Michigan BOR Jordan Acker: I love Harbaugh but I am not interested in negotiating through the public or through the press.

Submitted by 42-27 on January 16th, 2024 at 7:08 PM

Full text of tweet: 

Two things and two things only about this:

1. I love @CoachJim4UM, think he is the best coach in the country, and want him to coach at Michigan for as long as he would like.

2. I am not interested in negotiating through the public or through the press.

 

Link to tweet

MGoBoard
Football

BoFan

January 16th, 2024 at 11:37 PM ^

Jordan Acker is saying he doesn’t like transparency in negotiations.  And since I’ve been involved in many multi-million dollar negotiations, I can tell you that the guy that doesn’t like transparency is a guy who has something to hide. 

So I’ve lost respect for Jordan Acker.  He has been tweeting nonstop about his support for Harbaugh over the last year and many on here have suggested he’s just playing the alums and fans for votes.  This is the first time I might be inclined to believe they are correct. 

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 20059

NRK

January 17th, 2024 at 1:20 AM ^

There’s a difference between transparency in negotiations and publicity in negotiations. You’re conflating them. 


Acker is a big UM fan and was long before he ever got on the Board. So I do believe he wants Harbaugh to stay. But he’s also a politician. He’s coming at it from both sides.

Joined: 02/20/2009

MGoPoints: 6411

BoFan

January 17th, 2024 at 2:00 AM ^

Transparency and public disclosure are the same.  That’s why we have the FOIA.  Publicity is a completely different concept and it has no relationship to “transparency.”  Your use of the term “Conflating” is absurd. 

One of the few times transparency is not ok is to protect innocent victims and this is not one of those times.  

Acker clearly doesn’t want to be subjected to negative pressure or PR.  There is no other interpretation.

The most honest thing you have said is that he is a politician.  The second is that he is a fan. 

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 20059

NRK

January 17th, 2024 at 10:19 AM ^

I'll continue to use the word conflating until you stop conflating things, as absurd as that might seem to you. Transparency in negotiation between parties may help arrive at a better negotiated settlement in some cases. (In other cases it doesn't, I do not agree with your original statement about hiding something, but that's beside the point.) But Acker's statement said "I am not interested in negotiating through the public or through the press" (my emphasis), nothing here says that he is not interested in being transparent between the parties, it said he doesn't want publicity about it ("through the public or...press"). Adding in a third party to negotiations (the public) is a completely different element.

I'm sure he's well aware of Michigan's FOIA laws and what of his communications could be subject to them, as well as ways to legally circumvent them. 

You suggested he was posturing for the UM alumni votes, which sure, probably he's a politician. I added the context that he's also been a big UM fan for a long time, so I don't think this is schtick. It happens to be aligned with his fandom goals and his political goals.

Joined: 02/20/2009

MGoPoints: 6411

BoFan

January 17th, 2024 at 10:12 PM ^

This is a negotiation where both sides of the negotiation are supposed to be on the same side.  That is a given, so let’s not try to confuse this with other types of negotiations to make a point.  Notice the use of the word “confuse” here.  

I do concede your point that there is a big difference between public transparency vs transparency between the parties in general.  

But in this negotiation, there is a significant public interest in the outcome.  Or at least alumni interest.  I believe you established that the alumni are an affected or interested party to any case that may affect Harbaugh’s continued role as a coach at Michigan.  So since you previously argued that alumni are an affected party, then don’t they deserve the same transparency that you claimed would be beneficial to the parties in this particular negotiation.  If so, that would not be a case of “conflating.” 

Back to the tweet that started this discussion.  Given the likely sticking points in the contract, there should not be an issue with any public airing of the differences.  And, I will state again, if a party like Acker is uncomfortable with that, then there is a good chance they are uncomfortable with what the public may think about their position. That’s not a legal point of view.   That is a life experience point of view.  

Let’s also keep in mind that this is not a contentious negotiation where both sides may want to deliberately spin or lie publicly on behalf of their position to garner public support. 

In the case of Acker’s statement/tweet, it is surprising that he felt the need to tweet at all.  That alone should be revealing.  It was unnecessary.  But there are definitely some people (look at Harvard’s board) that like to be in control.  They are uncomfortable not being in control. This is a stretch, sure, but public pressure and transparency can mean a loss of control.  Or it can mean something to hide.  Thus the pressure for an unnecessary tweet. 

BTW, we would likely agree on most things.  I see you want to advocate for Acker and he probably deserves it. But this is a blog and it’s more fun to debate.  
 

The bottom line is Acker’s tweet is a bit of a red flag.  And I don’t mind being unpopular by calling it out. 

Go Blue

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 20059

Bluesince89

January 16th, 2024 at 8:15 PM ^

No, that's not what he said actually. He said it's the executive officer, with the input of the president or CFO, "usually with the board in an advisory role." Key word usually. So the way you read that is, the Board is usually involved in the process, basically "yea, no way in hell get that out," or that "in this scenario, we're doing more than advising." In no way does his statement read this is all AD & president. It was a very carefully phrased answer to a question. Here it is for everyone's own reading pleasure.

 

https://twitter.com/JordanAckerMI/status/1747369954372927651

 

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 14778

Bluesince89

January 16th, 2024 at 7:34 PM ^

Yea, no this isn't how it works. The Regents approve standard form contracts. They are THE governing body of the University. You cannot obligate the University to 8 figures without them signing off. They are involved every step of the way, as they should be. You don't put this in front of them without knowing they will accept it, which is why they're in the loop and giving thumbs up and down. 

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 14778

growler4

January 16th, 2024 at 7:51 PM ^

I'm not so sure. I think both Manuel and Ono are involved. Yet, when you start talking about long term hundred million dollar contracts that might have special negotiated provisions that might involve potential University legal liability, it would not surprise me if the University President has or feels the need to ultimately get a yay or nay from his bosses.

Joined: 11/24/2014

MGoPoints: 1703

Purkinje

January 16th, 2024 at 7:19 PM ^

I am so fucking tired of doing this every January. It’s damaging to recruiting, the perception of the program, the alumni and fans, and probably the players too. Shit or get off the pot, Jim.

Joined: 09/29/2009

MGoPoints: 2546

McSomething

January 16th, 2024 at 7:23 PM ^

This post could've been made 100% verbatim one year ago. And probably even was. This hurts recruiting if you're chasing a top 5 class. That isn't Michigan football. Michigan football recruits in a similar way to the hockey teams that knock Michigan hockey out of the postseason. 

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 36872

SC Wolverine

January 17th, 2024 at 1:36 AM ^

It's funny how much more fun it seems to see how an entire offense of new guys look when we're holding the national championship.  This is what I love about college football -- new young guys developing and moving up.  I trust our development on the O-line (and the transfers), it will be fun to see the young receivers, and I for one am all in on the Alex Orji experience at QB.  We only have to be one of the best 12 teams in the country, for crying out loud, and with our defense that should be very doable.  

Joined: 08/18/2010

MGoPoints: 7844

jmblue

January 16th, 2024 at 7:32 PM ^

Given the run our football program has been on over the past three years, I don't think there's any actual evidence that these NFL flirtations have hurt us.  

If this is the price of having one of the absolute best coaches in the sport, it's worth putting up with.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102947