Trending: Petrino new QB coach at Missouri.

[zipp]

Nice try “Zipp”, but the McElwain example is another swing and a miss. Do you not read what you link? In this case, you linked a story about his buyout with Florida that has the least amount of details of any story I’ve seen about the case, but it does contain the basic fact that led to his settlement: “… the school negotiated an agreement - presumably because McElwain failed to provide evidence to support his Oct. 23 claim (at a press conference) he, his family, staff and players had received death threats from the UF fan base.” The reason that this became an issue is that Florida was going to use that to justify a “for cause” firing on the grounds that if McElwain’s claim of death threats was real, and he then failed to report them to Florida administration officials, even when he was subsequently asked by them, then he failed in his duty to protect his players. So, McElwain settled since he was in danger of not receiving any of his buyout money from Florida, as well as having Florida not continue with their portion of his buyout to Colordao State from his buyout there when he got the Florida job. It was a circus, and I’m sorry you seem to not remember it or understand all of this.

When you cited the Les Miles case as an example, I’ll consider that strike 1 on this topic. Now, McElwain is strike 2. Care to try for strike 3? Or maybe you can come up with some real rationale for Petrino to make a deal concerning the buyout, but we haven’t seen a good reason yet. You should just give it up while you are so far behind on this silly argument.

Petrino supposedly ran your program into the ground, or at least that's what many fans and Sports Illustrated think.

"Vince" evidently didn't agree...

And he opened up the doors to Fort Knox and said "Bobby, come get it!" That was his choice AND the U of L backstory.

Here's another guy... Why in heaven's name would Pitt offer Stallings something less than his full buyout? Didn't they hear?...An AD MUST pay the contract amount!!

Boggles the mind...

Kevin Stallings

 

[Art79]

Petrino supposedly ran your program into the ground, or at least that's what many fans and Sports Illustrated think.

"Vince" evidently didn't agree...

And he opened up the doors to Fort Knox and said "Bobby, come get it!"

That was his choice AND the U of L backstory.

What's the "for cause" reason -- poor performance (yes, last year was very bad, but that's never been a for cause reason), poor recruiting (Alexander and Jackson go against that argument, although I am glad to see a renewed emphasis locally), poor culture (I'm also glad to see more attention to that from the new staff, but it's still not a for cause reason, just a different style, a style that Jurich knew Petrino didn't have when he hired him)...? None of that will work. You'll have to come up with a real angle other than "that's what SOME people THINK". But keep trying, and keep hating. I admire your persistence, even in the face of defeat.

 

[zipp]

What's the "for cause" reason -- poor performance (yes, last year was very bad, but that's never been a for cause reason), poor recruiting (Alexander and Jackson go against that argument, although I am glad to see a renewed emphasis locally), poor culture (I'm also glad to see more attention to that from the new staff, but it's still not a for cause reason, just a different style, a style that Jurich knew Petrino didn't have when he hired him)...? None of that will work. You'll have to come up with a real angle other than "that's what SOME people THINK". But keep trying, and keep hating. I admire your persistence, even in the face of defeat.

Here's the thing you don't or refuse to understand, probably because you're either in denial or you've never been in this situation...

When you enter into a negotiation, you have a strategy. In this instance, "Vince" would declare why Petrino wasn't entitled to his full buyout. That's what all of the examples I'm showing you and others include. No one agrees to accept a lower buyout just because, and that's never the offer. Then the two sides go back and forth debating whatever issues are presented as mitigating full payment.

If anyone should be good at that, it's "Vince". Supposedly, the guy has transferable skills, and negotiations are Business 101. And if he couldn't come up with one or more good negotiating points, U of L 's lawyers should have been able to help with the huge sum of $14 million in play.

Yet, inside of 24 hours, "Vince" pilfered the bank accounts--again--and turned all of it over to Petrino. WTF is the guy supposed to be doing as AD if this ain't part of his job?...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Here's the thing you don't or refuse to understand, probably because you're either in denial or you've never been in this situation...

When you enter into a negotiation, you have a strategy. In this instance, "Vince" would declare why Petrino wasn't entitled to his full buyout. That's what all of the examples I'm showing you and others include. No one agrees to accept a lower buyout just because, and that's never the offer. Then the two sides go back and forth debating whatever issues are presented as mitigating full payment.

If anyone should be good at that, it's "Vince". Supposedly, the guy has transferable skills, and negotiations are Business 101. And if he couldn't come up with one or more good negotiating points, U of L 's lawyers should have been able to help with the huge sum of $14 million in play.

Yet, inside of 24 hours, "Vince" pilfered the bank accounts--again--and turned all of it over to Petrino. WTF is the guy supposed to be doing as AD if this ain't part of his job?...

What a great lesson! All you need is a “strategy” and then “declare” something. Would it be best to use a real Southern drawl while doing that? “I do hereby declare...!!!”. Even in the absence of for-cause rationale, I’m sure Petrino and his attorneys would roll over at that point.

 

[zipp]

What a great lesson! All you need is a “strategy” and then “declare” something. Would it be best to use a real Southern drawl while doing that? “I do hereby declare...!!!”. Even in the absence of for-cause rationale, I’m sure Petrino and his attorneys would roll over at that point.

Anything substantive to add?

By comparison, Pitt said Stallings shouted at fans...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Anything substantive to add?

By comparison, Pitt said Stallings shouted at fans...

Yeah, your hypothetical is BS and you know it. There was no reasonable grounds for a “with cause” firing and you know it. As bad as his contract was and how stupid it was to not have a mitigating damages clause, Petrino was going to get that money and you know it. Despite being an intelligent person, you continue to do things to challenge that because you have some irrational hatred of Tyra (and Mack) and you know it.

 

[zipp]

Yeah, your hypothetical is BS and you know it. There was no reasonable grounds for a “with cause” firing and you know it. As bad as his contract was and how stupid it was to not have a mitigating damages clause, Petrino was going to get that money and you know it. Despite being an intelligent person, you continue to do things to challenge that because you have some irrational hatred of Tyra (and Mack) and you know it.

Please tell me "I know it" one more time...

You can't argue that coaches are often denied their full buyouts for anything that their employers can reasonably argue. You notice that a fellow apologist--beano--has conveniently dropped outta this debate now that schools are widely documented as defying the letter of the C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T.

That's because regime apologists are wrong about what's possible in this very situation, and you're wrong about what "Vince" COULD have done. Your crackshot AD works for a group of clowns who can find plenty of reasons not to pay Pitino his money, but not a single reason against paying Petrino his. One guy's as dumb as the other.

But hey, I'm the last guy losing sleep over "Vince" and clowns paying million dollar buyouts, millions more to attorneys, or yet more millions as damages to Pitino. Bring ALL of that on, and I'll just focus on the financial statements...

 

[gocards1987]

Petrino supposedly ran your program into the ground, or at least that's what many fans and Sports Illustrated think.

"Vince" evidently didn't agree...

And he opened up the doors to Fort Knox and said "Bobby, come get it!" That was his choice AND the U of L backstory.

Here's another guy... Why in heaven's name would Pitt offer Stallings something less than his full buyout? Didn't they hear?...An AD MUST pay the contract amount!!

Boggles the mind...

Kevin Stallings

You can't prove that though. UF could had something tangible they could ask for when McElwain probably lied about threats. How do you prove whether Petrino was intentionally tanking vs just being bad?

According to your Stallings article example he was owed 7.5 mil. Pitt offered him 4.8 which he declined and they came to a number that wasn't disclosed but was higher than 4.8. For all we know he got the entire buyout but we know he got more than 60% of it. How much did Pitt save in reality? What didn't go to Stallings likely went to the lawyers and investigators used to go after him.

 

[beantowncard]

Do you want me to keep posting examples like this where you and other "Vince" apologists are wrong?

Jim McElwain

Just google "coach buyout negotiation", and you'll get plenty of hits. So why is there anything to "negotiate" if as beano says these contracts are ironclad?

Unless they aren't. Apologists??...

The only ways you don’t get the payout you negotiated :
1. You violated the terms of the deal
2. You have the worst representation ever.
3. The other party performs a Jedi mind trick to get you to leave for less
4. You are a blithering idiot.
To my knowledge, none of these is true about Bobby. If contracts can just be arbitrarily torn up by one party, why have a contract?

Was there language in the contract that said, essentially, “if you go 2-10 and put an embarrassing product in the field, we can pay out less to get rid of you”?

What is the basis of the “negotiation “? I have already been through the conversation. You have never said how Jurich or anyone else could get Bobby to walk away from that deal....

and in these United States, a deal is a deal.

 

[beantowncard]

Here's the thing you don't or refuse to understand, probably because you're either in denial or you've never been in this situation...

When you enter into a negotiation, you have a strategy. In this instance, "Vince" would declare why Petrino wasn't entitled to his full buyout. That's what all of the examples I'm showing you and others include. No one agrees to accept a lower buyout just because, and that's never the offer. Then the two sides go back and forth debating whatever issues are presented as mitigating full payment.

If anyone should be good at that, it's "Vince". Supposedly, the guy has transferable skills, and negotiations are Business 101. And if he couldn't come up with one or more good negotiating points, U of L 's lawyers should have been able to help with the huge sum of $14 million in play.

Yet, inside of 24 hours, "Vince" pilfered the bank accounts--again--and turned all of it over to Petrino. WTF is the guy supposed to be doing as AD if this ain't part of his job?...

Unless Bobby had totally incompetent representation, none of that would work, and we would end up with another MAJOR lawsuit on our hands. Another thing to think about- how attractive would UofL be to potential new coaching hires if the university demonstrates that they will make you sue to get what was agreed upon in A CONTRACT.

 

[zipp]

You can't prove that though. UF could had something tangible they could ask for when McElwain probably lied about threats. How do you prove whether Petrino was intentionally tanking vs just being bad?

According to your Stallings article example he was owed 7.5 mil. Pitt offered him 4.8 which he declined and they came to a number that wasn't disclosed but was higher than 4.8. For all we know he got the entire buyout but we know he got more than 60% of it. How much did Pitt save in reality? What didn't go to Stallings likely went to the lawyers and investigators used to go after him.

Read it again. Stallings' lawyers denied that he was offered $7.5 million. The same website pegged the contract number in excess of $9 million. So he may have gotten 50%. That much saved with Petrino's contract would have been about $7 million.

"Vince" apologists have been arguing that the original contract terms trump everything. These examples show that you're wrong...

 

[zipp]

The only ways you don’t get the payout you negotiated :
1. You violated the terms of the deal
2. You have the worst representation ever.
3. The other party performs a Jedi mind trick to get you to leave for less
4. You are a blithering idiot.
To my knowledge, none of these is true about Bobby. If contracts can just be arbitrarily torn up by one party, why have a contract?

Was there language in the contract that said, essentially, “if you go 2-10 and put an embarrassing product in the field, we can pay out less to get rid of you”?

What is the basis of the “negotiation “? I have already been through the conversation. You have never said how Jurich or anyone else could get Bobby to walk away from that deal....

and in these United States, a deal is a deal.

What a lot of people believe is that Petrino either willfully or neglectfully brought this football program to its knees. From a negotiating standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe that--the question is, is that plausible?

There are about three pages in Petrino's contract devoted to "duties" (part 4) and "responsibilities" (part 5). All matters of a head coach properly managing his football program are included. Under "Part 7: Termination for Just Cause", the very first section reads:

"7.1.1 A material violation of this Employment Contract or a refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith and to the best of Employee's abilities..."​

I'm sorry, if your AD can't connect THOSE dots or at least offer a pretty compelling case, he ain't much of an AD. But it's worse than simply not being able to do it--"Vince" didn't even TRY...

 

[zipp]

Unless Bobby had totally incompetent representation, none of that would work, and we would end up with another MAJOR lawsuit on our hands. Another thing to think about- how attractive would UofL be to potential new coaching hires if the university demonstrates that they will make you sue to get what was agreed upon in A CONTRACT.

WTF did the clowns do with Ramsey, Jurich, and Pitino?...

 

[Knucklehank1]

What a lot of people believe is that Petrino either willfully or neglectfully brought this football program to its knees. From a negotiating standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe that--the question is, is that plausible?

There are about three pages in Petrino's contract devoted to "duties" (part 4) and "responsibilities" (part 5). All matters of a head coach properly managing his football program are included. Under "Part 7: Termination for Just Cause", the very first section reads:

"7.1.1 A material violation of this Employment Contract or a refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith and to the best of Employee's abilities..."​

I'm sorry, if your AD can't connect THOSE dots or at least offer a pretty compelling case, he ain't much of an AD. But it's worse than simply not being able to do it--"Vince" didn't even TRY...

I know you don’t care because you just want to take the anti-Tyra position, but the courts have a very high threshold for employers in employment law. Having hired a terrible staff, having a historically bad defense and making questionable play calls in key situations would not clear that threshold.

 

[beantowncard]

What a lot of people believe is that Petrino either willfully or neglectfully brought this football program to its knees. From a negotiating standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe that--the question is, is that plausible?

There are about three pages in Petrino's contract devoted to "duties" (part 4) and "responsibilities" (part 5). All matters of a head coach properly managing his football program are included. Under "Part 7: Termination for Just Cause", the very first section reads:

"7.1.1 A material violation of this Employment Contract or a refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith and to the best of Employee's abilities..."​

I'm sorry, if your AD can't connect THOSE dots or at least offer a pretty compelling case, he ain't much of an AD. But it's worse than simply not being able to do it--"Vince" didn't even TRY...

How do you prove that? Did he continue to hold all scheduled or expected meetings? Was he at practice? Did he recruit? What evidence is there that he tanked? Not “my” AD nor “your” AD nor anyone else can connect those dots. That’s just a stupid theory published by SI with little support. One could argue that this is a pattern after a few years of a CBP program and the guy who negotiated and signed the deal (I believe that would be “your” AD) should have known that from personal experience.

 

[Art79]

What a lot of people believe is that Petrino either willfully or neglectfully brought this football program to its knees. From a negotiating standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe that--the question is, is that plausible?

There are about three pages in Petrino's contract devoted to "duties" (part 4) and "responsibilities" (part 5). All matters of a head coach properly managing his football program are included. Under "Part 7: Termination for Just Cause", the very first section reads:

"7.1.1 A material violation of this Employment Contract or a refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith and to the best of Employee's abilities..."​

I'm sorry, if your AD can't connect THOSE dots or at least offer a pretty compelling case, he ain't much of an AD. But it's worse than simply not being able to do it--"Vince" didn't even TRY...

Well “Zipp”, your argument has continued to morph on the topic of Petrino’s buyout over multiple threads. (First was the nonsense about Jurich being able to convince him to accept a lower buyout, due to their "friendship".) And, you have expressed an amazing inconsistency concerning the handling of buyouts. You have said that Pitino is due his whole buyout. Surely, challenging a buyout is something that should not be taken lightly, but if ever there was a coach where the buyout should be challenged, Pitino is it. Either through active participation in recruiting infractions, or by willfully looking the other way while the infractions occurred, or by simply not performing his basic duty to oversee his program effectively, he caused great harm to the program and the university.

As for Petrino and possibly firing him “for cause”, what should the angle have been in challenging his buyout? Poor performance? Please. The players didn’t know where his office was? Come on. He didn’t eat with the players? Wow. Recruiting? Well, he did recruit a Heisman trophy winner. What is the angle? Now you stretch and say something about a nebulous “refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith”. Booby’s angle would surely be that he was doing what he had always done, the same as what he did before he was rehired, the same as what he was rewarded for a few years ago without any reprimand or paper trail concerning negative performance reviews (thanks Tom). If you have a legitimate angle here, it might be worth supporting, but it’s difficult to see one that isn’t a loser, to say the least. Surely, if Tyra had actually challenged the buyout, you would be complaining that he was now spending legal fees for nothing and that he was going to lose. Your ability to take both sides (make that, multiple sides) of any argument against Tyra is outstanding and never ending.

 

[zipp]

I know you don’t care because you just want to take the anti-Tyra position, but the courts have a very high threshold for employers in employment law. Having hired a terrible staff, having a historically bad defense and making questionable play calls in key situations would not clear that threshold.

 

[zipp]

How do you prove that? Did he continue to hold all scheduled or expected meetings?...

You could have stopped there.

Reportedly, Petrino wasn't conducting regular recruiting meetings with his staff in his final weeks. I have no idea if that's true, but it's been widely discussed. And presumably, that was different protocol than HE HAD BEEN PRACTICING.

My guess is a good AD like "Vince" could unearth a lot more from his vantage point...

 

[zipp]

Well “Zipp”, your argument has continued to morph on the topic of Petrino’s buyout over multiple threads. (First was the nonsense about Jurich being able to convince him to accept a lower buyout, due to their "friendship".) And, you have expressed an amazing inconsistency concerning the handling of buyouts. You have said that Pitino is due his whole buyout. Surely, challenging a buyout is something that should not be taken lightly, but if ever there was a coach where the buyout should be challenged, Pitino is it. Either through active participation in recruiting infractions, or by willfully looking the other way while the infractions occurred, or by simply not performing his basic duty to oversee his program effectively, he caused great harm to the program and the university.

As for Petrino and possibly firing him “for cause”, what should the angle have been in challenging his buyout? Poor performance? Please. The players didn’t know where his office was? Come on. He didn’t eat with the players? Wow. Recruiting? Well, he did recruit a Heisman trophy winner. What is the angle? Now you stretch and say something about a nebulous “refusal or unwillingness to perform this contract in good faith”. Booby’s angle would surely be that he was doing what he had always done, the same as what he did before he was rehired, the same as what he was rewarded for few years ago without any reprimand or paper trail concerning negative performance reviews (thanks Tom). If you have a legitimate angle here, it might be worth supporting, but it’s difficult to see one that isn’t a loser, to say the least. Surely, if Tyra had actually challenged the buyout, you would be complaining that he was now spending legal fees for nothing and that he was going to lose. Your ability to take both sides (make that, multiple sides) of any argument against Tyra is outstanding and never ending.

Again, your AD doesn't have to submit his evidence through a judge and jury. All he has to do is have something plausible to open a negotiation with Petrino over the amount of his buyout. If HALF of what I've heard is true, "Vince" had plenty evidence of that quality.

To clarify your misunderstanding, I've never said Pitino was entitled to his full buyout. I assume that was an honest mistake on your part, although that could be a bad assumption on mine. Besides the entire Pitino mess being woefully mishandled by clowns, I'll be glad to take a position on what Pitino's entitled to if you want. THIS ISSUE is how "Vince" mishandled Petrino's termination...

 

[CardVille]

I dont think the staff was as terrible at people think.
I think they just gave up and quit coaching when the HC did.

 

[Art79]

Again, your AD doesn't have to submit his evidence through a judge and jury. All he has to do is have something plausible to open a negotiation with Petrino over the amount of his buyout. If HALF of what I've heard is true, "Vince" had plenty evidence of that quality.

To clarify your misunderstanding, I've never said Pitino was entitled to his full buyout. I assume that was an honest mistake on your part, although that could be a bad assumption on mine. Besides the entire Pitino mess being woefully mishandled by clowns, I'll be glad to take a position on what Pitino's entitled to if you want. THIS ISSUE is how "Vince" mishandled Petrino's termination...

Absolutely, "Zipp", our AD does not have to submit his "evidence" to a jury. But he does have to convince Petrino that there's a real case against him, other than just a 2-10 season. You keep dancing around that issue and have not identified anything substantial that Petrino could possibly be worried about. C'mon, spell it out beyond the nebulous clause that you referenced. Even if ALL of what we have heard is true, there was nothing for Petrino to be concerned about. I'm glad that our AD doesn't take a "for cause" firing lightly, it shows real ethics.

And, in advance of you calling me a Tyra apologist, I think that previously you did make one good case against Tyra, that being his need to start raising major donations. But, he has started raising significant donations for UoL athletics lately. Your complaints about things like the Petrino buyout are simply evidence of an anti-Tyra hatred no matter how much you have to conjure up fake arguments.

 

[zipp]

I dont think the staff was as terrible at people think.
I think they just gave up and quit coaching when the HC did.

And you're not the only one who thinks that way. It's plenty of evidence to push back on Petrino being entitled to his full buyout. "Vince" didn't do that, and it's cost U of L millions...

 

[zipp]

Absolutely, "Zipp", our AD does not have to submit his "evidence" to a jury. But he does have to convince Petrino that there's a real case against him, other than just a 2-10 season. You keep dancing around that issue and have not identified anything substantial that Petrino could possibly be worried about. C'mon, spell it out beyond the nebulous clause that you referenced. Even if ALL of what we have heard is true, there was nothing for Petrino to be concerned about. I'm glad that our AD doesn't take a "for cause" firing lightly, it shows real ethics.

And, in advance of you calling me a Tyra apologist, I think that previously you did make one good case against Tyra, that being his need to start raising major donations. But, he has started raising significant donations for UoL athletics lately. Your complaints about things like the Petrino buyout are simply evidence of an anti-Tyra hatred no matter how much you have to conjure up fake arguments.

I've cited numerous references--the "dots"--for what I'm talking about. You AND "Vince" have to be willing to connect them. Neither of you are even trying.

There's no independent evidence of "Vince" and Little Miss Sunshine doing anything financially. Their financial reports will show that, if true...

 

[Knucklehank1]

I've cited numerous references--the "dots"--for what I'm talking about. You AND "Vince" have to be willing to connect them. Neither of you are even trying.

There's no independent evidence of "Vince" and Little Miss Sunshine doing anything financially. Their financial reports will show that, if true...

“Little Miss Sunshine”???

 

[gocards1987]

Read it again. Stallings' lawyers denied that he was offered $7.5 million. The same website pegged the contract number in excess of $9 million. So he may have gotten 50%. That much saved with Petrino's contract would have been about $7 million.

"Vince" apologists have been arguing that the original contract terms trump everything. These examples show that you're wrong...

Is the number owed 7.5 or 9? He got over 50% either way. Stallings turned down 4.8 million so he got more than that for sure. Even at 9 million its more than likely that Stallings got 60% or more of his buyout. Throw in the costs that Pitt accrued investigating and lawyer fees and how much did Pitt actually save. Fla did better than Pitt more than likely because they were able to catch McElwain in a lie. Pitt tried to use Stallings comment at our game but it was pretty weak so they ended up paying a large amount of the buyout anyhow. What was our evidence against Petrino. Many believe that he tanked on purpose but how do you prove that? How much money do you end up spending trying to prove that.

You want Pitino to get his entire 40 mil when the university has a stronger position to fire him with cause. He oversaw facing Ncaa sanctions possibly twice.

 

[zipp]

Is the number owed 7.5 or 9? He got over 50% either way. Stallings turned down 4.8 million so he got more than that for sure. Even at 9 million its more than likely that Stallings got 60% or more of his buyout. Throw in the costs that Pitt accrued investigating and lawyer fees and how much did Pitt actually save. Fla did better than Pitt more than likely because they were able to catch McElwain in a lie. Pitt tried to use Stallings comment at our game but it was pretty weak so they ended up paying a large amount of the buyout anyhow. What was our evidence against Petrino. Many believe that he tanked on purpose but how do you prove that? How much money do you end up spending trying to prove that.

You want Pitino to get his entire 40 mil when the university has a stronger position to fire him with cause. He oversaw facing Ncaa sanctions possibly twice.

What I want doesn't matter. 60% of Petrino's buyout was $8.4 million. That's $5.6 million LESS than what "Vince" forked over.

You think U of L can use $5.6 million? Ask them again when they get the tab for Pitino...

 

[Art79]

“Little Miss Sunshine”???

Great question.

 

[beantowncard]

You could have stopped there.

But I didn’t. It takes more than missing a couple of meetings to prove “tanking”, and thus justifying violation of a contract. If you think Bobby wouldn’t sue over that, I don’t think you’re paying attention. The argument against tanking is that this happens at every stop with Bobby. He seems to lose focus after year 4. Many in this board described year 5 as “uncharted territory” when he was re-hired. He could just argue that Jurich knew his record when he re-hired him, then extended him. It would be consistent with his past record.

 

[CardinalDave]

UT Martin won 2 games last year. Probably not a lot of folks beating down the door for that gig.

 

[beantowncard]

Great question.

“Little Miss Sunshine”???

Zipp reference to Dr Bendapudi. In Zipp’s mind, anyone hired by those he refers to as “The Clown Show” are also guilty of clownishness by association. Therefore, if UofL were financially destroyed tomorrow, and the university closed, it would be good because the “clown show” would be shown for their true, evil selves. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Downfall” you know what I’m talking about.

 

[zipp]

But I didn’t. It takes more than missing a couple of meetings to prove “tanking”, and thus justifying violation of a contract...

"Justify" and "prove" to whom? To tell Petrino "we need to talk"?? Pitt said Stallings shouted at fans, which was evidently enough for him to get his own lawyers involved.

Recall "Vince" had all of the $14 million. Hell yes, Petrino would have picked up the phone. Now, he's laughing all the way to the bank. And I'll guaran-damn-tee you he's not laughing at his former boss...

 

[Knucklehank1]

Zipp reference to Dr Bendapudi. In Zipp’s mind, anyone hired by those he refers to as “The Clown Show” are also guilty of clownishness by association. Therefore, if UofL were financially destroyed tomorrow, and the university closed, it would be good because the “clown show” would be shown for their true, evil selves. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Downfall” you know what I’m talking about.

If that’s really how he refers to Dr. Bendapudi then that’s completely pathetic but unfortunately not surprising.

 

[Art79]

If that’s really how he refers to Dr. Bendapudi then that’s completely pathetic but unfortunately not surprising.

Yeah, I remember the movie he was referring to. The reference was completely off-topic and juvenile. I had some hope that he would own it and try to walk it back. But I guess that's not going to happen.

 

[zipp]

Zipp reference to Dr Bendapudi. In Zipp’s mind, anyone hired by those he refers to as “The Clown Show” are also guilty of clownishness by association. Therefore, if UofL were financially destroyed tomorrow, and the university closed, it would be good because the “clown show” would be shown for their true, evil selves. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Downfall” you know what I’m talking about.

I'll take care of my own explanations, thanks...

Too many people analyze too superficially. LMS hasn't really done anything but smile at cameras thus far, at least nothing as far as legit accomplishments. I know for a fact she raided U of L bank accounts in her first year on the job because she was censured by the Board for that when she presented her FY2019 budget. And she shamelessly grandstanded when the PJCS naming rights announcement was made.

Anyone recruited by clowns is suspect, not necessarily a clown from the start. She has her opportunity to prove she's different, just like "Vince" does. It's early, but so far, I haven't seen much.

Just ask me next time for that explanation...

 

[zipp]

If that’s really how he refers to Dr. Bendapudi then that’s completely pathetic but unfortunately not surprising.

Yeah, I remember the movie he was referring to. The reference was completely off-topic and juvenile. I had some hope that he would own it and try to walk it back. But I guess that's not going to happen.

LOL, I gotta be honest... Sometimes you guys inspire me.

 

[Art79]

Truly sad and pathetic.

 

[Knucklehank1]

LOL, I gotta be honest... Sometimes you guys inspire me.

You are continuing to embarrass yourself. It’s pathetic that you’d refer to the President of the university that way. She’s brought stability and renewed energy to the university, which had been plagued by rogue deans, athletic scandals and fractured leadership.

 

[zipp]

Truly sad and pathetic.

You are continuing to embarrass yourself. It’s pathetic that you’d refer to the President of the university that way. She’s brought stability and renewed energy to the university, which had been plagued by rogue deans, athletic scandals and fractured leadership.

Cue me where the opinions end and the facts start...

 

[beantowncard]

And you're not the only one who thinks that way. It's plenty of evidence to push back on Petrino being entitled to his full buyout. "Vince" didn't do that, and it's cost U of L millions...

Opinions, guesses, and theories don’t work so well in court.

 

[zipp]

Opinions, guesses, and theories don’t work so well in court.

You mean that Petrino stopped holding meetings and that players couldn't go to coaches' offices?

Sounds like a little more than opinions and guesses. In fact, it was enough for a national reporter who could be sued for quantifiable damages related to defamation to PRINT THE STORY.

That's a little more compelling that you standing behind "Vince" apologies...