I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

The editors write the headlines, mphsfan. If not for the upgrades in beat writers Schad and Giannotto I would cancel my online subscription. Geoff is a toss up

(07-11-2017 04:25 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

The editors write the headlines, Brent. If not for the upgrades in beat writers Schad and Giannotto I would cancel my online subscription. Geoff is a toss up

Someone gave me a copy of Sunday's newspaper, and I was glad they did. I don't subscribe any more, and we have birds.

(07-11-2017 04:25 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

The editors write the headlines, Brent. If not for the upgrades in beat writers Schad and Giannotto I would cancel my online subscription. Geoff is a toss up

100% agree with this. Geoff is too back-and-forth, and he went along with Parrish on the Tubby railing for the most part - when Geoff is good, he's really good, but then he likes to play devil's advocate on some issues that leaves me scratching my head.

Anyway, back to mine/yours original point - if not for the Tiger coverage via the beat writers, I too would no longer have my CA subscription. Having said that, I think the online w/ Sunday deliver option is an absolute steal at less than $10/month for the Tiger coverage alone.

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

Where is this currently being pushing by the CA - asking as an out of towner who hasn't seen anything "lately" on this issue.

(07-11-2017 06:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

Where is this currently being pushing by the CA - asking as an out of towner who hasn't seen anything "lately" on this issue.

Twitter is where I first saw the article when John Martin was retweeting it.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/ne...465086001/

(07-11-2017 05:46 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

Finally the voice of reason.

(07-11-2017 07:53 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:46 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

Finally the voice of reason.

He still gets a Christmas Card from RC every year.

(07-11-2017 07:58 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:53 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:46 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:11 PM)TG4 Wrote:  I would have a copy of that RC Johnson exit audit somewhere in a lockbox.

This "conflict of interest" agenda crap being pushed by the Commercial Appeal is ridiculous.

I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

Finally the voice of reason.

He still gets a Christmas Card from RC every year.

I'm sure they meet at least once during that magical week in August just to listen to Elvis tunes.

(07-11-2017 08:02 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:58 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:53 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:46 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:34 PM)mphsfan Wrote:  I agree. When I saw the headline, I thought OMG! Tom is in a mess. When I read the article, it says he did not benefit from the "conflict". So what's the big deal then?

I've heard, today, that Tom reported the "conflict" and the University failed to file the proper paperwork with the BOR etc. related to said conflict. This is not on Tom. But the paper is selling click bait. It's the world we live in.


I also heard that Rudd considers the matter resolved and closed. But they aren't reporting that.

If that audit you mentioned came to light the University would be embarrassed and charges could be drawn up.

He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

Finally the voice of reason.

He still gets a Christmas Card from RC every year.

I'm sure they meet at least once during that magical week in August just to listen to Elvis tunes.

If a parent names their kid Dick Johnson are they being redundant?

(07-11-2017 08:06 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 08:02 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:58 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:53 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:46 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  He does not have to personally benefit from it for it to be a conflict. His contract representatives would have directly benefited from the deal. That in itself would have been a conflict of interest.

Would be no different from a Senator pushing for passage of a law which would allow someone they know to gain financially.

Finally the voice of reason.

He still gets a Christmas Card from RC every year.

I'm sure they meet at least once during that magical week in August just to listen to Elvis tunes.

If a parent names their kid Dick Johnson are they being redundant?

It's hard to say.

If I were Tom Bowen, I'd look into the mirror and ask myself...

"How the hell did I allow Tubby Smith to become the head coach of my basketball team?"

I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

(07-11-2017 10:23 PM)mapdude Wrote:  I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

So, this is all about Bowen and pastner having the same sports agent?
Possibly , I am naive. But, I see this as a minor issue unless there is any other evidence of wrongdoing.

(07-12-2017 08:12 AM)roachman48 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:23 PM)mapdude Wrote:  I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

So, this is all about Bowen and pastner having the same sports agent?
Possibly , I am naive. But, I see this as a minor issue unless there is any other evidence of wrongdoing.

Exactly. Why the CA wants to make it an issue is glaringly apparent. As one other poster mentioned, it's all about click bait. Tom Bowen could turn out to be the best AD we've ever had.

(07-12-2017 08:27 AM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:12 AM)roachman48 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:23 PM)mapdude Wrote:  I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

So, this is all about Bowen and pastner having the same sports agent?
Possibly , I am naive. But, I see this as a minor issue unless there is any other evidence of wrongdoing.

Exactly. Why the CA wants to make it an issue is glaringly apparent. As one other poster mentioned, it's all about click bait. Tom Bowen could turn out to be the best AD we've ever had.

Yep, this was possibly news in 2013-14 when it was reported. But it was explained & handled then. Nothing new here except for the CA beating not a dead horse but a non-existent one.

(07-12-2017 09:15 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:27 AM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:12 AM)roachman48 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:23 PM)mapdude Wrote:  I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

So, this is all about Bowen and pastner having the same sports agent?
Possibly , I am naive. But, I see this as a minor issue unless there is any other evidence of wrongdoing.

Exactly. Why the CA wants to make it an issue is glaringly apparent. As one other poster mentioned, it's all about click bait. Tom Bowen could turn out to be the best AD we've ever had.

Yep, this was possibly news in 2013-14 when it was reported. But it was explained & handled then. Nothing new here except for the CA beating not a dead horse but a non-existent one.

Much ado about nothing IMHO. Looks like Bowen has some enemies in the media.

(07-12-2017 11:56 AM)Tiger57 Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 09:15 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:27 AM)TG4 Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:12 AM)roachman48 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 10:23 PM)mapdude Wrote:  I personally have bigger problems to stress over than this crap.

#nothingtoseehere...movealong

So, this is all about Bowen and pastner having the same sports agent?
Possibly , I am naive. But, I see this as a minor issue unless there is any other evidence of wrongdoing.

Exactly. Why the CA wants to make it an issue is glaringly apparent. As one other poster mentioned, it's all about click bait. Tom Bowen could turn out to be the best AD we've ever had.

Yep, this was possibly news in 2013-14 when it was reported. But it was explained & handled then. Nothing new here except for the CA beating not a dead horse but a non-existent one.

Much ado about nothing IMHO. Looks like Bowen has some enemies in the media.

Could be the same old, keep Memphis in its place mentality - with some added dislike for Bowen at the CA since he doesn't play to the CA/media like his predecessor.