ADVERTISEMENT

Tanner should be fired and the board removed NOW!!!!

world famous 3rd base hecklers

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2011
29,830
13,232
113
If any of us made this mistake, our butts would be out the door and would have to repay the company in some cases...

Henry McMasters needs to act now as honorary USC Board Member and fire all board members and ask for Tanner to resign...

I can see Gamecock members will be paying this mistake for years to come...

An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.

The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.

At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.


Read more here: https://www.thestate.com/sports/col...cid=DM340674&ac_bid=-1194257174#storylink=cpy


https://www.thestate.com/sports/col...16205.html?ac_cid=DM340674&ac_bid=-1194257174
 
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Haley already established that the only requirement to being on the board is political donations. McMaster isn’t going to hurt the gravy train for campaign funding because these guys cost the University money.
 
I know everyone is making a fuss over Muschamp's contract language and the fact that his reduced buyout contract was never actually signed.

However, as has been very clearly pointed out, the omission of mitigation language from his contract and the fact that the other contract wasn't signed weren't just oosie daisies. Obviously the mitigation language was negotiated out. A bad move on our part, but certainly not a decision that rests solely with Tanner. A bunch of other people had to agree to that.

And, there's zero chance that agreed upon contract for the reduced buyout was accidentally not signed. There are far too many other people involved for something like that to have just fallen through the cracks.

Just be realistic here. I'm not defending Ray as AD, but it's silly to think he's the sole individual from our administration involved in these contract issues. These are things that both parties, including our BOT and President (and likely others) agreed on. These contracts get viewed by dozens of sets of eyes. I'm not arguing that they're good deals, but they were accidents.
 
Last edited:
I know everyone is making a fuss over Muschamp's contract language and the fact that his reduced buyout contract was never actually signed.

However, as has been very clearly pointed out, the omission of mitigation language from his contract and the fact that the other contract wasn't signed weren't just oosie daisies. Obviously the mitigation language was negotiated out. A bad move on our part, but certainly not a decision that rests solely with Tanner. A bunch of other people had to agree to that.

And, there's zero chance that agreed upon contract for the reduced buyout was accidentally not signed. There are far too many other people involved for something like that to have just fallen through the cracks.

Just be realistic here. I'm not defending Ray as AD, but it's silly to think he's the sole individual from our administration involved in these contract issues. These are things that both parties, including our BOT and President (and likely others) agreed on. These contracts get viewed by dozens of sets of eyes. I'm not arguing that they're good deals, but they were accidents.

Wrong, its his job to follow up on all matters with athletics... He signs the paychecks and he should have noticed that Muschamp's paycheck wasn't reduced. And he gets those monthly budget reports...
 
Wrong, its his job to follow up on all matters with athletics... He signs the paychecks and he should have noticed that Muschamp's paycheck wasn't reduced. And he gets those monthly budget reports...

Again, it's fairly obvious that the contract for the reduced buyout was never intended to be signed. Not a good deal for sure, but it's hardly as if the laywers, BOT, president and others agreed on the contract and said "alright, Ray here you go" and that was the end of it and nobody ever would have followed up on it. Y'all have a gross misunderstanding of what an AD does.
 
The only explanation is that Mushchamp had some dirt on Tanner and/or an influential board member and he threatened blackmail. How else can you explain paying a bad coach so much money, not firing him sooner, and then not executing the agreed upon contract revision that would have saved USC $2M?
 
Wrong, its his job to follow up on all matters with athletics... He signs the paychecks and he should have noticed that Muschamp's paycheck wasn't reduced. And he gets those monthly budget reports...

Welcome to 2020, Ray doesn't sign pay checks, and he isn't viewing a list of payroll every week or month either, no one in his shoes in football, academia or the regular business world is doing that, not at his level.

Ultimately this is going to fall on the legal dept. it is typically their job to usher through legal docs. and gather the signatures from all vested parties.

If the university can show that everyone had agreed in principal, the university had actually followed through and given more money to assistants, etc. and shown that they were in fact following the spirit of the amendment then actually having it signed is less of an issue. Now where it gets tricky is if it wasn't signed b/c there was a disagreement and they were still negotiating over some aspect.

I would assume that Will's people won't push for the $15.5 and accept the $13.5 paid in full, but maybe change the timeline or something like that. Or he can ask for the $15.5 but allow for some offset language moving forward. He will probably give up a little something to get something else meaningful for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
Might be; might not be. Lacking definitive information, why is that obvious?
Because it is normally a standard provision in these types of contracts. Its not something you would normally have to add in, it is something that you would have to specifically take out.
 
Because it is normally a standard provision in these types of contracts. Its not something you would normally have to add in, it is something that you would have to specifically take out.
Well, since this thing has hit the press and some people are apparently misconstruing what has been publicized, then apparently someone at he university needs to say something. But it's a lose-lose situation for them. However it came about, it will carry negative connotations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
The only explanation is that Mushchamp had some dirt on Tanner and/or an influential board member and he threatened blackmail. How else can you explain paying a bad coach so much money, not firing him sooner, and then not executing the agreed upon contract revision that would have saved USC $2M?

I think the real reason is that athletic directors and school presidents treat money like our politicians do. They don’t give a damn because it ain’t coming out of their pocket. This has become obvious with the outrageous salaries of college coaches. I truly wish I had gone down the coaching road based on what I see today. Coaching these days seems to be a get rich quick scheme. There are more millionaire unsuccessful coaches than there are successful ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
If any of us made this mistake, our butts would be out the door and would have to repay the company in some cases...

Henry McMasters needs to act now as honorary USC Board Member and fire all board members and ask for Tanner to resign...

I can see Gamecock members will be paying this mistake for years to come...

An agreed-upon revision to former South Carolina football coach Will Muschamp’s contract that was never signed by the parties would have saved the university $2 million in buyout money when it fired him.

The failure to complete the contract amendment, which was approved by USC’s board of trustees in December of 2019, means Muschamp’s buyout obligation from the school remains at a bit more than $15.5 million, instead of slightly more than $13.4 million.

At the time of the amendment’s passage, the change was publicized as a move to allow Muschamp to redirect money to help retain a key assistant coach. It also removed Muschamp’s annual raises and therefore lowered the university’s burden should it fire him.


Read more here: https://www.thestate.com/sports/col...cid=DM340674&ac_bid=-1194257174#storylink=cpy


https://www.thestate.com/sports/col...16205.html?ac_cid=DM340674&ac_bid=-1194257174

awww, you know how we roll. The admin is as bad as the federal government. No accountability anywhere. Caslen should be overseeing all of this. Tanner is a disaster and the board is just full of good ole boy political favors and cronyism. There is no such thing as the chicken curse. This is the reason we don’t win. Piss poor leadership
 
  • Like
Reactions: cadcock
Again, it's fairly obvious that the contract for the reduced buyout was never intended to be signed. Not a good deal for sure, but it's hardly as if the laywers, BOT, president and others agreed on the contract and said "alright, Ray here you go" and that was the end of it and nobody ever would have followed up on it. Y'all have a gross misunderstanding of what an AD does.

If this was never intended to be signed, then heads must roll! First one out the door, RAY!!!!
 
Did you fire your parents? Good lord I've never seen someone so obsessed with "firing" someone. Your entire posting history must be in the 80-90% range on it.

And I have been right 80% - 90% of the time... Fire Fig Newton, Fire Scott, Fire Hone, Fire Hyman (he left), Fire Chad, Fire Muschamp, Fire Martin, Fire Tanner, Fire your butt...
 
Welcome to 2020, Ray doesn't sign pay checks, and he isn't viewing a list of payroll every week or month either, no one in his shoes in football, academia or the regular business world is doing that, not at his level.

Ultimately this is going to fall on the legal dept. it is typically their job to usher through legal docs. and gather the signatures from all vested parties.

If the university can show that everyone had agreed in principal, the university had actually followed through and given more money to assistants, etc. and shown that they were in fact following the spirit of the amendment then actually having it signed is less of an issue. Now where it gets tricky is if it wasn't signed b/c there was a disagreement and they were still negotiating over some aspect.

I would assume that Will's people won't push for the $15.5 and accept the $13.5 paid in full, but maybe change the timeline or something like that. Or he can ask for the $15.5 but allow for some offset language moving forward. He will probably give up a little something to get something else meaningful for him.

Fire Ray!
 
There are a lot of strong opinions about this but we don't have all the information.

First, Governor McMaster cannot simply fire Tanner and the BOT. He does not have that power.

Second, we do not know why the contract was not signed. It may be as simple as Muschamp refused to sign the contract for the lower amount.

After thinking about this overnight I have a hard time believing (and I think it very unlikely) that this was the result of negligence or sloppiness either by the AD, the BOT or the University lawyers. It simply does not work that way. You don't simply forget about a multi-million dollar contract.

What is most likely is that Muschamp knew he was going to be fired this year. He consulted with his personal attorneys and with his agent and they told him not to sign the new contract. If I were his attorney that is what I would have advised him to do.

The only recourse would have been for the school to have fired him late last December or in early January of 2020. (Maybe that IS what they should have done) But they cannot force him to sign a new contract when the old one is still in effect.
 
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Haley already established that the only requirement to being on the board is political donations. McMaster isn’t going to hurt the gravy train for campaign funding because these guys cost the University money.


I'm sure Ray was a Rainmaker when he took the position but he's probably lost his luster is this quagmire. Boosters might think twice now.
 
I know everyone is making a fuss over Muschamp's contract language and the fact that his reduced buyout contract was never actually signed.

However, as has been very clearly pointed out, the omission of mitigation language from his contract and the fact that the other contract wasn't signed weren't just oosie daisies. Obviously the mitigation language was negotiated out. A bad move on our part, but certainly not a decision that rests solely with Tanner. A bunch of other people had to agree to that.

And, there's zero chance that agreed upon contract for the reduced buyout was accidentally not signed. There are far too many other people involved for something like that to have just fallen through the cracks.

Just be realistic here. I'm not defending Ray as AD, but it's silly to think he's the sole individual from our administration involved in these contract issues. These are things that both parties, including our BOT and President (and likely others) agreed on. These contracts get viewed by dozens of sets of eyes. I'm not arguing that they're good deals, but they were accidents.

You seriously will defend Tanner to the bitter end. This ordeal with Muschamp (the hire, the puzzling contract, the extension, no mitigation, not signing the reduction) ARE ALL ON TANNER. Not saying he is the only one at fault, but he is the AD and the head coach directly reports to him. Any contract issues have to go to the BOT with Tanner's approval where he advocates for them to be approved. Yes, the BOT should have tossed these ridiculous contract issues out. That doesn't take away the fact that Tanner approved of them and sent to the BOT for their approval.

Its astonishing he still has a job and points to the problem of very low expections of the leadership at South Carolina.
 
There are a lot of strong opinions about this but we don't have all the information.

First, Governor McMaster cannot simply fire Tanner and the BOT. He does not have that power.

Second, we do not know why the contract was not signed. It may be as simple as Muschamp refused to sign the contract for the lower amount.

After thinking about this overnight I have a hard time believing (and I think it very unlikely) that this was the result of negligence or sloppiness either by the AD, the BOT or the University lawyers. It simply does not work that way. You don't simply forget about a multi-million dollar contract.

What is most likely is that Muschamp knew he was going to be fired this year. He consulted with his personal attorneys and with his agent and they told him not to sign the new contract. If I were his attorney that is what I would have advised him to do.

The only recourse would have been for the school to have fired him late last December or in early January of 2020. (Maybe that IS what they should have done) But they cannot force him to sign a new contract when the old one is still in effect.
Your scenario makes sense. The timeline will be important since Ray went public that this was a done deal on December 10, 2019.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseCock
There are a lot of strong opinions about this but we don't have all the information.

First, Governor McMaster cannot simply fire Tanner and the BOT. He does not have that power.

Second, we do not know why the contract was not signed. It may be as simple as Muschamp refused to sign the contract for the lower amount.

After thinking about this overnight I have a hard time believing (and I think it very unlikely) that this was the result of negligence or sloppiness either by the AD, the BOT or the University lawyers. It simply does not work that way. You don't simply forget about a multi-million dollar contract.

What is most likely is that Muschamp knew he was going to be fired this year. He consulted with his personal attorneys and with his agent and they told him not to sign the new contract. If I were his attorney that is what I would have advised him to do.

The only recourse would have been for the school to have fired him late last December or in early January of 2020. (Maybe that IS what they should have done) But they cannot force him to sign a new contract when the old one is still in effect.
That's my thought. They negotiated but muschamp had no reason to sign it after Caslen told the press he called FSU to ask how they structured Taggert's buyout.
 
There are a lot of strong opinions about this but we don't have all the information.

First, Governor McMaster cannot simply fire Tanner and the BOT. He does not have that power.

Second, we do not know why the contract was not signed. It may be as simple as Muschamp refused to sign the contract for the lower amount.

After thinking about this overnight I have a hard time believing (and I think it very unlikely) that this was the result of negligence or sloppiness either by the AD, the BOT or the University lawyers. It simply does not work that way. You don't simply forget about a multi-million dollar contract.

What is most likely is that Muschamp knew he was going to be fired this year. He consulted with his personal attorneys and with his agent and they told him not to sign the new contract. If I were his attorney that is what I would have advised him to do.

The only recourse would have been for the school to have fired him late last December or in early January of 2020. (Maybe that IS what they should have done) But they cannot force him to sign a new contract when the old one is still in effect.

While i agree with what you said on a prima facia basis, law is always nuanced.

If Will was negotiating in good faith and had in principal agreed to the concept of raising the salary of assistants and receiving other consideration in exchange for a lesser contract, he is going to have a tough time saying he never intended to take the deal if the university followed through on their end and provided the benefits.

I don't know what the back story is, but i remember Willie Taggart had nothing more than a memorandum of understanding when he took the FSU job and his contract was never executed. The devil is in the details and when you don't clarify them and actuate on them you bring in variables. The key variable here is they can try to work it out and if they can't mutually agree the ball will be in the court of the Athletic Dept. They will have to decide what to pay him and do so. He can then sue them for breach of contract if he would like and let the courts take over.

I don't think it goes there, i don't even think it becomes a headline. They will work it out and then based off of the final decision, we will know who likely had the upper hand.
 
While i agree with what you said on a prima facia basis, law is always nuanced.

If Will was negotiating in good faith and had in principal agreed to the concept of raising the salary of assistants and receiving other consideration in exchange for a lesser contract, he is going to have a tough time saying he never intended to take the deal if the university followed through on their end and provided the benefits.

I don't know what the back story is, but i remember Willie Taggart had nothing more than a memorandum of understanding when he took the FSU job and his contract was never executed. The devil is in the details and when you don't clarify them and actuate on them you bring in variables. The key variable here is they can try to work it out and if they can't mutually agree the ball will be in the court of the Athletic Dept. They will have to decide what to pay him and do so. He can then sue them for breach of contract if he would like and let the courts take over.

I don't think it goes there, i don't even think it becomes a headline. They will work it out and then based off of the final decision, we will know who likely had the upper hand.
Man, I like having conversations with reasonable people. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
There are a lot of strong opinions about this but we don't have all the information.

First, Governor McMaster cannot simply fire Tanner and the BOT. He does not have that power.

Second, we do not know why the contract was not signed. It may be as simple as Muschamp refused to sign the contract for the lower amount.

After thinking about this overnight I have a hard time believing (and I think it very unlikely) that this was the result of negligence or sloppiness either by the AD, the BOT or the University lawyers. It simply does not work that way. You don't simply forget about a multi-million dollar contract.

What is most likely is that Muschamp knew he was going to be fired this year. He consulted with his personal attorneys and with his agent and they told him not to sign the new contract. If I were his attorney that is what I would have advised him to do.

The only recourse would have been for the school to have fired him late last December or in early January of 2020. (Maybe that IS what they should have done) But they cannot force him to sign a new contract when the old one is still in effect.

Your last statement is correct. But, the leverage the school did have is the increase in $ Mushcamp was asking for with the assistants. Why would the school move forward on that, its end if the deal, without formalizing the agreement??? This is basic business and contracts 101. Muschamp should have been told the day he signs the new agreement is the day the $ are available for the assistants. This is how you protect the organization you work for.
 
While i agree with what you said on a prima facia basis, law is always nuanced.

If Will was negotiating in good faith and had in principal agreed to the concept of raising the salary of assistants and receiving other consideration in exchange for a lesser contract, he is going to have a tough time saying he never intended to take the deal if the university followed through on their end and provided the benefits.

I don't know what the back story is, but i remember Willie Taggart had nothing more than a memorandum of understanding when he took the FSU job and his contract was never executed. The devil is in the details and when you don't clarify them and actuate on them you bring in variables. The key variable here is they can try to work it out and if they can't mutually agree the ball will be in the court of the Athletic Dept. They will have to decide what to pay him and do so. He can then sue them for breach of contract if he would like and let the courts take over.

I don't think it goes there, i don't even think it becomes a headline. They will work it out and then based off of the final decision, we will know who likely had the upper hand.

Agree. I believe Will Muschamp is a total charlatan but it would a very bad look holding the AD's feet to the fire with this particular snafu.
 
But it isn’t a breach, the contract contemplates both sides terminating early and each side has as liquidated damages clause (well at least Will did).
True. I still call it a breach although the contract itself provides the remedy for such a situation.
 
Your last statement is correct. But, the leverage the school did have is the increase in $ Mushcamp was asking for with the assistants. Why would the school move forward on that, its end if the deal, without formalizing the agreement??? This is basic business and contracts 101. Muschamp should have been told the day he signs the new agreement is the day the $ are available for the assistants. This is how you protect the organization you work for.
That's a very good point. My guess is the University moved forward and made the money available for Bobo and the other staff raises he wanted before Muschamp signed. Maybe Muschamp had every intention of signing the contract but never did.

The more cynical answer is that after University made the changes it agreed to Muschamp just refused to sign. Maybe he was advised not to sign.

We may never know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT