-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Stitt Cleaning House?
- Thread starter AZGrizFan
- Start date
Great job. 17 pages of nonsense.
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
AZGrizFan said:
We're all bored. Did you know boredom is an anagram for bedroom? My wife gets this. :lol:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
I fully agree. The consensus is that at UM a coach with a $300,000 contract is "sacrificing" and athletes leaving the team are lazy, stupid and have bad character and have never "sacrificed" anything. Just a bunch of ingrates. We could have just figured that out on page 1, I suppose, had I not stupidly objected on behalf of the athletes. You know, because "why?" And my objection was stupid because it brought out every stupid argument that any deranged mind could think of as to why the athletes deserved it, and how the coach is struggling daily, even with a $6,000 car allowance.get'em_griz said:
Once again, for the record, I think Stitt's pay is too low for the quality of the program he is asked to lead, and it should be substantially higher than the MSU coach, based on program success. I also think he needs to recruit the team he feels he needs to recruit, I simply object to "fans" who then claim he's getting rid of detritus, "cleaning house" to rid the team of the stupid, lazy and bad characters, when in fact, these were Griz players, who likely with all their hearts wanted to be Griz players, and deserve respect, not epithets from ungrateful fans.
AZGrizFan said:
I don't think we have to worry about him. He texted me and said a pretty girl moved in down the street this weekend.
For my cat friends that frequent the board, he's doing this:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
Yes, I forgot that in addition to the other insults to departing players, you wanted to make sure to denigrate their abilities as well.AZGrizFan said:
Thank you for your correction.
"Stupid, lazy, bad characters, and lack ability."
Is the list now complete of your completely gratuitous insults to departing Griz athletes, or do you have others still?
Are any of these kids players that you cheered when they came onto the team?
George Ferguson
Well-known member
This is still going on?????????
kemajic said:
You can say that again!
Uhhhhhh.....never mind.
It seems that some of you just cant stay on a subject....
UMGriz75
Well-known member
I'd say, "let it go" AZ. The whole purpose of "accounting" is to match expenditures with revenue and to do that, you need to budget. You first argued that "benefits" were included in the $300,000 then finally conceded they are outside the contract. Then you claimed that the performance payments are "bonuses" and don't need to be budgeted. "Bonuses" in the strict sense are, in fact, outside the budget process because they are discretionary, and they are generally not defined by contract, whereas Stitt's contract defines an array of defined liabilities, the full performance of the contract resulting in a $300,000 pay out because that is what the contract requires. In ordinary business where bonuses are contractually tied to revenue production the obvious safety net from an accounting standpoint is that the "bonus" is self-funding -- the "bonus" accrues when the revenue is produced. The accounting need for budgeting in advance does not exist.
Stitt's contract is not tied to revenue production. It does not self-fund in the way that business "bonuses" do. Indeed, it is the opposite. Fulfillment of the contract metrics likely increases overall expenses in addition to the liability for Stitt's performance payments. Compensating revenue increases would be problematic and the contract is not, in any way, tied to increased revenue offsets.
For a general ledger, you could certainly carry the performance liabilities under a separate heading, apart from the base salary, and it is useful to do so. But, unless it is carried "somewhere," the whole point of "accounting" vanishes and at the end of the day, at the National Championship, in fact you don't have anything in your "budget" to pay the full contract amount when it becomes due.
I'd say that's poor accounting to not have budgeted for known contract metrics.
Although the term "contingent liabilities" isn't quite applicable here, the analogy is useful. They must be disclosed. If they are likely, they must be budgeted as a ledger entry on the balance sheet. If they are unlikely, they must at least be footnoted according to GAAP.
The whole point is to plan around a budget. If key expenditures are left out of that budget, then it really isn't "planning." And at the beginning of the year, all expenditures are "contingent" in the sense that they haven't been paid yet. But, they are budgeted nevertheless.
"Accounting" for sports organizations is a bit of a specialty, since most such organizations are non-profit and so there aren't typically the "revenue bonuses" found in commercial enterprises, but rather sport performance metrics as found in Stitt's contract. If you wish, PM me and I can refer you to my paper, published by the American Bar Association, on "The Importance of the 990 form," which details proper accounting procedures necessary for preparing the tax return for sports organizations, using GAAP principles as part of the proper public disclosure of organizational accounting.
Stitt's contract is not tied to revenue production. It does not self-fund in the way that business "bonuses" do. Indeed, it is the opposite. Fulfillment of the contract metrics likely increases overall expenses in addition to the liability for Stitt's performance payments. Compensating revenue increases would be problematic and the contract is not, in any way, tied to increased revenue offsets.
For a general ledger, you could certainly carry the performance liabilities under a separate heading, apart from the base salary, and it is useful to do so. But, unless it is carried "somewhere," the whole point of "accounting" vanishes and at the end of the day, at the National Championship, in fact you don't have anything in your "budget" to pay the full contract amount when it becomes due.
I'd say that's poor accounting to not have budgeted for known contract metrics.
Although the term "contingent liabilities" isn't quite applicable here, the analogy is useful. They must be disclosed. If they are likely, they must be budgeted as a ledger entry on the balance sheet. If they are unlikely, they must at least be footnoted according to GAAP.
The whole point is to plan around a budget. If key expenditures are left out of that budget, then it really isn't "planning." And at the beginning of the year, all expenditures are "contingent" in the sense that they haven't been paid yet. But, they are budgeted nevertheless.
"Accounting" for sports organizations is a bit of a specialty, since most such organizations are non-profit and so there aren't typically the "revenue bonuses" found in commercial enterprises, but rather sport performance metrics as found in Stitt's contract. If you wish, PM me and I can refer you to my paper, published by the American Bar Association, on "The Importance of the 990 form," which details proper accounting procedures necessary for preparing the tax return for sports organizations, using GAAP principles as part of the proper public disclosure of organizational accounting.
No way this gets to 17 pages....
