brett mcmurphy

[Bull-by-Marriage]

I've said all along that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. IMO the key word that you highlighted is IGNITED, the attorney knows that the end result was justified or he would say that it all was based on falsehoods. His statement itself states that Through a termination process , again not that the allegations themselves were untrue, or that he was fired unjustly due to the allegations, just the termination process. Of course I'm not an attorney, but anyone can see that his attorney is parsing words. They will say just enough to get to the proverbial line without crossing it.

You don't say it is all based on falsehoods or you open the door to defamation suits from witnesses who say that you just called them a liar.  The proper way is to say that there was a bunch of hearsay evidence.  On a witness stand you can try to get after motivations, etc but you don't accuse someone of lying without proof of it.

That's also where USF is in a bit of a bind with Leavitt.  While no one confirms his story, other witnesses have a lot of contradicting testimony that don't confirm other witnesses' stories.  How do you know which ones to elevate to truth or give you the impression that Leavitt is lying.  The argument would be that they all must be ling in some way, this all witnesses should be subject to dismissal by USF if USF is capable of doing so - whether as a student or a coach. 

They may also be able to allege a conspiracy against Leavitt, but they need to get evidence before doing so.  You don't make that accusation until discovery.

As has been stated several times on this board/thread and others. Niether side wants this to go before a judge, there would be way too much dirty laundry aired on both sides. I would bet that there is some serious negotiations going on between the 2 parties. We may never know the outcome as there will most likely be an agreement that niether side can talk about the settlement. JMVHO

[gobulls83]

I've said all along that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. IMO the key word that you highlighted is IGNITED, the attorney knows that the end result was justified or he would say that it all was based on falsehoods. His statement itself states that Through a termination process , again not that the allegations themselves were untrue, or that he was fired unjustly due to the allegations, just the termination process. Of course I'm not an attorney, but anyone can see that his attorney is parsing words. They will say just enough to get to the proverbial line without crossing it.

You don't say it is all based on falsehoods or you open the door to defamation suits from witnesses who say that you just called them a liar.  The proper way is to say that there was a bunch of hearsay evidence.  On a witness stand you can try to get after motivations, etc but you don't accuse someone of lying without proof of it.

That's also where USF is in a bit of a bind with Leavitt.  While no one confirms his story, other witnesses have a lot of contradicting testimony that don't confirm other witnesses' stories.  How do you know which ones to elevate to truth or give you the impression that Leavitt is lying.  The argument would be that they all must be ling in some way, this all witnesses should be subject to dismissal by USF if USF is capable of doing so - whether as a student or a coach. 

They may also be able to allege a conspiracy against Leavitt, but they need to get evidence before doing so.  You don't make that accusation until discovery.

As has been stated several times on this board/thread and others. Niether side wants this to go before a judge, there would be way too much dirty laundry aired on both sides. I would bet that there is some serious negotiations going on between the 2 parties. We may never know the outcome as there will most likely be an agreement that niether side can talk about the settlement. JMVHO

I'm pretty sure any settlement paid to Leavitt will be public information and subject to the Sunshine laws.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

I've said all along that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. IMO the key word that you highlighted is IGNITED, the attorney knows that the end result was justified or he would say that it all was based on falsehoods. His statement itself states that Through a termination process , again not that the allegations themselves were untrue, or that he was fired unjustly due to the allegations, just the termination process. Of course I'm not an attorney, but anyone can see that his attorney is parsing words. They will say just enough to get to the proverbial line without crossing it.

You don't say it is all based on falsehoods or you open the door to defamation suits from witnesses who say that you just called them a liar.  The proper way is to say that there was a bunch of hearsay evidence.  On a witness stand you can try to get after motivations, etc but you don't accuse someone of lying without proof of it.

That's also where USF is in a bit of a bind with Leavitt.  While no one confirms his story, other witnesses have a lot of contradicting testimony that don't confirm other witnesses' stories.  How do you know which ones to elevate to truth or give you the impression that Leavitt is lying.  The argument would be that they all must be ling in some way, this all witnesses should be subject to dismissal by USF if USF is capable of doing so - whether as a student or a coach. 

They may also be able to allege a conspiracy against Leavitt, but they need to get evidence before doing so.  You don't make that accusation until discovery.

As has been stated several times on this board/thread and others. Niether side wants this to go before a judge, there would be way too much dirty laundry aired on both sides. I would bet that there is some serious negotiations going on between the 2 parties. We may never know the outcome as there will most likely be an agreement that niether side can talk about the settlement. JMVHO

I'm pretty sure any settlement paid to Leavitt will be public information and subject to the Sunshine laws.

Depends on who "pays" the settlement. If it's the USF foundation then maybe not. You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters. I've often wondered if USF or any other Florida Univ. fire a coach can they be indemnified in regards to the amount that they did not pay the coach?

[gobulls83]

You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters.

That money is still public.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters.

That money is still public.

I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure, and I try to make it a point to not argue on a guess. Not saying your doing that, but I've done it in the past, and most of the time I looked like a fool.

[Who'sYourData?]

That's also where USF is in a bit of a bind with Leavitt.  While no one confirms his story, other witnesses have a lot of contradicting testimony that don't confirm other witnesses' stories.  How do you know which ones to elevate to truth or give you the impression that Leavitt is lying.  The argument would be that they all must be ling in some way, this all witnesses should be subject to dismissal by USF if USF is capable of doing so - whether as a student or a coach. 

Two things.  One, Leavitt buried himself by saying he got down on one knee and gently shook Miller's knee.  Unless there is some explanation why he said that, it would be very hard to argue that he did not grab Miller by the collar.  No one has said that he did not grab Miller, even the trooper, who merely stated it was "normal locker room stuff".  Is grabbing someone by the collar enough to terminate?  If so, they are in pretty good shape.

Two, there is still the Erskin incident.  I would imagine that throwing away a player's personal property, or ordering someone else to do it, is sufficient grounds for termination.  I wonder how much proof there is of this allegation.  Rumor has it this incident was well substantiated.  If so, I don't see where Leavitt has much ground to stand on.  

Really, I think the most interesting aspect is that his contract reportedly called for a 1/12th of the value of his contract termination pay rather than 1/12th of one year termination pay.  If that's the case, he is owed a few hundred thousand.

[gobulls83]

You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters.

That money is still public.

I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure, and I try to make it a point to not argue on a guess. Not saying your doing that, but I've done it in the past, and most of the time I looked like a fool.

I am not guessing. I cannot find a link that expressly states what I've said without sifting through Florida's Government in the Sunshine legislation, but it's pretty easy <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bUD&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=are+college+football+coaches%27+salaries+subject+to+public+records+laws%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">via Google</a> to pull up information about public records requests concerning college coaches and see that there aren't any instances of coaches known to be making millions reporting salaries smaller than that in public records requests.

Money raised by the university will always be public, including the athletics foundation. I think a good rule is that if a donation can be a tax write-off, it is going to a fund that is subject to public records laws, but I might be wrong. It's close to true if it's not absolutely true.

But coaches' endorsement contracts, which you mentioned, would not be subject to these laws unless it was written into the coach's contract and guaranteed by the school in some way. But when it is reported that Urban Meyer makes $4 million a year or whatever it is, this number generally either doesn't include outside income such as sponsorships, or the amount is relatively inconsequential.

In fact, here's a story that mentions Meyer <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-11-09-salaries-slow-response_N.htm">specifically</a>:

<blockquote><i>Florida announced Aug. 3 that it would redraw head coach Urban Meyer's contract and pay him $4 million a year, beginning this season. That planned new contract does not yet exist, athletics department spokesman Steve McClain says.

This is similar to what occurred the last time the school announced it was giving Meyer a new contract and the last time USA TODAY published a football coaches' salary survey. In that instance, the school unveiled the deal in June 2007; a contract was not signed until 2008. In December 2007, absent documents detailing Meyer's compensation for the 2007 season, USA TODAY decided to publish what the school had announced would be the deal's annual average, $3.25 million, plus the annual amount the school reported Meyer most recently had received in outside income — $133,500. (The NCAA requires Division I athletics department employees, excluding secretarial or clerical personnel, to annually provide a written account of all athletically related income and benefits from sources outside the school.)</i></blockquote>

As you can see, Meyer's salary from Florida dwarfs his outside income. The salary is almost 25 times greater.

Anyway, this is all a roundabout way of saying that if Leavitt gets any kind of settlement money, it will be subject to public records requests and we will eventually know about it.

[Who'sYourData?]

As you can see, Meyer's salary from Florida dwarfs his outside income. The salary is almost 25 times greater.

I believe you are saying this, but the $3.25million still does not all come directly from the university.  I think you referred to this indirectly, I'm just trying to make sure we are all thinking the same thing.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters.

That money is still public.

I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure, and I try to make it a point to not argue on a guess. Not saying your doing that, but I've done it in the past, and most of the time I looked like a fool.

I am not guessing. I cannot find a link that expressly states what I've said without sifting through Florida's Government in the Sunshine legislation, but it's pretty easy <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bUD&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=are+college+football+coaches%27+salaries+subject+to+public+records+laws%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">via Google</a> to pull up information about public records requests concerning college coaches and see that there aren't any instances of coaches known to be making millions reporting salaries smaller than that in public records requests.

Money raised by the university will always be public, including the athletics foundation. I think a good rule is that if a donation can be a tax write-off, it is going to a fund that is subject to public records laws, but I might be wrong. It's close to true if it's not absolutely true.

But coaches' endorsement contracts, which you mentioned, would not be subject to these laws unless it was written into the coach's contract and guaranteed by the school in some way. But when it is reported that Urban Meyer makes $4 million a year or whatever it is, this number generally either doesn't include outside income such as sponsorships, or the amount is relatively inconsequential.

In fact, here's a story that mentions Meyer <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-11-09-salaries-slow-response_N.htm">specifically</a>:

<blockquote><i>Florida announced Aug. 3 that it would redraw head coach Urban Meyer's contract and pay him $4 million a year, beginning this season. That planned new contract does not yet exist, athletics department spokesman Steve McClain says.

This is similar to what occurred the last time the school announced it was giving Meyer a new contract and the last time USA TODAY published a football coaches' salary survey. In that instance, the school unveiled the deal in June 2007; a contract was not signed until 2008. In December 2007, absent documents detailing Meyer's compensation for the 2007 season, USA TODAY decided to publish what the school had announced would be the deal's annual average, $3.25 million, plus the annual amount the school reported Meyer most recently had received in outside income — $133,500. (The NCAA requires Division I athletics department employees, excluding secretarial or clerical personnel, to annually provide a written account of all athletically related income and benefits from sources outside the school.)</i></blockquote>

As you can see, Meyer's salary from Florida dwarfs his outside income. The salary is almost 25 times greater.

Anyway, this is all a roundabout way of saying that if Leavitt gets any kind of settlement money, it will be subject to public records requests and we will eventually know about it.

Sorry the 3.25 million Does NOT come from uf. Meyer is state employee and is subject to a state law that limits the salary of a state employee. I found an article from 07 that said Bobby Bowden was the highest paid state employee at roughly 200K there is no way that the 3.25 million is from the actual UF  budget.

But the state-funded school doesn't pay Meyer's salary. The University Athletic Association, a separate entity that funds the school's athletic department, does.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4374311

[gobulls83]

You've got to remember what a lot of us forget Leavitt and any other coach in Florida can only get paid a certain amount from the school (State employee limit). The rest of the money comes from endorsements, and the boosters.

That money is still public.

I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure, and I try to make it a point to not argue on a guess. Not saying your doing that, but I've done it in the past, and most of the time I looked like a fool.

I am not guessing. I cannot find a link that expressly states what I've said without sifting through Florida's Government in the Sunshine legislation, but it's pretty easy <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bUD&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=are+college+football+coaches%27+salaries+subject+to+public+records+laws%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">via Google</a> to pull up information about public records requests concerning college coaches and see that there aren't any instances of coaches known to be making millions reporting salaries smaller than that in public records requests.

Money raised by the university will always be public, including the athletics foundation. I think a good rule is that if a donation can be a tax write-off, it is going to a fund that is subject to public records laws, but I might be wrong. It's close to true if it's not absolutely true.

But coaches' endorsement contracts, which you mentioned, would not be subject to these laws unless it was written into the coach's contract and guaranteed by the school in some way. But when it is reported that Urban Meyer makes $4 million a year or whatever it is, this number generally either doesn't include outside income such as sponsorships, or the amount is relatively inconsequential.

In fact, here's a story that mentions Meyer <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-11-09-salaries-slow-response_N.htm">specifically</a>:

<blockquote><i>Florida announced Aug. 3 that it would redraw head coach Urban Meyer's contract and pay him $4 million a year, beginning this season. That planned new contract does not yet exist, athletics department spokesman Steve McClain says.

This is similar to what occurred the last time the school announced it was giving Meyer a new contract and the last time USA TODAY published a football coaches' salary survey. In that instance, the school unveiled the deal in June 2007; a contract was not signed until 2008. In December 2007, absent documents detailing Meyer's compensation for the 2007 season, USA TODAY decided to publish what the school had announced would be the deal's annual average, $3.25 million, plus the annual amount the school reported Meyer most recently had received in outside income — $133,500. (The NCAA requires Division I athletics department employees, excluding secretarial or clerical personnel, to annually provide a written account of all athletically related income and benefits from sources outside the school.)</i></blockquote>

As you can see, Meyer's salary from Florida dwarfs his outside income. The salary is almost 25 times greater.

Anyway, this is all a roundabout way of saying that if Leavitt gets any kind of settlement money, it will be subject to public records requests and we will eventually know about it.

Sorry the 3.25 million Does NOT come from uf. Meyer is state employee and is subject to a state law that limits the salary of a state employee. I found an article from 07 that said Bobby Bowden was the highest paid state employee at roughly 200K there is no way that the 3.25 million is from the actual UF  budget.

But the state-funded school doesn't pay Meyer's salary. The University Athletic Association, a separate entity that funds the school's athletic department, does.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4374311

Yes but the whole thing is still public information. It doesn't matter if it's an athletic foundation or the university in name, it's public information either way. The athletic foundation funds are still raised and distributed by a public university, even if they aren't "university funds" in a technical sense. Thy're still public, which is why a settlement paid via these funds would still be public.

And I don't even know if a settlement WOULD be paid in this way. If I had to guess, I'd imagine insurance held by the university would be involved in some manner, but I don't really know.