(02-17-2018 08:53 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  One step:

Come up with $10 million.

Not totally true. The $10M is already committed to and earmarked for Tubby. The real question is for the ones who committed to it. There are 2 parts to that question: (1) Are they prepared to admit they made a mistake and pay someone $10M to go away? (2) Are they prepared to pay someone else?

Good news is staff positions are one year contracts so they money there on an annual basis should be about a wash. And, at least we had the foresight if this didn't work out to put it in Tubby's contract to be able to spread out the remainder of the $ owed over double the amount of years in the event of Tubby's termination. So, if we hired a coach for $1.6M annually or less, that is about a wash as well over the next 6 seasons.

(02-19-2018 09:37 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:53 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  One step:

Come up with $10 million.

Not totally true. The $10M is already committed to and earmarked for Tubby. The real question is for the ones who committed to it. There are 2 parts to that question: (1) Are they prepared to admit they made a mistake and pay someone $10M to go away? (2) Are they prepared to pay someone else?

Good news is staff positions are one year contracts so they money there on an annual basis should be about a wash. And, at least we had the foresight if this didn't work out to put it in Tubby's contract to be able to spread out the remainder of the $ owed over double the amount of years in the event of Tubby's termination. So, if we hired a coach for $1.6M annually or less, that is about a wash as well over the next 6 seasons.

First of all, only 1-2 donors actually attempt to involve themselves in selection of staff. They normally leave that to the admin. The donors as a group generally just commit to supplying the funding based upon decisions the admin make. 2nd, Tubby & staff have fully committed multi-year contracts, not annual.

(02-19-2018 10:15 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:37 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:53 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  One step:

Come up with $10 million.

Not totally true. The $10M is already committed to and earmarked for Tubby. The real question is for the ones who committed to it. There are 2 parts to that question: (1) Are they prepared to admit they made a mistake and pay someone $10M to go away? (2) Are they prepared to pay someone else?

Good news is staff positions are one year contracts so they money there on an annual basis should be about a wash. And, at least we had the foresight if this didn't work out to put it in Tubby's contract to be able to spread out the remainder of the $ owed over double the amount of years in the event of Tubby's termination. So, if we hired a coach for $1.6M annually or less, that is about a wash as well over the next 6 seasons.

First of all, only 1-2 donors actually attempt to involve themselves in selection of staff. They normally leave that to the admin. The donors as a group generally just commit to supplying the funding based upon decisions the admin make. 2nd, Tubby & staff have fully committed multi-year contracts, not annual.

1. Never said the donors get a say in the staff, that is typically the call of the head coach. 2. Are you certain on multi-year contracts for the staff (assistant coaches, DBO, etc.)? I am positive I have heard multiple times the assistant coaches are 1 year contracts, hence why it is easier to make staff changes at the end of the season. Therefore, there is an annual pool of money for the staff and it can be used however the head coach and admin can make it work. So, if a change in the regime is made, the annual amount of $ for the staff should be about a wash between what was earmarked for Tubby vs. what would be earmarked for the new hire.

(02-19-2018 10:45 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 10:15 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:37 AM)airric2255 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 08:53 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  One step:

Come up with $10 million.

Not totally true. The $10M is already committed to and earmarked for Tubby. The real question is for the ones who committed to it. There are 2 parts to that question: (1) Are they prepared to admit they made a mistake and pay someone $10M to go away? (2) Are they prepared to pay someone else?

Good news is staff positions are one year contracts so they money there on an annual basis should be about a wash. And, at least we had the foresight if this didn't work out to put it in Tubby's contract to be able to spread out the remainder of the $ owed over double the amount of years in the event of Tubby's termination. So, if we hired a coach for $1.6M annually or less, that is about a wash as well over the next 6 seasons.

First of all, only 1-2 donors actually attempt to involve themselves in selection of staff. They normally leave that to the admin. The donors as a group generally just commit to supplying the funding based upon decisions the admin make. 2nd, Tubby & staff have fully committed multi-year contracts, not annual.

1. Never said the donors get a say in the staff, that is typically the call of the head coach. 2. Are you certain on multi-year contracts for the staff (assistant coaches, DBO, etc.)? I am positive I have heard multiple times the assistant coaches are 1 year contracts, hence why it is easier to make staff changes at the end of the season. Therefore, there is an annual pool of money for the staff and it can be used however the head coach and admin can make it work. So, if a change in the regime is made, the annual amount of $ for the staff should be about a wash between what was earmarked for Tubby vs. what would be earmarked for the new hire.

The university does not have multi year contracts for assistance coaches. They are paid annually through a pool negotiated with the head coach.

Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

(02-17-2018 06:17 PM)Tigx Wrote:  I'm not sure future salary would classify as a sunk cost. But not an accountant, so can't say for sure.

The "sunk cost" description is unusual in this application, but it still works. Sunk cost is usually used for a capital investment for which all monies have indeed already been paid. In the case of contractual liability for future salary, while the money hasn't been paid out, it is already on the books. So a sunk cost reference is appropriate. IMO.

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can't manufacture "cause," either there is or there isn't. DUI, staff affairs, calling hookers on your university cell phone, sex on a restaurant table outside of wedlock, hiring hookers for visiting recruits, major NCAA infractions, abusive behavior towards students or staff, etc. all work fine. But it usually doesn't end well for an employer who puts together a flimsy cause case for firing someone with a guaranteed contract.

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

(02-19-2018 10:23 PM)Cotten Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can't manufacture "cause," either there is or there isn't. DUI, staff affairs, calling hookers on your university cell phone, sex on a restaurant table outside of wedlock, hiring hookers for visiting recruits, major NCAA infractions, abusive behavior towards students or staff, etc. all work fine. But it usually doesn't end well for an employer who puts together a flimsy cause case for firing someone with a guaranteed contract.

Flimsy cause? Any type of review based on performance would produce legitimate cause in about 10 seconds. Rudd and Bowen could justifiably fire all 4 coaches after pulling up the recruiting page on Rivals or 247.

(02-20-2018 01:07 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

So you go out of your way to piss off the head coach? Sure makes the job appealing for the next guy. Also, you complain about the effort of Tubby now, wait until you fire his son.

There are only two professional ways to remove him.

1. Fire him and pay his contract

2. Try to negotiate a better deal to pay him off. This might be possible, it’s obvious he isn’t really enjoying this job. Maybe cut him a check for half and let him go away unrestricted.

(02-20-2018 01:13 AM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:07 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

So you go out of your way to piss off the head coach? Sure makes the job appealing for the next guy. Also, you complain about the effort of Tubby now, wait until you fire his son.

There are only two professional ways to remove him.

1. Fire him and pay his contract

2. Try to negotiate a better deal to pay him off. This might be possible, it’s obvious he isn’t really enjoying this job. Maybe cut him a check for half and let him go away unrestricted.

I agree with both of your solutions, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether or not it is doable to fire Saul. I am 99% sure that it is.

I posted this in another thread. Tubby isn't going to walk away from $9 million, but he might walk away from $1-3 million if he gets to resign with dignity. Tubby could talk about Georgia, Tulsa, Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas Tech; say that he still has gas in the tank and say that it wasn't a good fit here, and he will probably still be able to get a job somewhere.

If he risks getting fired he probably won't work again.

There have been terrfic ideas discussed in this thread, but I believe there is still a shortage of hard facts.

An enterprising reporter (I am calling you out Mark G.) should provide facts related but not limited to:

1. Penny’s interest in the head coaching job. IMO, anything short of a Shermanesque denial from Penny is tantamount to his wish to take the position.

2. Is it legal for the administration to fire Saul and take other steps to make Tubby uncomfortable?

3. Does the six year payoff option exist?

#3 has already been reported as an option.

(02-20-2018 01:07 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

You are so full of it. Congrats on being the biggest doosh and making it miserable to post on this board. You are the sole reason many posters have left this board. Good job dude


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-20-2018 09:10 AM)fsquid Wrote:  #3 has already been reported as an option.

By whom, please? Thanks.

(02-20-2018 01:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:13 AM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:07 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

So you go out of your way to piss off the head coach? Sure makes the job appealing for the next guy. Also, you complain about the effort of Tubby now, wait until you fire his son.

There are only two professional ways to remove him.

1. Fire him and pay his contract

2. Try to negotiate a better deal to pay him off. This might be possible, it’s obvious he isn’t really enjoying this job. Maybe cut him a check for half and let him go away unrestricted.

I agree with both of your solutions, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether or not it is doable to fire Saul. I am 99% sure that it is.

I posted this in another thread. Tubby isn't going to walk away from $9 million, but he might walk away from $1-3 million if he gets to resign with dignity. Tubby could talk about Georgia, Tulsa, Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas Tech; say that he still has gas in the tank and say that it wasn't a good fit here, and he will probably still be able to get a job somewhere.

If he risks getting fired he probably won't work again.

There's also a good chance that he could put together tournament team next year if he adds a couple of JUCOs who can shoot the 3 and play defense. That's sort of his MO...scrappy teams they win enough games against quality opponents to squeak into the tournament. A tournament appearance would be the perfect springboard for him to move onto greener pastures and we get out from under that albatross contract scott free.

And there's a good chance monkeys might fly out our butts here at
JUCO U

(02-20-2018 01:15 PM)Cotten Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:13 AM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:07 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 04:51 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Assistant coaches contracts have to be up this year. Even if they were 2-year deals - rare, but not unheard of - they would be up this year. No way they're longer than 2 years.

Tubby has control over staff - as indicated from the Keelon situation. But it's never "total control". If a staff member does something that puts the university at risk legally, financially, or in image, then the university will have a way to force a change. So that's the angle that needs to be taken. If that route is taken, and Tubby refuses, then a settlement would need to be negotiated for Tubby.

You can fire an assistant for any reason including for reasons based on performance. Everybody employed by the university including Rudd and Bowen have performance reviews at the end of every year. To suggest that anyone is untouchable is ridiculous.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Tubby has total control but my opinion is a lot more plausible than yours and unlike you, I won't state it as absolute fact without knowing for sure.

So you go out of your way to piss off the head coach? Sure makes the job appealing for the next guy. Also, you complain about the effort of Tubby now, wait until you fire his son.

There are only two professional ways to remove him.

1. Fire him and pay his contract

2. Try to negotiate a better deal to pay him off. This might be possible, it’s obvious he isn’t really enjoying this job. Maybe cut him a check for half and let him go away unrestricted.

I agree with both of your solutions, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether or not it is doable to fire Saul. I am 99% sure that it is.

I posted this in another thread. Tubby isn't going to walk away from $9 million, but he might walk away from $1-3 million if he gets to resign with dignity. Tubby could talk about Georgia, Tulsa, Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas Tech; say that he still has gas in the tank and say that it wasn't a good fit here, and he will probably still be able to get a job somewhere.

If he risks getting fired he probably won't work again.

There's also a good chance that he could put together tournament team next year if he adds a couple of JUCOs who can shoot the 3 and play defense. That's sort of his MO...scrappy teams they win enough games against quality opponents to squeak into the tournament. A tournament appearance would be the perfect springboard for him to move onto greener pastures and we get out from under that albatross contract scott free.

We need a point guard that can be a factor next year, in the worst way. There aren't any left.

Time to bring out the big guns.

(02-20-2018 02:45 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Time to bring out the big guns.

Great Players = Big Wins