Michigan Daily: Decision re: Brandon rests with Schlissel
As noted in the article, I think that the biggest X-factor for us is Schlissel's complete lack of experience managing a major athletic dept. Because of this inexperience, Schlissel may not understand how he timetable of his action could impact the team, recruiting, etc. So far, I have been impressed with Pres. Schlissel, but he may be out of his comfort zone here.
http://www.michigandaily.com/news/brandons-fate-lies-schlissels-court
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:15 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:20 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:22 AM ^
Not to say you're getting ahead of yourself at all, but which one is THE great Harbaugh?
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:23 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
At this point, I think it's fair to say that Michigan's problems reach a lot deeper than depth issues created by a couple of quality linemen that we didn't get because Hoke was hired too late in the recruiting cycle. At this point we've seen issues in decision-making, game preparation, philosophy, and strategy that go far beyond simply concerns about aspects of our player personnel.
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
Brandon hired Hoke one week after firing RR. I'm not sure that week really mattered that much.
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
Recruiting, the current team and the coaching search all affect the long-term future of the University of Michigan. I care about all three of them.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:25 AM ^
Does anyone know the logistical side or legal side in firing an athletic director? How long does it take to reach an exit agreement? If there needs to be one at all.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^
Here's the thing re Schlissel's inexperience: he's not making this decision in a vacuum. There are people who can advise him on all of this stuff. He just has to pull the trigger.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
That begs the question - who are his advisors? The BOR? I'm not sure I trust them much, given the circumstances.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^
There's certainly nothing stopping him from consulting the regents on such matters, and I would imagine that he might throw the question out there at some point in all this because it will affect some of the things the Regents do in fact have say in perhaps, but it is at the discretion of President Schlissel ultimately to even involve them at that level.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
The reason I ask is because, I think, at least 4 of the current board members served in the same capacity while Dave Brandon was a member of the BoR.
Since much has been made recently about DB's ability to maneuver through political waters, I'm not sure that Schlissel would get objective counsel there.
I don't mean to question their personal integrity. My cynical view on politics is just causing me to not have much faith that the right thing will be done here.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
Good point about the politics of the BoR. Realistically Schlissel can include anybody he wants, right? I mean if he has a buddy who's an AD somewhere he can bring that guy in as a consultant. I would hope that if he feels over his head in this kind of a decision he would involve people who are not, and who are also not already involved in a way that would affect their advice.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
Not me, obviously, but friends. Not re: Brandon necessarily, but to understand the broader picture. It's also good for morale.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
His letter a couple days ago was the first grown up thing that had been done about this. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt so far.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^
Please let us know what happens. The students are going to keep puting the pressure on here.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^
Welcome to MGoBlog. Go Blue!
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^
I got the email for this yesterday stating there was still time to make a reservation. I thought, "Man, the timing on this one!" There's going to be press and media at this now!
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^
very little. Whether changes are imminent or not, they need to quietly line up their moves.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^
I hope your last point is what was already rumored to have happened with Manuel and Bates.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
Ahh, yes. "Pulled a Freider". And there we have the origin of the Michigan Man meme.
October 2nd, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
certainly take calls in advance. Same with any potential coaching candidates
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
these things go as fast as the parties want it to go. I've been involved in negotiations/drafting of severance agreements that take mere hours (parties want to time the announcement, there's a transaction happening or otherwise they just want to GTFO) and negotiations that have taken upwards of 2 years. I'd say the average is about 4 days to a week for top executives.
For something relatively high profile as this where time is of the essence for several reasons, once the decision is made things will likely happen quickly. Like a day or 2, tops. In the extremely unlikely event that M wants to push for a Cause firing then that would happen instantly and he would be out the second they deliver the good news. The arbitration/negotiations or whatever could drag on for months/years but it will not affect the new AD search.
October 2nd, 2014 at 9:45 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
He doesn't want to keep putting out fires in the AD. I think he wants someone responsible and reliable, not someone who's pushing limits and sparking controversy. Michigan athletics doesn't need an innovator to pull them out of a financial hole. They're in fundamentally good shape and need a serious person with experience running a large AD.
I could see Schlissel wanting guidance about who to hire. The only names mentioned so far naturally have Michigan ties. He may want to gauge the perceived importance of hiring a "Michigan man" when it comes to athletics. He's smart enough to know that emotion comes more into play than on the academic side.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
From that Daily article:
Brandon’s contract could also be terminated with cause through the broader category that the “conduct of the Director that offends against public decency or morality as shall be determined by the standards prevailing in the community, or any other conduct by the Director that materially and adversely affects the reputation or the assets of the University or one or more of its athletic programs.”
That last statement in there...there's certainly a number of things that can be used under that category!
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
Brandon has done nothing to trigger firing for cause. Yes, he has irritated the blog and others for a variety of things. Most are trivial issues. Sky writing and noodles, really? Perhaps the only way the Brandon haters will be happy is if he is fired now, but no later than year end. This will not happen. What may happen is Brandon may use this as an opportunity to retire(age 62-3?) and get a nice settlement from his contract that runs to 6/2018. He might get 3-4 million for doing nothing. Given the circumstances, I would be disappointed if our new President through away 3-4 million dollars just to satisfy the torch and pitchfork crowd. So where is the Maize Rage on all this? Have they come out organizationally supporting firing of Brandon?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
M definitely has a decent Cause argument based on all the negative publicity which resulted from substandard medical evaluation procedures (see the Pres's comments). It could also be argued under a material failure/gross negligence in performing duties prong.
However, as I've stated elsewhere, there's about a 2% chance they actually pursue Cause. It's exceedingly rare, even in extremely cut and dry situations.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
Could they threaten to pursue Cause to significantly reduce a severance package?
October 2nd, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
As rare as it is for a company to actually pursue a Cause termination, it's equally rare to simply pay out severance per the terms of the employment agreement. There's almost always a separate severance agreement. There's a bunch of reasons - the company might want to add in restrictive covenants, the parties want to provide for a "resignation" and the original agreement otherwise would not provide severance upon quitting, they want to provide for a transition or "consulting" period to transition to the new executive, or they want to play around with the severance numbers (usually to reduce it).
As with any negotiation, it's all about leverage. M can claim some decent leverage if they want by pointing to the Cause definition and it's up to DB's lawyers how they want to respond - some call the bluff and drag things out, but most just settle on a 50 - 75% payout and call it a day.
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
98% chance says I have made a valid point.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
Just because you accidentally came to the right conclusion doesn't mean you were right.
You said there's no argument for Cause but there is under several theories. A rather strong one. Thus, you are wrong. As I've noted, this argument can/should be used as leverage to offer a lower severance package if they don't pursue Cause. It's not just an academic argument. If there was no basis for Cause as you've argued, then DB would demand and likely receive 100% of his severance due under the original agreement.
The fact that companies very rarely pursue even extremely strong Cause claims does not matter in your overall point. I've had clients refuse to pursue a 95%+ Cause claim because they didn't want to deal with the headache/bad publicity. And these clients could have saved 7-8 figures in severance payouts. A lot more than money goes into these decisions.
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 2nd, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
And a nice one for not calling you a complete jerk.
October 2nd, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^
The language is extremely ambigious. I think you're vastly overstating the strength of the argument -- they could make it but Brandon and his team (Dykema I believe) would be able to fight it pretty easily and in the end, the amiguity in the terms of the contract will go against the University.
October 2nd, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
October 2nd, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
I'm glad that THIS isn't the way the university treats our fans....
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
I think some realism in re: to the possible speed of Brandon's departure is in order. Everyone can see Hoke will be gone no later than December, so everyone's worried that Brandon will still be around then to bungle the next hire. Alas, USA Today's "Big Lead" blog has a good piece on how difficult it'll be to remove Brandon quickly:
http://thebiglead.com/2014/09/30/david-brandon-is-under-fire-but-michigan-may-be-stuck-with-him/
From a base perspective, Brandon’s job is to generate revenue and to fund improvements for the athletic department. Michigan’s next budget projects $151 million in revenue and a surplus north of $5 million. He has added sports and raised the money for the $168 million construction of an athletics campus, after Michigan has already spent hundreds of millions upgrading facilities. Unpopular or not, that gives him a lot of staying power.
Brandon is well-connected. He was a former player. He was active around the university in multiple official and unofficial capacities before becoming athletic director, including eight years on the Board of Regents. Stephen Ross, in a piece published Saturday, called Brandon “terrific” and “probably the most qualified athletic director in the country.” That would be the Stephen Ross who has donated more than $300 million to the University of Michigan.
Any move to oust Brandon would have to come through the President’s office and the Regents. Mark Schlissel, a former provost at Brown, has been on the job for a few months. He is focused on academics, not athletics. He doesn’t seem like the type itching to mount a major power play outside his purview, months into his tenure. The Regents have mostly supported Brandon, besides blocking his fireworks initiative.
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 2nd, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^