buddies. Bowen and the 49ers weren't buddies for long either.

Seems like there is a common denominator here.

(03-23-2016 01:34 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 01:01 PM)Penny Lane Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:39 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not that any of you necessarily do or should care, but I just wanted to get my thoughts together...


1. The idea that there was any real conflict of interest going on in regards to negotiation of the contract is pretty ridiculous on its face. It isn't unusual for AD's and coaches to share agents. Everyone knew who represented who at the time. Bowen probably had no real input into the terms of the contract, anyway. That falls on Raines (who apparently made it clear that she didn't want to lose Pastner) and the Boosters who had to agree to the money. Bowen has butted heads with Pastner repeatedly over various issues. They aren't exactly buddies. There's absolutely no reason to think that somehow the contract came about through collusion between those two.

2. The contract has a liquidated damages clause/no mitigation clause and front loads the extensions because Memphis couldn't afford to match the yearly amount that USC offered (3.6 over six, or 21.6 million). What we could do is offer a contract that would be worth at least 13.25 million over 5 years and as much as 18.55 over 7 with the extra years kicking in at the front of the contract and guarantee most of that. The wording of the contract has nothing to do with some sort of negligence to notice or understand the consequences of various provisions or anything like that. It represents the agreement the parties wanted to enter into at the time.

3. It doesn't really matter that the contract contains a liquidated damages clause (so that there is no common law duty to mitigate) or excludes a mitigation/offset clause. We'd be in exactly the same boat if either of those provisions were left out or in the contract respectively. If there were someone even willing to pay Pastner a million a year, we would offer to make up the difference between that and what's due on our contract and be done with it. And Pastner would take that because he will be toxic when he leaves here if he rides out his contract and would at least have a fresh start wherever he landed. As it is the only school who's even showed interest is UTSA, who paid the coach they just fired 200,000 a year. Even double that wouldn't save us enough money to make a real difference. So we wouldn't be able to fire Pastner right now even if he had a duty to mitigate.

4. The contract is a bad contract. But we're in the situation we are in because the administration did not believe we'd need to fire Pastner after 3 years. He'd just won 30 games, had been to the NCAA every year except his first, had a loaded roster and a Top 5 recruiting class that included the surprising commitment of Austin Nichols. The fact of the matter is that most of the fans would have crucified anyone who questioned the terms of the contract at the time we entered into it. Liquidated damages, front loaded extensions and all. And those same fans would have absolutely mutinied if USC had hired Pastner away from us..

The University should have forseen that Pastner could potentially need to be removed instead of selling themselves on the "best case" view of Pastner's resume and refuse to enter into an agreement without a buyout less than the full value of the contract. But nobody did. There's plenty of blame to go around. Including for the fans and local press who also refused to see the cracks in the facade. No one person deserves to be the scapegoat. Least of all Bowen, especially when it seems like Raines was the principal driver in making sure we locked Pastner up.

5. (IMO) The current "investigation" is an internal Administration struggle. The person to blame for it is Rudd. And it's an embarrassment. The investigation should conclude, yesterday preferably, with a very quick statement that there was no finding of impropriety. If Rudd wants to fire Bowen or Pastner or both he needs to just sack up and do it and stop hurting the University.

A lot of people smarter than you aren't buying 1 and 2; and not having a offset clause is incompetence and borderline malfeasance. Essentially giving Pastner a 6 year guaranteed deal with no offset if he was fired after one day.

Name them.

Smarter than you? Get me the phone book. Anyone with a little common sense knows the only legal issue than will arise from investigating this contract will be whether proper (written as required by University policy) notice of conflict of interests were made. That's it; the outrageous contract?-incompetence but not illegal.

It shouldnt be hard to name them. Dont get your panties in a wad. YOU said people smarter than Briskas arent buying #1 or #2. Name them. Simple. Or should we just take your wittle butthurt word over it?