Steve Masiello

[Raetus]

Also, I place the blame on the media and leakers on this one -- not the search firm. Ever since the advent of social media, the news media is so afraid of being out scooped by Twitter yahoos that they have done a less than great job in the due diligence category. The laws on the book that provide defenses for the media from defamation were made during a time where the media still gave a hoot about integrity and had the staff to actually do their jobs. Now, TMZ has more resources and fact checkers than a company like Newsweek. Time to revisit those protections in my opinion.

[Joe]

Also, I place the blame on the media and leakers on this one -- not the search firm. Ever since the advent of social media, the news media is so afraid of being out scooped by Twitter yahoos that they have done a less than great job in the due diligence category. The laws on the book that provide defenses for the media from defamation were made during a time where the media still gave a hoot about integrity and had the staff to actually do their jobs. Now, TMZ has more resources and fact checkers than a company like Newsweek. Time to revisit those protections in my opinion.

I normally agree, but he signed an agreement here. How is the media at fault?

[Mike Stuben]

Also, I place the blame on the media and leakers on this one -- not the search firm. Ever since the advent of social media, the news media is so afraid of being out scooped by Twitter yahoos that they have done a less than great job in the due diligence category. The laws on the book that provide defenses for the media from defamation were made during a time where the media still gave a hoot about integrity and had the staff to actually do their jobs. Now, TMZ has more resources and fact checkers than a company like Newsweek. Time to revisit those protections in my opinion.

 

The search firm got $60,000 to hand USF 1 - 3 names. Background checks on those 1 - 3 names should have been done before handing them to USF. No exceptions. In my mind this search firm screwed USF. But shame on USF for not insisting on the background checks. 

[Raetus]

This was reported far before an agreement was ever signed.

[footnfan1]

From  my experience, you get names with the background checks attached.

[usfgrad84]

There must be a heck of a lot more to this story that is not being reported. Either that or the media's sources didn't give accurate information.

Here is the beginning of Joey Johnston's article:

"According to sources, Steve Masiello, 36, had agreed to a five-year contract with USF and signed the deal, believed to be worth more than $1 million per season, leaving only final details to be worked out."

Did both sides sign the contract or just Massiello? If USF signed the deal, who the hell is our attorney, Nancy Pelosi? Who would actually sign a multi million dollar deal and then work out the details?

Usually, high level search firms completely screen candidates before they present them.

If the reporting was accurate (which I question) and it got as far as they say, more than a couple of people screwed up.

This whole debacle is why searches should be conducted behind the scenes.

More importantly, USF would be well served to hire a big time PR firm because anytime we do anything in public it ends up being amateur hour at a carnival.

Edited March 26, 2014 by usfgrad84

[Raetus]

 

Also, I place the blame on the media and leakers on this one -- not the search firm. Ever since the advent of social media, the news media is so afraid of being out scooped by Twitter yahoos that they have done a less than great job in the due diligence category. The laws on the book that provide defenses for the media from defamation were made during a time where the media still gave a hoot about integrity and had the staff to actually do their jobs. Now, TMZ has more resources and fact checkers than a company like Newsweek. Time to revisit those protections in my opinion.

 

The search firm got $60,000 to hand USF 1 - 3 names. Background checks on those 1 - 3 names should have been done before handing them to USF. No exceptions. In my mind this search firm screwed USF. But shame on USF for not insisting on the background checks. 

 

When you're dealing with a hire of this level, there are different levels of background checks that you employ and some of them take far longer than a day or two. An FBI check takes far longer to return results than a day and other more invasive ones can take even longer. Without knowing the types of checks employed, what they're looking for and what they found that caused the trip up, it's just speculation on all of our parts as to whether or not the background delay was justified.

[Raetus]

There must be a heck of a lot more to this story that is not being reported. Either that or the media's sources didn't give accurate information.

Here is the beginning of Joey Johnston's article:

"According to sources, Steve Masiello, 36, had agreed to a five-year contract with USF and signed the deal, believed to be worth more than $1 million per season, leaving only final details to be worked out."

Did both sides sign the contract or just Massiello? If USF signed the deal, who the hell is our attorney, Nancy Pelosi? Who would actually sign a multi million dollar deal and then work out the details?

Usually, high level search firms completely screen candidates before they present them.

If the reporting was accurate (which I question) and it got as far as they say, more than a couple of people screwed up.

This whole debacle is why searches should be conducted behind the scenes.

More importantly, USF would be well served to hire a big time PR firm because anytime we do anything in public it ends up being amateur hour at a carnival.

There's a silly amount of paperwork that go into some of these negotiations. They could have signed a letter of intent, which would have a caveat of not constituting a legally binding agreement.

 

[Edit] Either way, if it was signed by someone from USF, the Times should be able to get a hold of it with a public records request, so we should get some answers eventually.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Raetus

[WWMJD]

There must be a heck of a lot more to this story that is not being reported. Either that or the media's sources didn't give accurate information.

Here is the beginning of Joey Johnston's article:

"According to sources, Steve Masiello, 36, had agreed to a five-year contract with USF and signed the deal, believed to be worth more than $1 million per season, leaving only final details to be worked out."

Did both sides sign the contract or just Massiello? If USF signed the deal, who the hell is our attorney, Nancy Pelosi? Who would actually sign a multi million dollar deal and then work out the details?

Usually, high level search firms completely screen candidates before they present them.

If the reporting was accurate (which I question) and it got as far as they say, more than a couple of people screwed up.

This whole debacle is why searches should be conducted behind the scenes.

More importantly, USF would be well served to hire a big time PR firm because anytime we do anything in public it ends up being amateur hour at a carnival.

There's a silly amount of paperwork that go into some of these negotiations. They could have signed a letter of intent, which would have a caveat of not constituting a legally binding agreement.

Dude you gotta stop with the legal analysis. Almost everything you have said in your last few posts has been flat incorrect if not incomplete.

[footnfan1]

On this level of hire, you hire a PI with FBI contacts. Stuff happens fast when you hire the right people.  Search firm did USF no favors.