Steve Masiello

[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.

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.

 

Please feel free to enlighten me on what was wrong with that one single sentence. Do the letters of intent that you typically run into serve as legally binding agreements? They don't in my field.

 

Regardless, as I said, if he wants to sue, then he'll more than be able to sue. At that point, it's just up to who has the better legal team and a judge.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Raetus

[Raetus]

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.

I agree with this completely. Notable PI with high level contacts is the only way to do actual background checks. Even the FBI fingerprint check misses things all the time due to the level at which it is processed.

[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.

Please feel free to enlighten me on what was wrong with that one single sentence. Due the letters of intent that you typically run into serve as legally binding agreements? They don't in my field.

I was not referring to this post specifically, although it too is incomplete. Sorry not trying to be a ****, but I am a practicing attorney and your analysis on, for example, legal impossibility was flat wrong. The above post is simply incomplete - as someone noted earlier, if he reasonably relied on a promise he COULD have recourse. Although I will agree with your prior statement that whatever he signed MUST have had a contingency for background check, or USF admin is even more incompetent than we all thought.

Again not trying to be a **** just couldn't bite my tongue.

[CousinRicky]

Went to bed thinking that I'd wake up and read that this deal was finalized.  Now just have a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.  Of course we can look at it a different way.  The Skip Holtz and Stan Heath hirings went smoothly.

[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.

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.

Please feel free to enlighten me on what was wrong with that one single sentence. Due the letters of intent that you typically run into serve as legally binding agreements? They don't in my field.

I was not referring to this post specifically, although it too is incomplete. Sorry not trying to be a ****, but I am a practicing attorney and your analysis on, for example, legal impossibility was flat wrong. The above post is simply incomplete - as someone noted earlier, if he reasonably relied on a promise he COULD have recourse. Although I will agree with your prior statement that whatever he signed MUST have had a contingency for background check, or USF admin is even more incompetent than we all thought.

Again not trying to be a **** just couldn't bite my tongue.

 

Then you're simply arguing semantics and if you're a practicing attorney, you should know that your interpretation of the matter is by no means the be all, end all on the matter. If it was just that easy, we wouldn't even have multiple sides and would just send every case to one guy and ask him to get back to us on his ruling whenever he was done. As I said, he will have his opportunity to sue if he so deems it, but they would have a defense against it. I, at no point, ever said that the defense would be a slam dunk, but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid argument against a claim. It's all speculation at this point as you, myself, the media, and the Internet have no idea what actually happened. Just as you say that he could have a claim, USF could have a defense.

 

Trying to claim that any argument posted here is anything other than incomplete without knowing the facts is absolutely insane. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Raetus

[Hem]

LOL

THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS

[WWMJD]

NP

Edited March 26, 2014 by WWMJD

[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.

Please feel free to enlighten me on what was wrong with that one single sentence. Due the letters of intent that you typically run into serve as legally binding agreements? They don't in my field.

I was not referring to this post specifically, although it too is incomplete. Sorry not trying to be a ****, but I am a practicing attorney and your analysis on, for example, legal impossibility was flat wrong. The above post is simply incomplete - as someone noted earlier, if he reasonably relied on a promise he COULD have recourse. Although I will agree with your prior statement that whatever he signed MUST have had a contingency for background check, or USF admin is even more incompetent than we all thought.

Again not trying to be a **** just couldn't bite my tongue.

Then you're simply arguing semantics and if you're a practicing attorney, you should know that your interpretation of the matter is by no means the be all, end all on the matter. If it was just that easy, we wouldn't even have multiple sides and would just send ever case to one guy and ask him to get back to us on his ruling whenever he was done. As I said, he will have his opportunity to sue if he so deems it, but they would have a defense against it. I, at no point, ever said that the defense would be a slam dunk, but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid argument against a claim. It's all speculation at this point as you, myself, the media, and the Internet have no idea what actually happened. Just as you say that he could have a claim, USF could have a defense.

Trying to claim that any argument posted here is anything other than incomplete without knowing the facts is absolutely insane.

I agree performing legal analysis without the facts is insane, hence my original post begging you to stop with the legal analysis.

[NCBull]

Man, we've been a laughingstock before, but this may take the cake. I don't see how we can salvage this. Either it's justifiable and something huge and illegal (but then we or the expensive search firm should have easily known THAT before a contract), or it's something more minor and we got all high-and-mighty and pulled the plug for some reason (and we look unprofessional at best and totally incompetent at worst). And who knows if that reason will even come out today or ever? We could just never know, and Pelphrey is hired and becomes the Holtz of basketball and we all finally just give up on USF and Sharpie a "Central" over the middle of our diplomas in abject shame!!!

[CousinRicky]

After hearing about the hire yesterday I put a note on the calendar to call John Lewis to renew my tickets.  Guess I can wait another day or so.