UL assistant football coaches to receive bonuses

[Zeebart21]

No one here hates Scott. I surely don't.

Z

[tdncz]

This is just adds to the "where there is smoke, there is fire" situation with the AD.
With Farmer, there is a LOT of smoke. Lots of missteps. Lots of people second guessing because of the poor optics he is establishing for himself.

[CrazyCajun]

Or it has nothing to do with the timetable, years before bonuses were paid by bowl money, obviously this year they aren't, they are being paid by rcaf. When the coaches asked about bonuses, farmer said they were not being paid because they couldn't use it from bowl expenses. Told HUD to raise the money himself, HUD gets ____es, makes a few phone calls and donors pony up the bonus money via RCAF. Yeah, that sounds about just the way we heard it and the way farmer has dealt with financial situations on more than one occasion in the past.

[Zeebart21]

Or it has nothing to do with the timetable, years before bonuses were paid by bowl money, obviously this year they aren't, they are being paid by rcaf. When the coaches asked about bonuses, farmer said they were not being paid because they couldn't use it from bowl expenses. Told HUD to raise the money himself, HUD gets ____es, makes a few phone calls and donors pony up the bonus money via RCAF. Yeah, that sounds about just the way we heard it and the way farmer has dealt with financial situations on more than one occasion in the past.

You're crazy, Crazy. Stop lying to the people.

Z

[CajunT]

Again, if this went down as some of you believe, I do not defend farmer one bit. I just don't see everything adding up. If the timetable is indeed the same, here is a very likely scenario. Asst A sees the writing on the wall (maybe because he knows he got caught doing something he shouldn't). He starts his campaign to cover his own ___. Runs his mouth. An insider like CajunT (just using you as an example T) picks it up. That information, after some manipulation, ends up on this site. Buckley comes to admire his admirers on this site (that's a joke) and finds out that there are rumblings about bonuses not getting paid. Another scenario is whether or not it is farmer himself, someone is reading this board and reporting back to him. To clear the air OR to answer a direct question, farmer states the exact facts of the situation which are that the RCAF will pay the bonuses, they don't have all the calculations done, and that the timetable is similar to past years.

If this is true, and only if it is true, nothing at all was done wrong by farmer or the admin.

Love him or hate him, at some point you have to think that he does something right at least every once in a while or we wouldn't be sitting where we are right now.

Let's get the story straight because this article did not speak to anyone other then Scott Farmer on the record, and not other sources on or off the record. So basically this article supposedly cleared the record, without completely coming clean. First, it was never about the bonuses being paid on time, but how they would be paid considering there was no money to pay them. Second, since no money was available it was not communicated to the staff how or if they would get paid since the bowl money helped pay their bonuses in previous seasons. So it was Coach Hudspeth that requested someone to raise the money, not Scott Farmer. Now did Farmer have to approve it, of course.

Here is the bottom line, why was it communicated to the staff that there was no money from the bowl to pay their bonuses? Why wasn't it communicated to them that the bonuses would be paid through another source, and why did Hudspeth have to initiate the process to raise the money?

Could it be one big great misunderstanding and could have been handled better? Sure....Will it change the opinions of supporters on either side of Scott Farmer? No...But it does offer another small window view into how this program is still ran at times.

[angeleast]

Let's get the story straight because this article did not speak to anyone other then Scott Farmer on the record, and other source on or off the record. So basically this article supposedly cleared the record, without completely coming clean. First, it was never about the bonuses being paid on time, but how they would be paid considering there was no money to pay them. Second, since no money was available it was not communicated to the staff how or if they would get paid since the bowl money helped pay their bonuses in previous seasons. So it was Coach Hudspeth that requested someone to raise the money, not Scott Farmer. Now did Farmer have to approve it, of course.

Here is the bottom line, why was it communicated to the staff that there was no money from the bowl to pay their bonuses? Why wasn't it communicated to them that the bonuses would be paid through another source, and why did Hudspeth have to initiate the process to raise the money?

Could it be one big great misunderstanding and could have been handled better? Sure....Will it change the opinions of supporters on either side of Scott Farmer? No...But it does offer another small window view into how this program is still ran at times.

Thanks T!! Its a shame how some people here grant scott farmer the title of great leader or idiot savant status. Truth is , he is just an idiot that does not instill confidence in our fans. But the UL sunshine pumpers ( T-Rays) never cease to amaze.

[CajunT]

Thanks T!! Its a shame how some people here grant scott farmer the title of great leader or idiot savant status. Truth is , he is just an idiot that does not instill confidence in our fans. But the UL sunshine pumpers ( T-Rays) never cease to amaze.

Not everthing is bad news, there are some good things going on right now. There is movement on the new baseball stadium and movement on the CST contract. Scott Farmer is due some credit in some manner for good news as well. The problem I have is getting any straight talk from people in positions to pass on information that could help this program. For instance, it would be nice to know the difference between committed funds and actual funds in RCAF today. Most are smart enough to know the difference between actual funds and funds that are committed to certain projects, but have not actually been collected. That's just one example.

[Hammer58]

Not everthing is bad news, there are some good things going on right now. There is movement on the new baseball stadium and movement on the CST contract. Scott Farmer is due some credit in some manner for good news as well. The problem I have is getting any straight talk from people in positions to pass on information that could help this program. For instance, it would be nice to know the difference between committed funds and actual funds in RCAF today. Most are smart enough to know the difference between actual funds and funds that are committed to certain projects, but have not actually been collected. That's just one example.

I'll take a shot at that one, Mr Trebeck. Weren't the previous baseball stadium renovation dollars "committed" funds? You know, now you see them now you don't funds.

[BamaCajun]

Not everthing is bad news, there are some good things going on right now. There is movement on the new baseball stadium and movement on the CST contract. Scott Farmer is due some credit in some manner for good news as well. The problem I have is getting any straight talk from people in positions to pass on information that could help this program. For instance, it would be nice to know the difference between committed funds and actual funds in RCAF today. Most are smart enough to know the difference between actual funds and funds that are committed to certain projects, but have not actually been collected. That's just one example.

T, thanks for all of your hard work and info. You do mention something here not spoken much about lately; the CST deal. Anything to share here? Progress? Delivery date?

Thanks!

[Hammer58]

T, thanks for all of your hard work and info. You do mention something here not spoken much about lately; the CST deal. Anything to share here? Progress? Delivery date?

Thanks!

Not CajunT, but Buckley's story did address that as well. Apparently, according to Farmer, they are close but just waiting on the cost estimate for the equipment needed to be able to blackout certain areas to comply with the current conference TV contract with espn. If it is not exhorbitant he thinks they can get it done quickly. Of course, that seems to be the same place we were at a few weeks ago.

[CajunT]

T, thanks for all of your hard work and info. You do mention something here not spoken much about lately; the CST deal. Anything to share here? Progress? Delivery date?

Thanks!

Nothing more then what was quoted from Scott Farmer the other day on the subject. I've been assured the money for the equipment mentioned will be raised or available.

[cajunhawk]

Again, if this went down as some of you believe, I do not defend farmer one bit. I just don't see everything adding up. If the timetable is indeed the same, here is a very likely scenario. Asst A sees the writing on the wall (maybe because he knows he got caught doing something he shouldn't). He starts his campaign to cover his own ___. Runs his mouth. An insider like CajunT (just using you as an example T) picks it up. That information, after some manipulation, ends up on this site. Buckley comes to admire his admirers on this site (that's a joke) and finds out that there are rumblings about bonuses not getting paid. Another scenario is whether or not it is farmer himself, someone is reading this board and reporting back to him. To clear the air OR to answer a direct question, farmer states the exact facts of the situation which are that the RCAF will pay the bonuses, they don't have all the calculations done, and that the timetable is similar to past years.

If this is true, and only if it is true, nothing at all was done wrong by farmer or the admin.

Love him or hate him, at some point you have to think that he does something right at least every once in a while or we wouldn't be sitting where we are right now.

Even the sun shines on a dog's ___ once in a while.