brett mcmurphy

[Bull-by-Marriage]

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]

The money may be subject to the Sunshine Laws, but the schools do not raise the money. The University Athletic Foundation is a Non profit Corporation "The University Athletic Association Inc." Seminole Boosters, same thing.

Ugh. Whatever, I'm not arguing this technicality. This difference is nominal only.

Call it whatever you want, the point is it's public information. The way the money is spent is public.

[smazza]

if leavitt hit the kid usf shouldnt give him a dime

[macphisto]

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.

If he said that he got down on his knee then he must have grabbed him by the collar?  That makes no sense whatsoever.

Grabbing someone by the collar is not necessarily enough to terminate if it was "normal locker room stuff".  If this had happened throughout Leavitt's tenure and USF knew about it and did nothing then that's damning for USF and not Leavitt.  USF would have done nothing for years until McMurphy printed his story at a time when many were wondering if Leavitt could take the team over the top. 

That is very circumstantial, but circumstantial works in civil cases.  If this routinely happened throughout Leavitt's tenure and USF did nothing until pressure was mounting from some to get rid of him (and word is that some of the biggest donors were) then it becomes USF's motives that are in question.

They will go after Leavitt and accuse him of lying - and that could work, though if those witnesses are torn apart on the stand then it puts massive doubt into their own motivations and stories.

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.  

What I've heard is that only Erskin said anything about it.  Unless someone saw Leavitt throwing out his stuff how do we not know that Erskin didn't do it himself and claim Leavitt did it?  It appears to me to be hearsay - that others merely passed on what Erskin had said with only Erskin originating the claim. 

Remember, these guys had over a month to fabricate stories to try to insure the coach they hated got fired.  That's the argument Leavitt's attorneys will essentially make.  My guess is that they'll dig up any past issues with these players, say that they resented Leavitt for not playing them enough, or working them too hard, etc.  They'll try to see how much they chatted with each other during that month plus by subpoenaing cell phone records.  If call frequency increased then they'll claim conspiracy to defame.

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.

That would be 1/12 of the whole contract if it is termination pay.  It's not generally based on what is left due, but what the contract was initially worth.  Since the contract after extension ended up being around $12M or so then it could be $1M, but there are generally several other clauses that can escalate a termination pay clause.  And in some cases the termination pay actually only covers "for cause" dismissal.  At a million bucks, I think the termination clause is actually a "for cause" clause or a buyout clause.  You generally will not negotiate a contract that will let the employer fire you on the cheap (and $1M would be for such a large payout) on a whim.  In this case it would be easy to pay the million and then get a new coach whether for cause or not.

If it is a "for cause" termination clause then USF fired him for cause and didn't pay him, breaching the contract.  They also did so without allowing him to defend himself, a further breach.  I haven't read the contract, so I don't know exactly what's in it.  The contract language is hugely important.

[Triple B]

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.

What I've heard is that only Erskin said anything about it.  Unless someone saw Leavitt throwing out his stuff how do we not know that Erskin didn't do it himself and claim Leavitt did it?  It appears to me to be hearsay - that others merely passed on what Erskin had said with only Erskin originating the claim. 

Somewhere in all that mess back then there was a name brought up of a trainer/manager, someone who works in the lockerroom, that would have to have been interviewed to corroborate Erskin's story ...

[smazza]

let's face it

this was final straw

was there really any doubt that leavitt was out of control

for him to say "he was the most powerful man in the building" is pretty egotistical

[Who'sYourData?]

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.

What I've heard is that only Erskin said anything about it.  Unless someone saw Leavitt throwing out his stuff how do we not know that Erskin didn't do it himself and claim Leavitt did it?  It appears to be to be hearsay - that others merely passed on what Erskin had said with only Erskin originating the claim. 

Somewhere in all that mess back then there was a name brought up of a trainer/manager, someone who works in the lockerroom, that would have to have been interviewed to corroborate Erskin's story ...

I recall the story being a locker room guy backing up the story that Leavitt, I can't remember where I got that.  Someone on here recently said that another player saw Erskin's stuff being thrown away and was interviewed by the investigative team shortly after the incident and verified that it was Leavitt's doing.  I haven't seen that anywhere else, but it really tracks with the timing of all this, which everyone here continues to ignore.

[Who'sYourData?]

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.

If he said that he got down on his knee then he must have grabbed him by the collar?  That makes no sense whatsoever.

Ok, seriously, did you read the report?  It doesn't appear that you did.

No other person that was interviewed, even those that defended Leavitt, said he got down on one knee.  Even his defenders said that Leavitt was in Miller's face.  Meanwhile, Leavitt's story is that he was no where near Miller's face, and was gently tapping his knee. 

You really are going to say that story completely contradicting even those that "defend" him is going to make him look innocent?