Stitt Cleaning House?

[UMGriz75]

No One but you put his income above 300 thousand

The fact is, Stitt received a base salary of $175,000. That was recently increased to $178,500. His maximum performance incentive bonuses add up to $97,000, he gets a car allowance of $6,000, and there is a maximum of $18,500 as the academic bonus. That adds up to $300,000. "Exactly," as it turns out.

:liar: :liar: :liar:
Do to want to expand on this little LIE above?

You've pretty much jumped the shark here. There is nothing to "expand" on. Those numbers are taken directly from the contract I provided you, including the state pay adjustment which has been implemented since the contract signing. I included the link, that's what the link shows.

WTF is the matter with you?

It is a $300,000 contract. I referred to Stitt as a "$300,000 coach." That's how you can refer to a coach who has a $300,000 contract, and in the real world, that's exactly how people would characterize it. Which part don't you understand?

That is how it would have to be carried on the books as a liability for accounting purposes. Anything else would be not only dishonest, it would violate GAAP. It is, in fact, carried as a $300,000 liability. It has to be.

I don't know why it takes five pages of name-calling, straw men, and red herrings to try and avoid the fact that a coach with a "$300,000 contract" can correctly be called a "$300,000 coach."

 

[UMGriz75]

I'd have to take a HUGE pay cut to make $300k.

Then donate to Stitt. I read on egriz he's struggling and sacrificing.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I'd have to take a HUGE pay cut to make $300k.

Then donate to Stitt. I read on egriz he's struggling and sacrificing.

I just sent in my donation last week, but thanks for asking.

You?

 

[Bear Axed]

Nope, your agenda in using the $300,000.00 amount was pointed at making others believe
His present Salary totaled $300,000.00 Dollars

 

[UMGriz75]

Nope, your agenda in using the $300,000.00 amount was pointed at making others believe
His present Salary totaled $300,000.00 Dollars

My "agenda" in referring to his $300,000 contract as a $300,000 contract? That's an agenda?

Are you trying to claim that he does not have a $300,000 contract with UM. Now you are in pure spin mode.

In fact, his present contract "salary" is just as you yourself stated it: base salary plus incentives. Are you now retracting?

Just because they add up to $300,000 and you embarrassed yourself with your mindless hyperventilation over the fact that someone accurately referred to a beneficiary of a $300,000 contract as a $300,000 coach?

You made a fool of yourself. It might be time to move on.

 

[AZGrizFan]

No One but you put his income above 300 thousand

The fact is, Stitt received a base salary of $175,000. That was recently increased to $178,500. His maximum performance incentive bonuses add up to $97,000, he gets a car allowance of $6,000, and there is a maximum of $18,500 as the academic bonus. That adds up to $300,000. "Exactly," as it turns out.

:liar: :liar: :liar:
Do to want to expand on this little LIE above?

You've pretty much jumped the shark here. There is nothing to "expand" on. Those numbers are taken directly from the contract I provided you, including the state pay adjustment which has been implemented since the contract signing. I included the link, that's what the link shows.

WTF is the matter with you?

It is a $300,000 contract. I referred to Stitt as a "$300,000 coach." That's how you can refer to a coach who has a $300,000 contract, and in the real world, that's exactly how people would characterize it. Which part don't you understand?

That is how it would have to be carried on the books as a liability for accounting purposes. Anything else would be not only dishonest, it would violate GAAP. It is, in fact, carried as a $300,000 liability. It has to be.

I don't know why it takes five pages of name-calling, straw men, and red herrings to try and avoid the fact that a coach with a "$300,000 contract" can correctly be called a "$300,000 coach."

I've been working in the "real world" for 35 years and never ONCE have I heard ANYONE include their potential bonuses when discussing what they make. I have a 40% bonus potential where I work. I don't include that 40% when discussing what I make. No one does. And aren't you an instructor at UM? Hate to break it to ya, but academia hardly qualifies as "real world".

Oh, and FYI: I'm also a CFO...and you're dead wrong about your GAAP assertion. You only book/accrue bonuses that have a reasonable probability of being achieved. You don't just blindly accrue for every bonus that's potentially on the contract until such time as that bonus appears to be on track for being achieved.

 

[Bear Axed]

Nope, your agenda in using the $300,000.00 amount was pointed at making others believe
His present Salary totaled $300,000.00 Dollars

No, I said he was a "$300,000 coach." You needed to fabricate other meanings in order to pursue your meaningless effort to pretend that he does not have a $300,000 contract with UM. Now you are in pure spin mode.

In fact, his present contract "salary" is just as you yourself stated it: base salary plus incentives. Are you now retracting?

Just because they add up to $300,000 and you embarrassed yourself with your mindless hyperventilation over the fact that someone accurately referred to a beneficiary of a $300,000 contract as a $300,000 coach?

You made a fool of yourself. It might be time to move on.

Uhhh no....
I called you on the incentives, asked you to add up the ones he's getting paid
and you tried to shove it all vaguely under the rug




If you actually believed he was a $300 grand coach, You'd have no problems on why he'd need to CLEAN HOUSE

 

[UMGriz75]

Oh, and FYI: I'm also a CFO...and you're dead wrong about your GAAP assertion. You only book/accrue bonuses that have a reasonable probability of being achieved. You don't just blindly accrue for every bonus that's potentially on the contract until such time as that bonus appears to be on track for being achieved.

Sorry, don't buy it. I was a CFO for 15 years, and if you don't book the potential liabilities, then you violate GAAP. It's not "blindly accruing," it's accounting for probable loss in order to avoid deceiving those that rely on your accounting and financial statements.

Per GAAP, contingent liabilities can be broken down into three categories based on the likelihood of those liabilities actually occurring. A "high probability" contingency is a liability that is both probable of actually occurring and one where the costs can be reasonably estimated. For high probability contingent liabilities, the company must disclose the estimated amount of the potential loss and also describe the contingency in the footnotes of its financial statements.

A "medium probability" contingency is one that falls short of either but not both of the parameters of a high probability liability. These liabilities must be disclosed in the footnotes of the financial statements if either of two criteria are true. First, if the contingency is probable but the company cannot estimate the loss, or second, if the contingency the contingency is reasonably possible, although not necessarily probable.

Last, GAAP qualifies other contingent liabilities as "low probability." The likelihood of these contingent liabilities actually triggering a cost is very low, and therefore accountants are not required to report them in the financial statements.

If you believe Stitt, the "likelihood of the contingent liabilities actually triggering a cost" is not low. Not at all. He said so. Please stop fabricating accounting rules to avoid the fact that a $300,000 contract is properly referred to as a "$300,000 contract" and that a coach who is the beneficiary of a $300,000 contract can with perfect accuracy be referred to as a "$300,000 coach."

This is just silly. What would you honestly call any contract that can pay out $300,000 compensation besides a $300,000 contract? What is UM liable for under a contract like that? For full performance? $300,000. Case closed.

 

[UMGriz75]

Nope, your agenda in using the $300,000.00 amount was pointed at making others believe
His present Salary totaled $300,000.00 Dollars

No, I said he was a "$300,000 coach." You needed to fabricate other meanings in order to pursue your meaningless effort to pretend that he does not have a $300,000 contract with UM. Now you are in pure spin mode.

In fact, his present contract "salary" is just as you yourself stated it: base salary plus incentives. Are you now retracting?

Just because they add up to $300,000 and you embarrassed yourself with your mindless hyperventilation over the fact that someone accurately referred to a beneficiary of a $300,000 contract as a $300,000 coach?

You made a fool of yourself. It might be time to move on.

Uhhh no....
I called you on the incentives, asked you to add up the ones he's getting paid
and you tried to shove it all vaguely under the rug.

Nothing vague about it. Unlike you, I referred to the actual contract. It will help you out to read it.

 

[Bear Axed]

Nope, your agenda in using the $300,000.00 amount was pointed at making others believe
His present Salary totaled $300,000.00 Dollars

No, I said he was a "$300,000 coach." You needed to fabricate other meanings in order to pursue your meaningless effort to pretend that he does not have a $300,000 contract with UM. Now you are in pure spin mode.

In fact, his present contract "salary" is just as you yourself stated it: base salary plus incentives. Are you now retracting?

Just because they add up to $300,000 and you embarrassed yourself with your mindless hyperventilation over the fact that someone accurately referred to a beneficiary of a $300,000 contract as a $300,000 coach?

You made a fool of yourself. It might be time to move on.

Uhhh no....
I called you on the incentives, asked you to add up the ones he's getting paid
and you tried to shove it all vaguely under the rug.

Nothing vague about it. Unlike you, I referred to the actual contract. It will help you out to read it.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Payton must have the day off...

 

[AZGrizFan]

Just for the record, Stitt doesn't make "$300,000 per year plus perks". But carry on.

For those who abandon the principal in favor of the trivial,

Bob Stitt receives:
$175,000 in base salary, plus "employee benefits." Employee benefits includes Blue Cross/BS which is at least a $20,000.

$6,0000 automobile.

Fees from radio and TV appearances (these generally amount to about $20,000 per year)
Academic year performance of up to $5,000.
A 590 APR score $2500
A higher than GSR average graduation rate, $5,000.

Of course, it's the student really, that earn that for the coach, right?

plus well over $120,000 in various incentives.

Bob Stitt can earn in excess of $300,000. Beats Top Ramen for dinner, right?

The "incentive" for a concussion for the team?

Can't find that in the student contract.

Please, stop this charade of pretending that a coach, missing a dance concert, "sacrifices" just as much as a student athlete who just lost his career, possibly his health, and his scholarship. It is beyond disgusting.

Please elaborate what these $120k in various incentive are for. Because I can already see $12,500 on your very short list that wouldn't be accrued for until they were likely to be met/earned. And I'm gonna guess that a large portion of that $120k will fall under the same category.

And one last time: NOBODY includes the cost of benefits in their "salary" when discussing how much someone is getting paid. Nobody. Nada. Zilch.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, and FYI: I'm also a CFO...and you're dead wrong about your GAAP assertion. You only book/accrue bonuses that have a reasonable probability of being achieved. You don't just blindly accrue for every bonus that's potentially on the contract until such time as that bonus appears to be on track for being achieved.

Sorry, don't buy it. I was a CFO for 15 years, and if you don't book the potential liabilities, then you violate GAAP. It's not "blindly accruing," it's accounting for probable loss in order to avoid deceiving those that rely on your accounting and financial statements.

Per GAAP, contingent liabilities can be broken down into three categories based on the likelihood of those liabilities actually occurring. A "high probability" contingency is a liability that is both probable of actually occurring and one where the costs can be reasonably estimated. For high probability contingent liabilities, the company must disclose the estimated amount of the potential loss and also describe the contingency in the footnotes of its financial statements.

A "medium probability" contingency is one that falls short of either but not both of the parameters of a high probability liability. These liabilities must be disclosed in the footnotes of the financial statements if either of two criteria are true. First, if the contingency is probable but the company cannot estimate the loss, or second, if the contingency the contingency is reasonably possible, although not necessarily probable.

Last, GAAP qualifies other contingent liabilities as "low probability." The likelihood of these contingent liabilities actually triggering a cost is very low, and therefore accountants are not required to report them in the financial statements.

If you believe Stitt, the "likelihood of the contingent liabilities actually triggering a cost" is not low. Not at all. He said so. Please stop fabricating accounting rules to avoid the fact that a $300,000 contract is properly referred to as a "$300,000 contract" and that a coach who is the beneficiary of a $300,000 contract can with perfect accuracy be referred to as a "$300,000 coach."

This is just silly. What would you honestly call any contract that can pay out $300,000 compensation besides a $300,000 contract? What is UM liable for under a contract like that? For full performance? $300,000. Case closed.

I see. So NOW, again in your "real world", the EMPLOYEE gets to determine whether or not you accrue for the bonus....holy Christ, I see now why you're no longer a CFO. What they are potentially liable for and what they actually pay out/accrue are two totally different numbers. It's not a "potential liability" until it has a likelihood of being achieved. Surely even YOU can see the difference?

The only one fabricating accounting rules here is you, my friend.

 

[UMGriz75]

And one last time: NOBODY includes the cost of benefits in their "salary" when discussing how much someone is getting paid. Nobody. Nada. Zilch.

Defined "benefits" are not included in the $300,000 contract amount ... and you would know that if you read the contract. They are in addition to the amounts defined for contract performance, and are not quantified.

You know that, you are just trying to talk your way out of this.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Somebody call a plumber, this turd just won't flush.

 

[UMGriz75]

I see. So NOW, again in your "real world", the EMPLOYEE gets to determine whether or not you accrue for the bonus....holy Christ, I see now why you're no longer a CFO. What they are potentially liable for and what they actually pay out/accrue are two totally different numbers. It's not a "potential liability" until it has a likelihood of being achieved. Surely even YOU can see the difference?

The only one fabricating accounting rules here is you, my friend.

Sorry, you are dizzy from spinning so fast. The "employee" doesn't get to define anything. The contract defines it. What they are "potentially liable for" is a beginning ledger entry, because they are precisely quantified and identified. What is actually paid out is a final ledger entry. They "can" be totally different numbers, but based on representations to the public about performance, they should not be in this case.

The fact is, the "value" assigned to the contract is $300,000. That does not mean that the contract is fully performed and at the end of the year, the actual cost of the contract may be less based on non-performance. All contracts are handled that way. They have to be, especially when the public is led to believe that full performance may be a real possibility.

Are you arguing that Stitt is incapable of delivering on his promises, and that per accounting principles, the liabilities need not be disclosed because they are unlikely to be incurred?

Are you arguing that Stitt will fail?

Why?

 

[Bear Axed]

Just so long as people recognize that coaches make sacrifices for their teams (as you now admit), I'm fine.

I really don't consider getting paid $300,000 a year a "sacrifice" in the usual sense. Every day that I go to work I "sacrifice" time with my kids. I guess we all "sacrifice" every day; victims of society, right? It's the part of the "victim culture" that I detest, that even the ones that profit mightily are just "victims," -- forced, mind you, against their will, to make sacrifices, forced to accept those big paychecks, those nice PERS plans, just one sacrifice after another -- we're all victims, victims, victims.

The player with a concussion? Well, maybe he was really cut because, you know, he didn't know how to work hard enough, he wasn't smart enough, he didn't have the right character? Right? Comparing a career-ending concussion and loss of scholarship with a missing a dance recital as comparable "sacrifices" is sometimes why I get cranky on these threads.

No here, you talk as if that is his SALARY today not what he might make if he really cleaned house

 

[AZGrizFan]

Alright. I read the compensation section of Stitt's contract.

Per GAAP, there are almost $100,000 worth of incentives/bonuses that would not be accrued as a contingent liability until they were deemed likely to be paid/owed (and many would have NO WAY of being accrued as they wouldn't know until it actually happened (playoff wins, Conf champ, coach of year, NC game, NC win, APR, etc, etc);

Team Cumulative GPA: $5,000
4-year Average APR > 950: $5,000
Most Current APR shows no "0 for 2" Student Athletes: $1,000
Maintain or Increase Season Attendance: $5,000
Win Conference Coach or Co-Coach of the Year: $5,000
Defeat an FCS Playoff Qualifier (in prev 2 year): $5,000
Play an FBS team in regular season: $10,000 (would be accrued in 2017 as we play Washington)
Defeat an FBS team in regular season: $10,000
Achieve 10 or more wins: $5,000
Conference Champs or Co-Champs: $5,000
Advance Through Playoffs: $2500/Rd ($7500 total)
Advance to NC Game: $5,000
Win NC Game: $30,000

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[tgreseth]

...and like a day old campfire improperly doused, the thread flickered back to life.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I stirred the coals and everything. My bad.

 

[AZGrizFan]

And one last time: NOBODY includes the cost of benefits in their "salary" when discussing how much someone is getting paid. Nobody. Nada. Zilch.

Defined "benefits" are not included in the $300,000 contract amount ... and you would know that if you read the contract. They are in addition to the amounts defined for contract performance, and are not quantified.

You know that, you are just trying to talk your way out of this.

I know they're not included in the contract. YOU included them in your original $300,000 calculation.