If a change is made...

[gdamian]

What provision of the contract was that?

Section 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1.

 

[CEB]

Section 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1.

I think $$3.3(m) is still the prevailing provision!

 

[iceeater1969]

Pretty reasonable except that the moon will fall out of the sky before this team runs the table on all five of those teams, winnable or not. Secondly, I don't know about Coach Collins but so far as "throwing in the towel" well, that towel has already been tossed in the ring by the players and possibly some of the assistants.

If we are doing negotiation properly we have a bad guy demanding he resign and take reduced buy out.

Cgc hands are tied until the duke game. He must believe in himself. If he gets up to 3 wins, he still has cards to demand it all.

These games UCF and Pitt set the stage- win them both and he is set till end of year. But If he is still at 1 win and 4 losses going into duke he can be approached by the good guy.
Good guys says This situation is not all on you.
1. Gt hired at end of recruiting season and we forced you to take cpj s recruits.
2. Gt made u use all his players till they graduated - no processing.
3. Gt should have offered more analysts and specialty coaches during covid, but didn't due to money constrsints.
We can part company w a structured settlement where we payout over "longer term w an amount thats more generous but not in full " . This way you A. leave w a "he changed the culture and tried" ata boy, b. get on w gour life, and c. gt gets a coach for 23 recruiting which is best for players.
Can we expect your resignation no later than end of duke game? . While we hope u win duke, we think u should do the right thing for players, staff and fans. Your staff will be retained thru end of year and if not retained will receive a generous structured settlement.

Withvtrrmination certain, getting whipped on the field the next 2 plus having the thought of playing mia, fsu, uga will make him accept.

He will accept unless he is delusional

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

They don’t LOVE Collins enough to win? That’s an interesting proposition.

Didn't look like it last Saturday. Maybe they will change their minds this week.

 

[CEB]

If we are doing negotiation properly we have a bad guy demanding he resign and take reduced buy out.

Cgc hands are tied until the duke game. He must believe in himself. If he gets up to 3 wins, he still has cards to demand it all.

These games UCF and Pitt set the stage- win them both and he is set till end of year. But If he is still at 1 win and 4 losses going into duke he can be approached by the good guy.
Good guys says This situation is not all on you.
1. Gt hired at end of recruiting season and we forced you to take cpj s recruits.
2. Gt made u use all his players till they graduated - no processing.
3. Gt should have offered more analysts and specialty coaches during covid, but didn't due to money constrsints.
We can part company w a structured settlement where we payout over "longer term w an amount thats more generous but not in full " . This way you A. leave w a "he changed the culture and tried" ata boy, b. get on w gour life, and c. gt gets a coach for 23 recruiting which is best for players.
Can we expect your resignation no later than end of duke game? . While we hope u win duke, we think u should do the right thing for players, staff and fans. Your staff will be retained thru end of year and if not retained will receive a generous structured settlement.

Withvtrrmination certain, getting whipped on the field the next 2 plus having the thought of playing mia, fsu, uga will make him accept.

He will accept unless he is delusional

I agree... something like this will go down. The key is the bolded part. If we drop the next three, there’s no denying and no posturing.
the Duke game is probably the tipping point unless the next two are so bad that we are willing to pay nearly the full buy out.

 

[bobongo]

I agree... something like this will go down. The key is the bolded part. If we drop the next three, there’s no denying and no posturing.
the Duke game is probably the tipping point unless the next two are so bad that we are willing to pay nearly the full buy out.

What I find so weird about all this is that if Geoff is canned before the end of the season, he stands to make about $3 million more than if he makes it all the way through. The contract is designed to give him an incentive to crater the season now. Not saying he's doing that, but that's the way the contract is structured.

 

[augustabuzz]

Not sure on that one. Do they really want this guy coaching the team for homecoming weekend only to fire him 2 days later?

It would appear that it would happen during the bye week or after UG - Athens.

 

[CEB]

What I find so weird about all this is that if Geoff is canned before the end of the season, he stands to make about $3 million more than if he makes it all the way through. The contract is designed to give him an incentive to crater the season now. Not saying he's doing that, but that's the way the contract is structured.

With the way the events unfolded, it sure feels that way. If we had shown a little promise last year and he were sitting at 3-0 right now, we would be thrilled that our buyout was keeping Nebraska, Auburn and ASU at bay.

I still can’t figure out why his buyout dropped Dec 1 and ours drops Dec 31... if he were setting the world on fire, schools could snatch him after the UGAg game for reduced buyout. There has to be a reason for all of this but I just don’t know what! Then again, everything stinks right now and I’ve never scoured them contract of one of our successful coaches!

 

[bobongo]

With the way the events unfolded, it sure feels that way. If we had shown a little promise last year and he were sitting at 3-0 right now, we would be thrilled that our buyout was keeping Nebraska, Auburn and ASU at bay.

I still can’t figure out why his buyout dropped Dec 1 and ours drops Dec 31... if he were setting the world on fire, schools could snatch him after the UGAg game for reduced buyout. There has to be a reason for all of this but I just don’t know what! Then again, everything stinks right now and I’ve never scoured them contract of one of our successful coaches!

I think the reason is that his lawyers were smarter than ours (and our AD as well).

 

[CEB]

I think the reason is that his lawyers were smarter than ours (and our AD as well).

Hard to argue against that now!

 

[BuzzDraft]

I think the reason is that his lawyers were smarter than ours (and our AD as well).

Exactly.

The current guy's agents powned our Alfred E. Neuman athletic director. He must be escorted out of Edge with his boxes containing his Pez and comic book collections and other belongings before the next coaching hire is made.

 

[slugboy]

What I find so weird about all this is that if Geoff is canned before the end of the season, he stands to make about $3 million more than if he makes it all the way through. The contract is designed to give him an incentive to crater the season now. Not saying he's doing that, but that's the way the contract is structured.

These are not “bugs” in the contract—they’re features. The design of the contract is to make it hard to fire Collins before his first full recruiting class becomes seniors.

Every line that we complain about here makes sense in the “give the transition coach 5 years” sense, and they’re doing exactly what they were written to do.

Most fans have buyers remorse right now, but the contract isn’t a scam pulled by Collins’ agent on the AA.

The dates and the payouts are set up to make it painful to fire Collins before year 5. Everything makes sense in that context. The belief is that building an offensive and defensive line would take years to develop, we would need to hit on and develop player in the second and third classes to make it happen, and that players would need to be upperclassmen before they really contributed. This isn’t a deal that Stansbury kept secret, it’s part of the transaction that the big boosters wanted and the board of trustees reviewed and approved.

Reportedly, one of the members of board of trustees who had to approve the contract was one of Johnson’s offensive linemen. It’s a lot to expect a college senior to tell other members of the board that the transition shouldn’t take five years. There were also faculty members, and they tend to share contrarian opinions. The board was “on board” with a long and painful transition.

This was reportedly what the big boosters wanted too—they wanted off of the flexbone and wanted a “big boy” NFL-style offense. The option coaches didn’t have much of a chance.

The person who feels the most pain from firing Collins is the AD—it wrecks his budget. Not surprisingly, Stansbury fought to give Collins more time.

Success has many parents and failure has only one, and that’s what you’re seeing here. Stansbury is just one of the people responsible for this contract, but the big money boosters (such that we have) are disassociating themselves from the contract and pointing fingers at Stansbury. When things got sour last year, they wanted out of the deal, and they wanted Stansbury to bite the bullet that they personally didn’t want to bite.

(The warning flag that the transition isn’t working isn’t our record—it’s that we have a lot of player turnover in the first two recruiting classes. Many of the sophomores and juniors that should have developed aren’t on the roster now. They’re on medical scholarships or they’re gone)

TL;DR version-> TStan gave the big money boosters what they wanted. The results are bad, so now they want him to own the mess and not them.

 

[bobongo]

These are not “bugs” in the contract—they’re features. The design of the contract is to make it hard to fire Collins before his first full recruiting class becomes seniors.

Every line that we complain about here makes sense in the “give the transition coach 5 years” sense, and they’re doing exactly what they were written to do.

Most fans have buyers remorse right now, but the contract isn’t a scam pulled by Collins’ agent on the AA.

The dates and the payouts are set up to make it painful to fire Collins before year 5. Everything makes sense in that context. The belief is that building an offensive and defensive line would take years to develop, we would need to hit on and develop player in the second and third classes to make it happen, and that players would need to be upperclassmen before they really contributed. This isn’t a deal that Stansbury kept secret, it’s part of the transaction that the big boosters wanted and the board of trustees reviewed and approved.

Reportedly, one of the members of board of trustees who had to approve the contract was one of Johnson’s offensive linemen. It’s a lot to expect a college senior to tell other members of the board that the transition shouldn’t take five years. There were also faculty members, and they tend to share contrarian opinions. The board was “on board” with a long and painful transition.

This was reportedly what the big boosters wanted too—they wanted off of the flexbone and wanted a “big boy” NFL-style offense. The option coaches didn’t have much of a chance.

The person who feels the most pain from firing Collins is the AD—it wrecks his budget. Not surprisingly, Stansbury fought to give Collins more time.

Success has many parents and failure has only one, and that’s what you’re seeing here. Stansbury is just one of the people responsible for this contract, but the big money boosters (such that we have) are disassociating themselves from the contract and pointing fingers at Stansbury. When things got sour last year, they wanted out of the deal, and they wanted Stansbury to bite the bullet that they personally didn’t want to bite.

(The warning flag that the transition isn’t working isn’t our record—it’s that we have a lot of player turnover in the first two recruiting classes. Many of the sophomores and juniors that should have developed aren’t on the roster now. They’re on medical scholarships or they’re gone)

TL;DR version-> TStan gave the big money boosters what they wanted. The results are bad, so now they want him to own the mess and not them.

Well, I guess. This "transition" crap is wildly overblown, IMO. The biggest problem with the contract is that they offered it to the wrong guy.

 

[stinger 1957]

I think the reason is that his lawyers were smarter than ours (and our AD as well).

The other lawyers have always been smarter than our ADs and lawyers, this ain't the first time. We have to be known in coaching and manager circles as a real patsy. Frankly for me it is absolutely embarrassing every time, I'm sick of it happening. IMO the school itself is just as responsible as the ADs etc., but I won't get into my thinking about all that. People need to be held accountable, the whole structure needs to be changed. IMO we're getting ready to see tremendous change in Gov't and Gov't type operations over the coming years, maybe these type operations end up with a lot of change also.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I think the reason is that his lawyers were smarter than ours (and our AD as well).

Shocking….

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Well, I guess. This "transition" crap is wildly overblown, IMO. The biggest problem with the contract is that they offered it to the wrong guy.

I would argue, that having seen 3+ years of losing football, we should be realizing that if, anything, the transition pains are real and were going to be there no matter who was the coach. The only way to mitigate that was to continue with a 3O coach, and we would probably still be a losing team in 1-2 of those years with the same mas fanbase.

What we are is a fanbase that wants instant gratification and we spew bile at whatever coach/AD doesn't get it for us.

 

[bobongo]

I would argue, that having seen 3+ years of losing football, we should be realizing that if, anything, the transition pains are real and were going to be there no matter who was the coach.

Faulty reasoning. You're assuming a priori that the "transition" is responsible for the losing, and not the coach. We're in year four, and still losing.

 

[GT33]

These are not “bugs” in the contract—they’re features. The design of the contract is to make it hard to fire Collins before his first full recruiting class becomes seniors.

Every line that we complain about here makes sense in the “give the transition coach 5 years” sense, and they’re doing exactly what they were written to do.

Most fans have buyers remorse right now, but the contract isn’t a scam pulled by Collins’ agent on the AA.

The dates and the payouts are set up to make it painful to fire Collins before year 5. Everything makes sense in that context. The belief is that building an offensive and defensive line would take years to develop, we would need to hit on and develop player in the second and third classes to make it happen, and that players would need to be upperclassmen before they really contributed. This isn’t a deal that Stansbury kept secret, it’s part of the transaction that the big boosters wanted and the board of trustees reviewed and approved.

Reportedly, one of the members of board of trustees who had to approve the contract was one of Johnson’s offensive linemen. It’s a lot to expect a college senior to tell other members of the board that the transition shouldn’t take five years. There were also faculty members, and they tend to share contrarian opinions. The board was “on board” with a long and painful transition.

This was reportedly what the big boosters wanted too—they wanted off of the flexbone and wanted a “big boy” NFL-style offense. The option coaches didn’t have much of a chance.

The person who feels the most pain from firing Collins is the AD—it wrecks his budget. Not surprisingly, Stansbury fought to give Collins more time.

Success has many parents and failure has only one, and that’s what you’re seeing here. Stansbury is just one of the people responsible for this contract, but the big money boosters (such that we have) are disassociating themselves from the contract and pointing fingers at Stansbury. When things got sour last year, they wanted out of the deal, and they wanted Stansbury to bite the bullet that they personally didn’t want to bite.

(The warning flag that the transition isn’t working isn’t our record—it’s that we have a lot of player turnover in the first two recruiting classes. Many of the sophomores and juniors that should have developed aren’t on the roster now. They’re on medical scholarships or they’re gone)

TL;DR version-> TStan gave the big money boosters what they wanted. The results are bad, so now they want him to own the mess and not them.

As with everything else, there's a lot of differening opinions. There's some things that don't connect:

a. We've increased salaries $4M YOY.
b. Debt service, often cited as a huge issue & it is has gone down by $750 with what looks like last year's restructuring odf the debt. They did something right here. Saw storm clouds & avoided them.
c. The transition perpetuated effectively by some as a 5 yr rebuild was a swiss cheese pre-loaded defense & synchs up with your above. Portal, lenient covid rules have demolished that argumment in my opinion, but it's clear it at a minimum substantially diminished it as a factor.
d. Over-reliance on boosters. This is a college football issue, but yes GT got the O'Leary-Stansbury plan favored by those that wanted the type of program that made them proud & now they are being ridiculed for it.
e. AD budget stress is a mitigating progblem, but every major leader of any organization of any size faces this. Good choices define whether you get out of it or not. Betting on a losing proposition has never, ever been successful. He's exacerbated his own issue, but has also failed to leverage fan support for support. It's there & we've seen it like the $37M Ops sugar pill or crack hit we delivered.
f. Expenses are skyrocketing. I think we're spending $5M more annually on recruiting, our salary above went up as has $7M in general and administrative expenses. We're spending $13M more annually over and will be $18M more with no icrease in the debt service. We can blame it on deby because we'd be better off without the $13M expense, but that $18M is extra expenditures mostly on the football team likely.
g. Injuries play a part, but again there's the portal. We're just not interesting high upside kids & are getting those coming off injuries or riskier players. Not the pond we should be fishing in.

There's a lot of there there. One man's in charge & that's the AD. The buck stops at him. It's the unfortunate reality of being in charge.

 

[bobongo]

What we are is a fanbase that wants instant gratification and we spew bile at whatever coach/AD doesn't get it for us.

For the record, I have spewed no "bile" and four years in is a little late to be talking about "instant gratification".

 

[slugboy]

I would argue, that having seen 3+ years of losing football, we should be realizing that if, anything, the transition pains are real and were going to be there no matter who was the coach. The only way to mitigate that was to continue with a 3O coach, and we would probably still be a losing team in 1-2 of those years with the same mas fanbase.

What we are is a fanbase that wants instant gratification and we spew bile at whatever coach/AD doesn't get it for us.

I agree on the transition pains, and that’s a big reason that we didn’t see more coaches in the mix four seasons ago. Following an “evil genius” coach on a rebuild isn’t a challenge many coaches are up for.

{insert “consequences of my own actions “ meme, since everyone is responsible except us fans}