(04-02-2019 11:24 PM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:19 PM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  I strongly disagree with her decision to fire Shaver. Especially this year. For that, I don’t like her performance as an AD. (And time will tell ... maybe it plays out as a bad decision and she pays the price - obviously not what we’re hoping for).

But there’s then a lot of talk on this board about how the process has been a total dumpster fire and how we deserve more explanation about why she let Shaver go and how she should field Tribe Club questions about her decision. Huh? She doesn’t owe me anything else. What more do we want to hear from her? She said, in different words, that she doesn’t think Shaver can win as much as she wants the program to win, so she’s moving on. If she had said she was firing him bc of his wardrobe I’d feel like I was owed more explanation. But wanting to win more seems like a good enough explanation. Now, she went out and found the best upgrade (in her mind) that she could find. Time will tell if her desire to win more plays out.

When a CEO fires someone on her Exec team, she doesn’t sit around and pontificate on that decision with the other Execs (and far-removed team members). She makes a direct statement about why she made the decision and then moves on.

I’m angry about the initial decision - and I’m worried about how everything might play out. But I don’t understand the vitriol about the other elements of what has unfolded over the last 3 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColonelEbirt, we don’t know each other, but I read and respect all of your posts. Folks are already picking your post apart. I try to live by a rule (although admittedly sometimes it’s tough to follow)....

Never debate/argue with anyone that’s less knowledgeable or informed than you, because they’ll never see your point of view and the debate/argument will get dragged down to their level. And That’s an argument you simply can’t win, because now your playing on their home field!

You’re 100% correct on the CEO analogy as well as your entire post. A CEO can and will terminate an Executive at any time without consulting the BOD or shareholders. I mean seriously? CEOs are involved in the day to day operations while BOD and shareholders are not. Also, Many CEOs are Chairman of the Board with Board members assembling quarterly at best. And Shareholders have no say in day to day operations, but merely voice their opinions in buy/sell trades in the coming months/years in reaction to decisions made by Executive team. To think a CEO needs to communicate hiring/firing to shareholders other than the same “general language” is Tribe fans got is ridiculous. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Kudos to you Sir!

So if the AD didn’t communicate or consult on the firing with anyone other than the President before the decision was made, do you think that’s good or bad? What if your name was on the stadium? Do you think you deserve a courtesy call or heads up, or even better, maybe an opinion on the issue?
What if you were a different donor, considering funding a new stadium? Do you think you’d deserve a courtesy call then? What about people instrumental to the college’s fundraising campaigns? The Tribe Club President got an advanced heads up. It was nothing more than that, but certainly more than many stakeholders received.

Tough decisions can be made without burning bridges. The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and it’s her right, however sudjective it may be. What’s not subjective is ensuring those instrumental to the college’s past, present, and future are treated with respect, to the most reasonable extent possible. It’s just good business. W&M is a community much bigger than Samantha Huge. If a few people wanted her replaced, it could happen in a matter of days. There’s no turning back from where we are today, but she doesn’t have the most loyal following going forward.