|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Aug 12, 2023 13:11:00 GMT -8
Too bad the universities wouldn't stand together against these monsters.....instead they take the money and leave scorched earth behind. What would you do? Come on, keep it real. Also, what's the alternative here, federal regulation? The universities will take the money and fund law schools and lacrosse teams. Everyone is the monster, all of us. I'd be up for some more regulation that kept these kinds of things from happening. At least something in place to keep collegiate sports regional. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 14, 2023 10:13:38 GMT -8
George K was essentially a CEO - his leadership is what is relied upon. Reducing him to a messenger boy bringing it to the schools and flopping it out on the table for the presidents to make their choice is an intellectually limited view of how these things go down. Kliavkoff was there to bring the deal and then explain why it was a good deal and to get it done, that failure is on him. So you know it was his presentation that was too blame. As CEO he is at the whim of the board. That's how these things work. CEO presents... board decides no matter if CEO advisesfor of against. Again, that's how it works. In this case membership of this "board" may have had ulterior motives early on. It's pretty clear from day 1 (excluded LA schools) the CEO was lead to believe the board was "on board" and supportive. It was not. Board members mislead the CEO. The board set up the initial $50 mil offer, it's they who voted down the ESPN deal eventually presented. It's truly intellectually limiting way of thinking that a guy who has zero votes nixed the deal. Why? Because he didn't present it correctly? Because the powers that held the vote and hired him decided the course of action? Even if the CEO advised against said $30 mil per deal (zero evidence to suggest that) the board votes are the board's choice. Boards go against CEO advice all the time. In this case (8) board members left, leaving the CEO holding the bag. What you're saying is fair - that as the CEO he is at the whim of the board. I've been through the mergers and dissolutions of a couple multi-million dollar companies and billion dollar corporations with a ringside seat if you will, so my experience through that obviously colors my opinion. The CEO is a leader who must drive the team to execute his vision and "get the team onboard". To a certain degree, the CEO is putting together a sales presentation to the board to close the deal. What I'm saying is that he needed to close the deal. I think GK has more responsibility here than you do, ultimately that boils down to just a minor difference of opinion about the role of Kliavkoff. We are just splitting hairs. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 14, 2023 10:38:51 GMT -8
Except one difference here is this CEO doesn't have the power to fire, probably not even the power to suggest firing, or reprimand, any University Presidents and likely ADs. You had several who were operating against the best interests of the conference, yet he's powerless.
It's not exactly the same as a typical business situation I'd suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Aug 14, 2023 11:06:12 GMT -8
So you know it was his presentation that was too blame. As CEO he is at the whim of the board. That's how these things work. CEO presents... board decides no matter if CEO advisesfor of against. Again, that's how it works. In this case membership of this "board" may have had ulterior motives early on. It's pretty clear from day 1 (excluded LA schools) the CEO was lead to believe the board was "on board" and supportive. It was not. Board members mislead the CEO. The board set up the initial $50 mil offer, it's they who voted down the ESPN deal eventually presented. It's truly intellectually limiting way of thinking that a guy who has zero votes nixed the deal. Why? Because he didn't present it correctly? Because the powers that held the vote and hired him decided the course of action? Even if the CEO advised against said $30 mil per deal (zero evidence to suggest that) the board votes are the board's choice. Boards go against CEO advice all the time. In this case (8) board members left, leaving the CEO holding the bag. What you're saying is fair - that as the CEO he is at the whim of the board. I've been through the mergers and dissolutions of a couple multi-million dollar companies and billion dollar corporations with a ringside seat if you will, so my experience through that obviously colors my opinion. The CEO is a leader who must drive the team to execute his vision and "get the team onboard". To a certain degree, the CEO is putting together a sales presentation to the board to close the deal. What I'm saying is that he needed to close the deal. I think GK has more responsibility here than you do, ultimately that boils down to just a minor difference of opinion about the role of Kliavkoff. We are just splitting hairs. Agreed. As we both know... no matter the "fault" it is the CEO who will take the blame and it's his head that will roll. But, unlike a typical CEO/board biz deal, this board was running off to a competitor, and maybe he was doomed from the start?! This entire situation all seemed to smell bad from the time ESPN was turned down. A poor analogy would be an "insider trading" situation. As board member(s) knowingly using insider knowledge to gain a financial edge, while at the same time destroying, or attempting to destroy a competitor. In terms of the potential deal with ESPN, George can't squeeze blood out of the proverbial turnip. The Pac12 board overplayed their hand, George went into the ESPN negotiations with a losing hand. He then had to return to the board with an offer, although substantially better than the current $21 mil per year per team, was miniscule to what the board set as their goal. Bottom line I'm not really a GK supporter or detractor, but I do know he stayed loyal to his job and did work out a potentially lucrative backup plan (and relatively quickly in terms of how media negotiations go) that I am assuming also never had a chance. But, all in all, blame does not matter at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Aug 14, 2023 11:30:33 GMT -8
What is galling to me, if the reports are true about the Pac12 presidents turning down 30 mil from ESPN last fall, and countering with 50 mil, unless their posturing was something like "We want 50 mil, just like the SEC, take it or leave it", why would you not entertain a reasonable counter offer?
But, as has been suggested, if multiple presidents/ schools were already hedging their bets, so to speak, and figured they had little to lose if they demanded more dollars than were offered - did they intentionally sabotage the deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 14, 2023 11:36:47 GMT -8
Except one difference here is this CEO doesn't have the power to fire, probably not even the power to suggest firing, or reprimand, any University Presidents and likely ADs. You had several who were operating against the best interests of the conference, yet he's powerless. It's not exactly the same as a typical business situation I'd suspect. The CEO never has the ability to fire or reprimand the board. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 14, 2023 11:51:48 GMT -8
Except one difference here is this CEO doesn't have the power to fire, probably not even the power to suggest firing, or reprimand, any University Presidents and likely ADs. You had several who were operating against the best interests of the conference, yet he's powerless. It's not exactly the same as a typical business situation I'd suspect. The CEO never has the ability to fire or reprimand the board. I obviously don't understand how these things work. I don't see any means of reprimanding "misbehaving" (as in those who are not acting in the best interest of the organization) board members in this case. I would assume there is a way in most organizations. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Aug 14, 2023 11:53:13 GMT -8
Except one difference here is this CEO doesn't have the power to fire, probably not even the power to suggest firing, or reprimand, any University Presidents and likely ADs. You had several who were operating against the best interests of the conference, yet he's powerless. It's not exactly the same as a typical business situation I'd suspect. The CEO never has the ability to fire or reprimand the board. But on a business board all of the board members have a fiduciary duty to the entire business, on the conference board the president's first duty is to their school, not the conference. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 14, 2023 14:59:25 GMT -8
The CEO never has the ability to fire or reprimand the board. I obviously don't understand how these things work. I don't see any means of reprimanding "misbehaving" (as in those who are not acting in the best interest of the organization) board members in this case. I would assume there is a way in most organizations. In a business scenario, as 55to7 correctly notes above, they have a fiduciary duty to the business. So the comparison certainly breaks down when you look at the leverage points and motivations to succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Aug 14, 2023 19:41:12 GMT -8
The Wazzu prez said like 3 prez's were the ones who came back with the $50ish mill.....I wonder who they were? Was that negotiation before usc and UCla bailed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Aug 14, 2023 19:45:50 GMT -8
The Wazzu prez said like 3 prez's were the ones who came back with the $50ish mill.....I wonder who they were? Was that negotiation before usc and UCla bailed? No, it was after the LA schools left |
|
|
|
Post by beaver1989 on Aug 14, 2023 22:48:03 GMT -8
The Wazzu prez said like 3 prez's were the ones who came back with the $50ish mill.....I wonder who they were? Was that negotiation before usc and UCla bailed? So if the Washington St President is accurate, the three culprits are: 1) Oregon 2) Washington 3)  ?? to be determined later? |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 15, 2023 5:47:57 GMT -8
The Wazzu prez said like 3 prez's were the ones who came back with the $50ish mill.....I wonder who they were? Was that negotiation before usc and UCla bailed? So if the Washington St President is accurate, the three culprits are: 1) Oregon 2) Washington 3) ?? to be determined later? 3. Stanford |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Aug 15, 2023 7:31:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 15, 2023 7:44:53 GMT -8
I’m thinking there’s a very good possibility that within 2-4 years, streaming could be pulling significantly ahead of linear. I’m hoping IF the Pac rebuilds streaming has a very significant role. |
|
?? to be determined later?