forums

I am guessing we wont hear anything this week now.

Advertisement
Umbra said:
Lol if it's not their money they are happy to say yes. We would be saving an extra 7% of the money we are excited is being added to the athletic budget and they'd rather spend 7% to fire diaz a week earlier despite it having no affect or impact on anything that happens later on lol.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Look, I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just pointing out the math and the logic. I realize some people have become emotional about this and want Manny's head on a pike yesterday, but if any poster had to write a check out of his own bank account, he'd settle down and wait for 5 more days.
 
Gables Cane said:
I am not an insider but I do know a couple of BOT members. I will not speak on candidates but I do not believe a background search is holding things up. Candidates are vetted before consideration by the BOT. Do you really think they would convene a meeting of all BOT members, deliberate for hours and then hold a vote without conducting a detailed background and reputations search on the candidates? Sure, they might conduct another routine search of public records looking for recent arrests following the last inquiry but the essential information needed to make a decision was known by those voting beforehand.

Any perceived delay by fans is probably due to timing and optics. The time for debating has passed.
Click to expand...


Just for context, there may be a couple of votes. One might be "authorization of contractual terms" to be drafted by the UM lawyers. For instance, Candidate X has agreed to $Y million per year over Z years" and a bunch of other clauses. Lawyers go in, draft agreement, etc. But the actual execution of the contract is contingent upon background check, etc. etc. etc. Then, when background check has been presented to BOT, they take a final vote to approve the contract and they have an authorized rep sign the thing (it's not the **** Declaration of Independence, there's no room for 100 signatures).

I realize a lot of these legalities are causing some posters' eyes to glaze over as they mix up their cyanide ****tails, but it's important to understand. If not for these various tasks being split up and run concurrently, it would take a couple of months to hire someone.

I would imagine that the meeting and vote that YOU are referring to would have been an approval of the basic contractual framework (salary, years, perqs, etc.).

But it's not Facebook Official until a final vote is taken and the document is signed.

This is why I suspect that some of the troublemaker Trustees may have given their affirmative vote to the contract terms, while still planning to pitch a fit when the results of the background check are presented to the full Board. It's a sly technique to appear reasonable.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Just for context, there may be a couple of votes. One might be "authorization of contractual terms" to be drafted by the UM lawyers. For instance, Candidate X has agreed to $Y million per year over Z years" and a bunch of other clauses. Lawyers go in, draft agreement, etc. But the actual execution of the contract is contingent upon background check, etc. etc. etc. Then, when background check has been presented to BOT, they take a final vote to approve the contract and they have an authorized rep sign the thing (it's not the **** Declaration of Independence, there's no room for 100 signatures).

I realize a lot of these legalities are causing some posters' eyes to glaze over as they mix up their cyanide ****tails, but it's important to understand. If not for these various tasks being split up and run concurrently, it would take a couple of months to hire someone.

I would imagine that the meeting and vote that YOU are referring to would have been an approval of the basic contractual framework (salary, years, perqs, etc.).

But it's not Facebook Official until a final vote is taken and the document is signed.

This is why I suspect that some of the troublemaker Trustees may have given their affirmative vote to the contract terms, while still planning to pitch a fit when the results of the background check are presented to the full Board. It's a sly technique to appear reasonable.
Click to expand...
Great explanation. Thanks.
 
Cribby said:
Lake is saying exactly what I said Monday and you said I was “hedging”. Even though I never said who was hired, i still don’t know how that’s hedging but whatever.

I also got called a “click baiter” for those posts. Posts I only made because of what i’d heard in the middle of the night early Monday, there was possibly somebody else in thr running because of the split in the Bot.

That eventually came out.
The funny thing is I only posted that info because of a post I made in the AD thread, I put ” it really is TNM”. I’d heard the same names as other people and pit out a cryptic message. Which was wrong. I figured I’d make a post to clear things up since people watch what I say. I didn’t want to lead folks on.
Click to expand...
not comprehending why certain people on here feel the need to constantly bust your chops.
Like truthfully I literally don’t get it. Is there something I missed?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Just for context, there may be a couple of votes. One might be "authorization of contractual terms" to be drafted by the UM lawyers. For instance, Candidate X has agreed to $Y million per year over Z years" and a bunch of other clauses. Lawyers go in, draft agreement, etc. But the actual execution of the contract is contingent upon background check, etc. etc. etc. Then, when background check has been presented to BOT, they take a final vote to approve the contract and they have an authorized rep sign the thing (it's not the **** Declaration of Independence, there's no room for 100 signatures).

I realize a lot of these legalities are causing some posters' eyes to glaze over as they mix up their cyanide ****tails, but it's important to understand. If not for these various tasks being split up and run concurrently, it would take a couple of months to hire someone.

I would imagine that the meeting and vote that YOU are referring to would have been an approval of the basic contractual framework (salary, years, perqs, etc.).

But it's not Facebook Official until a final vote is taken and the document is signed.

This is why I suspect that some of the troublemaker Trustees may have given their affirmative vote to the contract terms, while still planning to pitch a fit when the results of the background check are presented to the full Board. It's a sly technique to appear reasonable.
Click to expand...
How do we find out who the "Troublemaker Trustees" are? Or at least who the influential ones are
 
Advertisement
We need to make these changes as fast as possible so I can ***** about UM rushing this whole process for the next decade!
 
Warrior808 said:
How do we find out who the "Troublemaker Trustees" are? Or at least who the influential ones are
Click to expand...

Not that there will be a publicly-disclosed roll call vote, but it is safe to say that some of the Emeriti members are pretty old guard in their ways. Plus, I think we know why DiMare could have some trepidation, but he is honestly not leading any sort of opposition.

---Johnny Taylor, who I was friends with at UM, comes from an HR/Personnel background. He will respect the process, but it might also be hard to predict his vote if there are red flags. Otherwise, he is an "alum of the 80s" who loves the football team, but I wouldn't guarantee how he would vote ON THIS ISSUE ALONE. What is interesting to me is if the Louisville case (NCAA and/or FBI) is old and cold, I thought I saw someone post that the NCAA case is technically still active.

---Chuck Cobb has been on the BOT for forever, except when he was the Ambassador to Iceland under Bush I. Hard to predict his vote, though I have always had very pleasant interactions with him, I don't think he's a hard-a$$, but he has extensive corporate background.

---I think most people would put David Epstein and Stuart Miller in the old(er) guard.

---Marcus Lemonis has not really used his power or celebrity before, and even in this, he is drafting off of Jose Mas, which helps the cause.

---I don't think A-Rod will be super-bothered by the background check, but I'm not sure how active he is. For something like this, I could see him making a bigger effort to attend and vote (same with Bernie from the Emeriti list).

---Ron Stone and Ed Williamson have been on the BOT forever too. In the Emeriti category, so too have been Carlos de la Cruz and Alfonso "Big Sugar" Fanjul.

---I'm sure a bunch of people recognize many of those names either from UM buildings or other buildings in Miami and/or those people being the glitterati/Illuminati of South Florida.



1637703252095.png


1637703289345.png


1637703363903.png
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
most of the board are distinguished members who provide some benefit to the university. they are not involved in any decision making process although they may be sent or receive information. rather, the board has an executive committee that convenes and votes on those matters that need to come before the board. this decision is made at that level.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Exactly. Look, I'm not mad at anyone, I'm just pointing out the math and the logic. I realize some people have become emotional about this and want Manny's head on a pike yesterday, but if any poster had to write a check out of his own bank account, he'd settle down and wait for 5 more days.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically speaking, how much more would it cost for the head on the pike option???? GOT style
 
Back
Top