(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I bet Tubby is REALLY at a loss now...

He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

No Offset Clause.

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I bet Tubby is REALLY at a loss now...

He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I bet Tubby is REALLY at a loss now...

He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

How would you see an indication? Are you implying that Laurie is ok with giving away 10mil?

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

Terrible contract.
UofM should be ashamed of signing it and, for lots of reasons, Tubby should be ashamed of misrepresenting himself to the administration. Of course, it didn't take him long to make it clear to most everyone that he was simply taking advantage of his resume and screwing over our university and us fans. Its truly sad someone as "respected" as Tubby is did that.

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

But...but....that’s not Bowen’s fault. He has plausible deniability for every poor decision made over the last few years. Except Mike Norvell, that was all him.

(04-16-2018 02:11 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

But...but....that’s not Bowen’s fault. He has plausible deniability for every poor decision made over the last few years. Except Mike Norvell, that was all him.

Yep.

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I bet Tubby is REALLY at a loss now...

He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

the contract was not terrible---
Hiring Tubby Smith was TERRIBLE -- it was a disaster from the beginning -- classic groupthink.

you could quibble about the offset but the guarantee and the amount was what it took to get a sitting coach, that was wanted by his previous school, to change jobs. We payed the market rate and terms --- the problem was hiring Tubby Smith.

(04-16-2018 02:37 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I bet Tubby is REALLY at a loss now...

He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

the contract was not terrible---
Hiring Tubby Smith was TERRIBLE -- it was a disaster from the beginning -- classic groupthink.

you could quibble about the offset but the guarantee and the amount was what it took to get a sitting coach, that was wanted by his previous school, to change jobs. We payed the market rate and terms --- the problem was hiring Tubby Smith.

It was NOT the market rate. It was two idiots at an auction who are trying to outdo the other and end up paying a lot more for the item than the market value. It happens all the time at auctions. You get stuck in the I am going to win mentality and keep bidding even when you could go out and get something better, cheaper.

No other school would come close to paying what we did for the Tub. As you also see when we fired him. No other school in the country stepped up to pay what we overpaid, because his market value is about 1/3rd of what we paid.

We said, "We know."

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

How would you see an indication? Are you implying that Laurie is ok with giving away 10mil?

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

I'm saying that Laurie would have okayed the contract in the first place, and if he okayed it then he would be fine living with any negative consequences. I'm not sure how that's even debatable, the guy isn't a moron.

(04-16-2018 03:57 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

How would you see an indication? Are you implying that Laurie is ok with giving away 10mil?

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

I'm saying that Laurie would have okayed the contract in the first place, and if he okayed it then he would be fine living with any negative consequences. I'm not sure how that's even debatable, the guy isn't a moron.

It is what we call a mistake, doesn't make the guy a moron. Just a mistake was made. If you think he is fine with giving away 10mil for nothing, then you have made a mistake. That doesn't make you a moron either. But no doubt about it, he is not happy that he is paying someone 10mil to not work.

(04-16-2018 02:11 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

But...but....that’s not Bowen’s fault. He has plausible deniability for every poor decision made over the last few years. Except Mike Norvell, that was all him.

This hyperbolic position makes sense if Bowen's supporters assert he is flawless, which I have not seen any of them assert. Maybe they have, and I just haven't come across it.

Do we really have any real idea if the guy is a moron or sharp as a tack? He married well. That is indisputable. Otherwise, do we have any real information regarding how intelligent he is? I think he was a high school teacher before he married a Walton.

What is the point of rehashing Tubby? You guys are like a bunch of gossiping old ladies. While he was our head coach, I could see it but not now. Same fascination with Pastner. I don’t get it.

(04-16-2018 04:02 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:57 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:26 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 01:24 PM)TigerBill Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

It's only a bad contract if the guy footing the bill is worried about it, and I've seen no indication that Laurie is worried about it.

How would you see an indication? Are you implying that Laurie is ok with giving away 10mil?

There is no shaking it, it was a terrible contract.

I'm saying that Laurie would have okayed the contract in the first place, and if he okayed it then he would be fine living with any negative consequences. I'm not sure how that's even debatable, the guy isn't a moron.

It is what we call a mistake, doesn't make the guy a moron. Just a mistake was made. If you think he is fine with giving away 10mil for nothing, then you have made a mistake. That doesn't make you a moron either. But no doubt about it, he is not happy that he is paying someone 10mil to not work.

There ya go, no we're on the same page. Of course he wouldn't be happy with giving away $10 mil for nothing, although you say it like you know him personally. If you do then I bow to your better contacts. If not we can still agree it was a terrible contract, but inferring that it's all our administration's fault is simply false.

It’s been my experience that the wealthier a person is, the less he/she likes to make bad purchases.

(04-16-2018 05:05 PM)Shooters Wrote:  What is the point of rehashing Tubby? You guys are like a bunch of gossiping old ladies. While he was our head coach, I could see it but not now. Same fascination with Pastner. I don’t get it.

Rehashing Tubby? Ancient history I guess? He was our coach one month ago. He wasted 2 years of our team and our money. He took advantage of a situation that made him filthy rich while absolutely not even trying to do what we paid him millions for.

But your right, I guess a month after Calipari left, there was no mention of him ever again.

I've got a question...why are there Tubby defenders when it is obvious he had no desire to do the job he accepted here and walked away with his pockets full? Why?

Sorry, he deserves a little of this for what he did here. In fact, I'll say he did us far worse than Calipari did. Calipari coached his a$$ off until a few days before he left. Tubby just made excuses and told us how we can't even hope to have top players so I'm going back home for nap time.

To show just how far this staff has come, you need to see where it was.

The Tub thought it would be impossible to have both Lomax and Harris on the same team, and was about to land neither. Now we have both.

The Tub told us Memphis kids no longer wanted to play at Memphis, now we have the top two Memphis kids signed.

The Tub told us this wasn't the Memphis from 10 years ago and we have a top 30 recruiting class and with another signing we jump into the top 25.

There are still plenty of reasons to compare what the new staff is doing to what the Tub told us we should never expect to see again.

Also to point out to those "fans" who so quickly jumped up to defend the Tub and agree with everything he said.

(04-16-2018 02:41 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 02:37 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:35 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:34 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 12:20 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  He might care a little but he's going to get $1.5M / year for the next 6 years from Memphis plus whatever High Point is paying him.

I heard it was MINUS whatever High Point is paying him. Did that change?

No, there was no offset clause in his contract. He gets the full thing + whatever High Point is paying him. It was another terrible contract following Pastner's unbelievable bad contract.

the contract was not terrible---
Hiring Tubby Smith was TERRIBLE -- it was a disaster from the beginning -- classic groupthink.

you could quibble about the offset but the guarantee and the amount was what it took to get a sitting coach, that was wanted by his previous school, to change jobs. We payed the market rate and terms --- the problem was hiring Tubby Smith.

It was NOT the market rate. It was two idiots at an auction who are trying to outdo the other and end up paying a lot more for the item than the market value. It happens all the time at auctions. You get stuck in the I am going to win mentality and keep bidding even when you could go out and get something better, cheaper.

No other school would come close to paying what we did for the Tub. As you also see when we fired him. No other school in the country stepped up to pay what we overpaid, because his market value is about 1/3rd of what we paid.

1- texas Tech offered him about the same money.

2- Name another coach that moved from a top 7 league for less? (one that they previous school wanted)

3- Could they have hired Tubby for less? (Ill give you a hint ---no)