rpbobcat

In addition the criminal charges against GH

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Or poor planning. If the Board of YEA signed a contract with GH that included a severence package which could possibly entail over a half of a million dollars, and YEA did not plan for it just in case it materialized, then any financial hardship blame is on YEA.

I would also have thought that any contract would have had language voiding any severance if he was fired "with cause",including a criminal conviction.

The fact that YEA settled,before the resolution of the criminal charges against GH ,leads me to believe that they didn't have any such protections.

I would also think that the settlement will be "sealed" so it may be hard to find out exactly what both sides agreed to.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu said:

Or poor planning. If the Board of YEA signed a contract with GH that included a severence package which could possibly entail over a half of a million dollars, and YEA did not plan for it just in case it materialized, then any financial hardship blame is on YEA.

from trying to scan small court docs on a phone, looks like many of the charges dismissed for jurisdiction ( federal filing as opposed to state). Can't tell how much.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu said:

Or poor planning. If the Board of YEA signed a contract with GH that included a severence package which could possibly entail over a half of a million dollars, and YEA did not plan for it just in case it materialized, then any financial hardship blame is on YEA.

That's a ridiculously high severance relative to his position in an entity of this nature.  This is not a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of employees that can easily absorb such an expense.  Where did anyone ever think the money was coming from?  

However, I don't think the stupidity of one party absolves the unconscionable action of another when it comes to blame imho.  

 

Edited by skevinp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Remember C2 was NEVER to be a forever thing ( at least it was said often ). Every year it was in question if it was moving forward. Of course, this may have hastened things and priorities had to change. You're right though Finance sure as hell played a part in all this

winning changed a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

winning changed a lot.

Actually, it really didn't. It was still discussed and the bigger picture.YES, you are right. Maybe made it harder to discard  but still was always on the table year to year

Edited by GUARDLING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, skevinp said:

That's a ridiculously high severance relative his position in an entity of this nature.  This is not a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of employees that can easily absorb such an expense.  Where did anyone ever think the money was coming from?  

However, I don't think the stupidity of on party absolves the unconscionable action of another when it comes to blame imho.  

 

the problem is the old board did what he wanted and approved the agreement he had.  Time has proven the old board wasn't exactly on the ball when it came to financial responsibility

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

the problem is the old board did what he wanted and approved the agreement he had.  Time has proven the old board wasn't exactly on the ball when it came to financial responsibility

No argument here.  But he is still a jerk for setting it up that way and trying to take advantage of it imo.  This isn't pulling one over on some huge entity it will barely make a dent on, but essentially taking money from the kids he claimed to care so much about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skevinp said:

No argument here.  But he is still a jerk for setting it up that way and trying to take advantage of it imo.  This isn't pulling one over on some huge entity it will barely make a dent on, but essentially taking money from the kids he claimed to care so much about.  

I havent seen anywhere the dollar amount, so it may not be as bad as expected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skevinp said:

No argument here.  But he is still a jerk for setting it up that way and trying to take advantage of it imo.  This isn't pulling one over on some huge entity it will barely make a dent on, but essentially taking money from the kids he claimed to care so much about.  

True. He was looking at the end game carefully way before any of this hit and wanted to ensure x, y, and z. His musings/pronouncements make this clear.

 

My guess is that the settlements were because YEA's representation figured it might be better off just paying of x before this gets too drug out and costly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, let's put an end to the speculation right here.

The settlement in that article was for the company contribution to his 401k (that by law he deserved) for a few thousand dollars that was offered to him previously. 

Edited by njthundrrd
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.