Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Bielema Buyout not Final?

Started by rhog1, December 21, 2017, 12:06:53 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PonderinHog

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 27, 2017, 02:23:21 pm
You must have just refilled the Viagra prescription......   :D
1/2 in the morning - to keep from peeing on my shoes
1/2 at night - to keep from rolling out of bed

But enough about me.   >:(

Cinco de Hogo

Quote from: rhog1 on December 27, 2017, 02:20:51 pm
One Bobby Petrino wasn't fired for having an affair with a woman half his age. Two who cares if Bret Bielema married a woman half his age he met in Vegas . They are both adults nothing wrong with it.  I have never seen anyone complain about that.

And three, Petrino wasn't fired for lying to his boss or hiring said "women half his age" either.  He was fired for winning a game he wasn't supposed to.

So there now I've said it.

 

hogcards

Quote from: Melancholy_Pigg on December 27, 2017, 02:14:39 pm
I can't figure Arkansas out. 

We get *moral outrage and fire a coach who got us to the Sugar Bowl for having an affair with a "young blonde half his age" when any other serious program in a similar situation would have kept him,

After a full-on self-inflicted flop for a year *(that we blame on the winning coach we just fired), we hire a guy with no SEC experience whatsoever who married a *"young blonde half his age" whom he met at a dice table in Vegas yet the moral outrage police (normally not big fans of dice tables, older men, las vegas, etc.) are just thrilled as can be,

We pay said Saint Bert over $30 million to win 11 SEC games in 5 years and (finally) fire him when we're left last in our division (whoopy!) and after serious rumors about his *drinking and carousing and *laziness,

And then upon hearing that the foundation to whom we give our money to had super-secret contracts giving the above dolt Saint Bert even more money, instead of going Holtz and just doing Do-Right, we start arguing for ways to *cover it up.



This selective moral outrage is becoming unbearable.  Integrity is a full-time job.  The above recitation of events, which inarguably is more or less what has happened since 2011,  shows a very perplexing moral conscience with no consistency.

I agree with the first part in regards to the hypocrisy from the school and Hog fans, but what are you talking about in regards to "super secret contracts" and "more money to him"?  I heard the buyout is 5.9 million.  Where, or I should say what is the "secret money"?  ...and who the hell is trying to give it to this bum?
"You have enemies? Good. It means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."~Winston Churchill

"Racist -- a person who wins an argument with a liberal."~Rush Limbaugh

#lgb
#mediaistheenemy
#stoleninarizona

hawgon

December 28, 2017, 07:50:22 pm #153 Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 08:14:37 pm by hawgon
So the Attorney General said today that Bert's contract with the Foundation should be released and it was.  Here it is:

https://www.arktimes.com/media/pdf/bielema_personal_services_and_guaranty_agreement_december_2017.pdf

It is a different contract than the one with the school.  The formula for figuring the buyout was omitted and therefore, the buyout was the whole amount.

It is a stunning example of either deceit or incompetence.  Either the contract with the school was all for show knowing that the real one would be with the Foundation or they screwed up and left out the  most important language regarding the buyout.

Incompetence or deceit.  Take your pick.  Neither is a good look.

SquealOrNoSqueal

Quote from: Cinco de Hogo on December 28, 2017, 02:47:39 pm
And three, Petrino wasn't fired for lying to his boss or hiring said "women half his age" either.  He was fired for winning a game he wasn't supposed to.

So there now I've said it.

Wut?

LZH


Martygit

Caveat:  I've been drinking and I haven't studied the contract with the foundation linked above in any great detail so you get what you pay for:  1.  If the University fires BB for "convenience", then BB is entitled to receive nothing from the university under his contract with them and, in fact, waives any claims against the university; 2. In exchange for agreeing to that waiver, the foundation agrees to pay him $15.4 (if he's fired in 2017) which constitutes his only claim against either the foundation or the university.

What I don't see is the disclosure of what the foundation really agreed to pay him after their negotiations following his firing - maybe it was the $15.4 and maybe it was something less but that's not disclosed, yet.  The only thing released based on the above is the actual contract between BB and the foundation, not what was eventually negotiated.

Also, it is interesting that there's a clause that if BB institutes any litigation regarding the contract with the foundation, he waives any claim he has.  I wonder if resisting the disclosure could be considered "instituting" such resistance?
RIP OTR, REV

hawgon

Once again, it is absolutely stunning example of either deceit or incompetence that the Foundation contract completely omits the language in the employment contract used to calculate the amount of the buyout.

PecosHog

Quote from: Cinco de Hogo on December 28, 2017, 02:47:39 pm
And three, Petrino wasn't fired for lying to his boss or hiring said "women half his age" either.  He was fired for winning a game he wasn't supposed to.

So there now I've said it.

Ok Cenco, spill the beans.

Martygit

Quote from: hawgon on December 28, 2017, 08:49:26 pm
Once again, it is absolutely stunning example of either deceit or incompetence that the Foundation contract completely omits the language in the employment contract used to calculate the amount of the buyout.

Well, if my reading of it is correct, if he's fired for convenience, it really doesn't matter what the employment contract with the university says - he waives all claims under it and everything reverts to the foundations contract with him and it pays him $15.4M.  The foundation contract doesn't "omit" the "language in the employment contract" it simply says that it doesn't matter because BB waives any claim under it which basically means that if the university fires him for convenience, that contract is void and his contract with the foundation takes its place.
RIP OTR, REV

James Tiberius Pork

Quote from: hawgon on December 28, 2017, 08:49:26 pm
Once again, it is absolutely stunning example of either deceit or incompetence that the Foundation contract completely omits the language in the employment contract used to calculate the amount of the buyout.

Agreed - pathetic and somebody needs to explain the omission.

James Tiberius Pork

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:08:10 pm
Well, if my reading of it is correct, if he's fired for convenience, it really doesn't matter what the employment contract with the university says - he waives all claims under it and everything reverts to the foundations contract with him and it pays him $15.4M.  The foundation contract doesn't "omit" the "language in the employment contract" it simply says that it doesn't matter because BB waives any claim under it which basically means that if the university fires him for convenience, that contract is void and his contract with the foundation takes its place.

Then why even have a university contract ?

PonderinHog


 

Martygit

Quote from: James Tiberius Pork on December 28, 2017, 09:13:03 pm
Then why even have a university contract ?

Because there are reasons for him to be fired other than for convenience - I'm guessing (again, without going back and studying all of the contracts) that if he's fired for cause, his buyout becomes much less in accordance with the terms of the university contract, i.e. $4-5M.  The foundation contract appears to apply only if he's fired for convenience.

What will be more interesting is what they ultimately agreed to his buyout after negotiations.
RIP OTR, REV

hawgon

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:08:10 pm
Well, if my reading of it is correct, if he's fired for convenience, it really doesn't matter what the employment contract with the university says - he waives all claims under it and everything reverts to the foundations contract with him and it pays him $15.4M.  The foundation contract doesn't "omit" the "language in the employment contract" it simply says that it doesn't matter because BB waives any claim under it which basically means that if the university fires him for convenience, that contract is void and his contract with the foundation takes its place.

Your reading is incorrect.  The Foundation is a third party guarantor.  The employment contract remained in effect, however, the Foundation guaranteed the buyout.  It mirrored the employment agreement and the amounts used EXCEPT it completely failed to
include the language in the employment contract setting the formula for figuring the amount of the buyout.

There are only two options here.  Either this was all planned and the employment contract showing the formula that would lower the buyout was just for show and all knew and intended that the personal services contract would not contain said language, OR there was stunning incompetence and the language was inadvertently left out.

If it was the first, a document was put out there for the public, the BOT, and everyone else, while the real document was negotiated and kept secret from the public because it was an agreement with a "private" organization.  If it was the second, then it was a literal clown show up there with legal malpractice being committed by whoever drafted the contract for the Foundation.

hawgon

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:18:03 pm
Because there are reasons for him to be fired other than for convenience - I'm guessing (again, without going back and studying all of the contracts) that if he's fired for cause, his buyout becomes much less in accordance with the terms of the university contract, i.e. $4-5M.  The foundation contract appears to apply only if he's fired for convenience.

What will be more interesting is what they ultimately agreed to his buyout after negotiations.

Stop guessing.  You're doing it wrong.  If he was fired for cause, he was owed nothing...as in zero dollars.

Hogindasticks

Quote from: ricepig on December 27, 2017, 08:07:18 am
He's backed himself into a corner with his encumbered statement and won't ever admit it. You'll never get an answer because there's nothing he can say to justify it. How John Q Public is encumbered by a private foundation paying a salary is beyond me? Hell, the private foundation is even paying what the state line item allows for public employees, he should be thanking the foundation, lol.

There are high schools in Arkansas that do this.....lol

Martygit

Quote from: hawgon on December 28, 2017, 09:21:18 pm
Your reading is incorrect.  The Foundation is a third party guarantor.  The employment contract remained in effect, however, the Foundation guaranteed the buyout.  It mirrored the employment agreement and the amounts used EXCEPT it completely failed to
include the language in the employment contract setting the formula for figuring the amount of the buyout.

There are only two options here.  Either this was all planned and the employment contract showing the formula that would lower the buyout was just for show and all knew and intended that the personal services contract would not contain said language, OR there was stunning incompetence and the language was inadvertently left out.

If it was the first, a document was put out there for the public, the BOT, and everyone else, while the real document was negotiated and kept secret from the public because it was an agreement with a "private" organization.  If it was the second, then it was a literal clown show up there with legal malpractice being committed by whoever drafted the contract for the Foundation.

So, how do you explain his waiver of any claim under the university contract if fired for convenience?  It seems to me that once that happens, he waives those claims and it defaults to the foundation contract.  I believer that the "firing for convenience" triggers the buyout in the foundation contract (as opposed to the buyout in the university contract), thereby making any buyout provisions in the university contract irrelevant, and defaulting to the foundation contract.  I don't think my reading is incorrect.
RIP OTR, REV

ricepig


Martygit

Quote from: hawgon on December 28, 2017, 09:22:35 pm
Stop guessing.  You're doing it wrong.  If he was fired for cause, he was owed nothing...as in zero dollars.

I'm not "guessing" - they agreed that he was fired for convenience - get over it - and, even if he was fired for cause (which he wasn't) he wouldn't be owed zero - what you wish would have happened is not what happened
RIP OTR, REV

ricepig

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:28:05 pm
I'm not "guessing" - they agreed that he was fired for convenience - get over it - and, even if he was fired for cause (which he wasn't) he wouldn't be owed zero - what you wish would have happened is not what happened

Petrino was fired for cause and got zero.

hawgon

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:28:05 pm
I'm not "guessing" - they agreed that he was fired for convenience - get over it - and, even if he was fired for cause (which he wasn't) he wouldn't be owed zero - what you wish would have happened is not what happened

You must be a law student.  Show me in either document where he would receive a dime other than money already owed but not paid yet had he been fired for cause.  Which, of course, is entirely irrelevant to this conversation ( except that you brought it up) since he wasn't.

PonderinHog


Martygit

OK - I'll back off on the idea that he'd still get something if fired for cause - assuming, as someone once said, makes an ass out of you and an ass out of me - I'll be happy to agree that if he was fired for cause that he wouldn't get anything (although I reserve my agreement to that until I've sobered up and actually looked at the university contract) - however, as you say, it's irrelevant to this conversation - he was fired for convenience, so the foundation contract kicks in and he gets $15.4 unless he negotiates something less (at least that's what my addled brain thinks at this point tonight)
RIP OTR, REV

 

hawgon

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:26:15 pm
So, how do you explain his waiver of any claim under the university contract if fired for convenience?  It seems to me that once that happens, he waives those claims and it defaults to the foundation contract.  I believer that the "firing for convenience" triggers the buyout in the foundation contract (as opposed to the buyout in the university contract), thereby making any buyout provisions in the university contract irrelevant, and defaulting to the foundation contract.  I don't think my reading is incorrect.

It means that he did just what it said, WAIVED ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY.  He was not/is not to look to the university for payment and may not pursue them for it as that the Foundation will pay. 

There is no "trigger".  The Foundation was always to pay the buyout whatever it was and such was specifically stated in the employment agreement with the university.  What we have here is that the Foundation agreed to pay a different amount than was specified in the employment agreement with the university.  It was either intentional or a mistake.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm leaning towards it being a mistake.  It is almost like someone just sort of glazed over that somewhat confusing section of the employment agreement and left it out. 


It is truly [CENSORED] amazing.

ricepig


ricepig

Quote from: PonderinHog on December 28, 2017, 09:33:30 pm
lol  Are we sure ???

Well, there isn't payment in the RF 990's since he was fired, but one can't be sure these days.....

Martygit

Quote from: hawgon on December 28, 2017, 09:40:52 pm
It means that he did just what it said, WAIVED ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY.  He was not/is not to look to the university for payment and may not pursue them for it as that the Foundation will pay. 

There is no "trigger".  The Foundation was always to pay the buyout whatever it was and such was specifically stated in the employment agreement with the university.  What we have here is that the Foundation agreed to pay a different amount than was specified in the employment agreement with the university.  It was either intentional or a mistake.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm leaning towards it being a mistake.  It is almost like someone just sort of glazed over that somewhat confusing section of the employment agreement and left it out. 


It is truly [CENSORED] amazing.

That's interesting (setting aside our obvious differences in interpretation) - as I was perusing the contract with the foundation, I saw several grammatical errors (okay, I could be a grammar nerd, but that's just the result of having gone to law school) - I have a hard time believing that folks at that level would publish a contract with as much significance as this one had with the kind of "mistakes" that this one has in it.  Fascinating - I would never had let that kind of sloppiness get out of my office, and I would have been fired by those who employed me if I had.
RIP OTR, REV

PonderinHog

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:46:10 pm
That's interesting (setting aside our obvious differences in interpretation) - as I was perusing the contract with the foundation, I saw several grammatical errors (okay, I could be a grammar nerd, but that's just the result of having gone to law school) - I have a hard time believing that folks at that level would publish a contract with as much significance as this one had with the kind of "mistakes" that this one has in it.  Fascinating - I would never had let that kind of sloppiness get out of my office, and I would have been fired by those who employed me if I had.
For cause or convenience ???  Apparently, there's a big difference!

hawgon

Quote from: ResIpsaLoquitur on December 28, 2017, 09:46:10 pm
That's interesting (setting aside our obvious differences in interpretation) - as I was perusing the contract with the foundation, I saw several grammatical errors (okay, I could be a grammar nerd, but that's just the result of having gone to law school) - I have a hard time believing that folks at that level would publish a contract with as much significance as this one had with the kind of "mistakes" that this one has in it.  Fascinating - I would never had let that kind of sloppiness get out of my office, and I would have been fired by those who employed me if I had.

I will agree with you that there are two separate contracts, but if they had been done the way we were lead to believe they were, they would have had mirrored provisions and it wouldn't matter.  If the intent was to pay him that much all along, then a huge lie was foisted upon everyone.

Martygit

Quote from: PonderinHog on December 28, 2017, 09:50:13 pm
For cause or convenience ???  Apparently, there's a big difference!

Yep - big time

OK, I'm done for the night - I look forward to the elucidating opinions that I'm sure will be espoused tonight while I'm sleeping off my Woodford Reserve sleep

Edit: to hawgon - yes, it appears that there are two separate contracts - I think the idea was that if he was fired for convenience, he waived all claims under the university contract, making it void and irrelevant.  Then the foundation contract kicked in and provided for the buyout and its amount - at least that's what I think they were trying to do.
RIP OTR, REV

ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 10:51:13 pm
Ricepig is not gonna like this....

Why, I've known about this from the beginning. No spin Dumas, try to spin how the taxpayers are going to pay for this??

rtr

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 10:53:00 pm
Why, I've known about this from the beginning.
I would not go around bragging about this.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 10:55:10 pm
And away he goes!
Quote from: rtr on December 28, 2017, 10:55:09 pm
I would not go around bragging about this.

What, that he had a personal services contract with the RF, common knowledge by many.

rtr

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 10:59:33 pm
What, that he had a personal services contract with the RF, common knowledge by many.
And why the RF will be held subject to FOIA when it goes to court.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

ricepig

Quote from: rtr on December 28, 2017, 11:00:34 pm
And why the RF will be held subject to FOIA when it goes to court.

The contract was in the system office, a mistake by someone. This buyout won't ever go to court.

rtr

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 11:02:38 pm
The contract was in the system office, a mistake by someone. This buyout won't ever go to court.
No but the RF will.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

ricepig

Quote from: rtr on December 28, 2017, 11:03:11 pm
No but the RF will.

They never have, but it's possible someone will sue, time will tell. I have no problem with their contracts being made public.

rtr

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 11:05:31 pm
They never have, but it's possible someone will sue, time will tell. I have no problem with their contracts being made public.
The genie is out of the bottle, amazing he stayed in so long.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 11:08:27 pm
And now, let's see if you can put it all together.....

Just as soon as you tell me how a taxpayer who doesn't go to a game is encumbered by the RF.

rtr

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 11:09:53 pm
Just as soon as you tell me how a taxpayer who doesn't go to a game is encumbered by the RF.
That matters not one whit.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 11:11:28 pm
Oh darn - second spin cycle forthcoming.

No, just avoidance by you on your ignorant remark.

ricepig

Quote from: rtr on December 28, 2017, 11:10:42 pm
That matters not one whit.

And it doesn't occur, but someone thought it did.

ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 11:17:52 pm
To get back to the point for a minute, this is exactly why all contracts dealing with a coach at a public university must be accessible for inspection.

I have no problem with that, which isn't the same as wanting to see every detail of a private charitable foundation.

FrJoseph

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 11:17:48 pm
No, just avoidance by you on your ignorant remark.


It's 6:20 in Rome right now...........

Fr Joe
You made us for yourself oh God, and are hearts are restless until they rest in you.

ricepig

Quote from: FrJoseph on December 28, 2017, 11:21:01 pm

It's 6:20 in Rome right now...........

Fr Joe

I'm in the ER with my 91 year Mom, I could use a little prayer Father, thanks.

rtr

Prayers for your mother, Ricepig.
The more smites the more intelligent I get.

FrJoseph

Quote from: ricepig on December 28, 2017, 11:22:43 pm
I'm in the ER with my 91 year Mom, I could use a little prayer Father, thanks.


That you will get my friend. I am about to celebrate the 7AM morning Mass. PM me her name and I will offer the Mass for her.

Fr Joe
You made us for yourself oh God, and are hearts are restless until they rest in you.

PonderinHog

This thread needs two things...



ricepig

Quote from: sevenof400 on December 28, 2017, 11:26:24 pm
Then get off here for awhile.  This can wait.

Got to do something while you wait in between people in the room.