Or admit you have reached your Peter principle level.
It's hard to admit that when you getting a 60K raise. 60K raise is about 15K over the poverty line.
Printable View
Or admit you have reached your Peter principle level.
It's hard to admit that when you getting a 60K raise. 60K raise is about 15K over the poverty line.
Glad to hear it is being addressed and the coaches are going to get what they are due. Just like the Lotief situation, it shouldn't have had to come to this.
Take it how you'd like MAT....The way the story told itself is solid proof. All football related info (salaries/bonuses included), which we've had a thread or three related to, hit a particular desk and a decision is then made. You don't offer bonuses if there's a chance that you can't pay them after the criteria is met. You allocate the EXACT amount needed throughout the year into a bonus fund and pay the coaches what is owed. When you fail to do this, you need to do use your best politician voice and let Hud know that the money is on it's way....Then go out and get the freakin money. What was the total owed??? $4500 per coach? Pennies to the RCAF.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ManAboutTown
This was about as smart as a soup sandwich
I've read two different words used regarding what was "promised."
"Expenses" and "bonuses."
I may be picking nits, but, to me, a bonus is just that...."We won the NOLA Bowl and you get a supplement to your regular salary."
An "expense" would be dinners for wives, extra room for the kids, an extra nite in NOLA...
Which was it? An expense or a bonus?
I think whether expense reimbursement or actual bonus is irrelevant if it was promised to our coaches.
I think where the confusion is coming in is last year they were able to write the bonuses off as a bowl expense, this year the league said no.
Not if its being implied people are being stiffed on salary as opposed to being stiffed on whether they can charge alcohol against their per diem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunrunner
This is what I understand as well. Apparently the bonuses that are being talked about were paid out in the past from Bowl revenue and not part of the regular athletic dept. budget. When the SBC changed the rule and would not allow this as a legitimate expense, it was apparently a game changer. Another reason to depart the SBC ASAP!Quote:
Originally Posted by MelRock
However, with that said, UL needs to pay these bonuses and make sure everyone understands the rules moving forward. Either include it in the budget or make sure everyone understands bonuses are only paid if it can be expensed as a bowl expense.
My .2 cents.
Ahhhhhhh. Thank you, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by MelRock
There is still a right way and wrong way to handle things.