Super Secret Secondary Contract

[puc86]

19 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

I'm not sure where I heard it but vaguely recall that the extension wasn't going to change the buyout. 

It’s from people repeatedly citing the public contract that is capped by florida law, people said the exact same nonsense about the ccs contract but then we brilliantly cited the buyout in the termination letter which allowed us to know the actual buyout number . 

[CousinRicky]

2 hours ago, puc86 said:

It’s from people repeatedly citing the public contract that is capped by florida law, people said the exact same nonsense about the ccs contract but then we brilliantly cited the buyout in the termination letter which allowed us to know the actual buyout number . 

Nah, this was from someone inside I believe.

[puc86]

Just now, CousinRicky said:

Nah, this was from someone inside I believe.

Oh okay that’s at least plausible then, most people just cite the one contract or say something like why would Kelly do that instead of why would CJS sign it. I think the truth lie’s somewhere in the middle and that it was probably structurally mostly the same but that they extension raised the buyout by creating more time left on the contract than would have been there without it and these things are usually bucketed by years left or bench mark dates.

[CousinRicky]

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Oh okay that’s at least plausible then, most people just cite the one contract or say something like why would Kelly do that instead of why would CJS sign it. I think the truth lie’s somewhere in the middle and that it was probably structurally mostly the same but that they extension raised the buyout by creating more time left on the contract than would have been there without it and these things are usually bucketed by years left or bench mark dates.

WTF man? Wrote a long PM to you only to find out you can't receive them. 

[Brad]

14 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Nah, this was from someone inside I believe.

Yes I recall that and stated it here before, however, I've not seen any proof of it.  Anyway, I'm more worried about the next hire than I am of whatever we're contractually obligated to with the former coach.

[puc86]

1 hour ago, CousinRicky said:

WTF man? Wrote a long PM to you only to find out you can't receive them. 

So there is a limit, I was at something like 110% of my allowable limit and wanted to find out if there really was one 

[CousinRicky]

8 minutes ago, puc86 said:

So there is a limit, I was at something like 110% of my allowable limit and wanted to find out if there really was one 

Someone that tests the boundaries? Why am I not surprised?  

[puc86]

20 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Someone that tests the boundaries? Why am I not surprised?  

I mean the answer should be 100% so I need to know what is actually 100% (its 106% btw) now I am at like 90 so I should be good 

[puc86]

10 minutes ago, Triple B said:

The rational approach. We obviously could afford to do what we did, no matter what the contractual obligations are, so it's time to look forward ....... which is nye impossible for some.

It’s kind of important to look at what the person in charge has done with their body of work in order to look forward at if they should be given more opportunities to set us back several more years. If doubling down on a bad hire for now explicable reason and extending someone that is failing and embroiled in controversy because you made a promise years ago lead to significantly more wasted dollars that’s going to play a role in people’s confidence in a go forward with that person (not to me obviously I don’t think it’s possible for a person to more perfectly demonstrate their incompetence than he has with every single decision). Everyone has some line where they can’t deal with another dollar of waste and it matters how many millions more dollars he squandered away. 

[Triple B]

8 minutes ago, puc86 said:

It’s kind of important to look at what the person in charge has done with their body of work in order to look forward at if they should be given more opportunities to set us back several more years. If doubling down on a bad hire for now explicable reason and extending someone that is failing and embroiled in controversy because you made a promise years ago lead to significantly more wasted dollars that’s going to play a role in people’s confidence in a go forward with that person (not to me obviously I don’t think it’s possible for a person to more perfectly demonstrate their incompetence than he has with every single decision). Everyone has some line where they can’t deal with another dollar of waste and it matters how many millions more dollars he squandered away. 

I get that .... and when/if we find out the extension costs us more for his firing than it would have it we didn't extend, knock yourself out. At this point you're assuming what that double secret contract looks like.