forums

Anyone hear anything on this?

wspcane said:
They are reviewing the language of it, not the idiocy of the terms. Just the same as they reviewed the language behind the abortion of an agreement for UHealth to hire Pascal Goldschmidt. If BJ wanted to extend Richt, the most they were likely doing was reviewing the terms to avoid future lawsuits like they are currently in with Fat Al. BJ can likely take ownership of this decision to himself.
Click to expand...
That is just false. I could phrase it as unlikely and idiotic if true, but in the real world, there is zero effing chance the General Counsel of an institution is signing off on double digit million dollar buyout clauses without extensive discussion at the highest levels. The audit or finance committee of the BOD likely had to sign off on that term. If a lawyer did so without discussing substance, they should notify their professional liability carrier promptly. General counsels are not first year associates. Their job description includes more than spell check and due diligence.
 
Advertisement
If Richt stays or hires an oc it’s because the light went off against wis. It won’t be because somebody told him too lol.
 
prinmemo said:
Counsel’s job is not to make business decisions. They’re not going to stop anyone from making a bad deal; their job is to protect you legally.
Click to expand...
Just false at the general counsel of a legit institution level. They don’t make the decision, but they surely have a voice, and own risks, and in the context of the magnitude of the buyout being mentioned here, would never, ever just defer to an AD with a shrug. NFW. Laughable. That size agreement was a president level approval minimum. Whether anyone cared to read it is another matter.
 
Advertisement
Richt is not going anywhere for now. Let’s just hope Brown, Searles and Jon Richt are let go
 
Ethnicsands said:
That is just false. I could phrase it as unlikely and idiotic if true, but in the real world, there is zero effing chance the General Counsel of an institution is signing off on double digit million dollar buyout clauses without extensive discussion at the highest levels. The audit or finance committee of the BOD likely had to sign off on that term. If a lawyer did so without discussing substance, they should notify their professional liability carrier promptly. General counsels are not first year associates. Their job description includes more than spell check and due diligence.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying other people are not signing off on it. They definitely are. But it is not the general counsel. However, if BJ says we want to do this, they are going to likely do it and get it done.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
Just false at the general counsel of a legit institution level. They don’t make the decision, but they surely have a voice, and own risks, and in the context of the magnitude of the buyout being mentioned here, would never, ever just defer to an AD with a shrug. NFW. Laughable. That size agreement was a president level approval minimum. Whether anyone cared to read it is another matter.
Click to expand...

Counsel can say whatever they want. They’re not the final decision makers. The Board, Admin, make the final call.
 
Advertisement
wspcane said:
I’m not saying other people are not signing off on it. They definitely are. But it is not the general counsel. However, if BJ says we want to do this, they are going to likely do it and get it done.
Click to expand...
Look, i’m not interested in debating semantics and we dont know the buyout terms, but i know enough about the topics relevant here to assure you that there is no effing way blake james has signing authority for a 20+ million dollar contract without higher approval. The GC doesn’t say ‘yes.’ He won’t say ‘no’ with the appropriate approvals. But it is absolutely in his job description to walk the decision makers through ever risk, concern and eventuality. And that means above Blake James, in the context of a contract this size.
 
By my rough calculations, we would be losing 6-8 Million dollars a year in ticket sales alone if Mark sticks around without making any meaningful changes. I suspect that attendance would be half of what it typically would be. I'm basing this on a projected average attendance number of 30K next year. And this may be unrealistically high. Am I off here??? Why would the University not pay the buyout to get this MFer out of here?? The low attendance, the PR nightmare, the multiple years we would be set back, and the overall toxicity of the program would be far more costly than a 10 million dollar buyout. Help me out nerds
 
Advertisement
Saw posted on twitter from canesport that he wanted to quit and school said they wouldn’t pay buyout and to hire an OC. Supposedly within 72 hours will be announcing OC.

Just reporting what I saw. It’s probably all bull****
 
felix said:
I posted two weeks ago that something is going on with Mark Richt and it’s not football related. I would not be a bit surprised if he resigned in the next 2-3 days. I like Mark, I think he deserves a chance to get this straightened out, but this decision is not about football.
Click to expand...

I like Mark Richt and respect him as a person and, no, I don't think he deserves a chance to remain on as UM HC.
We've seen enough.
But I hope he gets things worked out if he indeed has an issue weighing on him.
 
prinmemo said:
Counsel can say whatever they want. They’re not the final decision makers. The Board, Admin, make the final call.
Click to expand...
life is more complicated than whatever you read in law school. Boards rarely overrule a general counsel with legitimate, serious concerns. The board of a nonprofit would be less likely to do so, moreover. Not saying that happened here, just pointing out, the general counsel has more influence on the type of contract extension being discussed here than the discussion in this thread seems to acknowledge. Whether that influence was exercised in this case, i have no idea.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top