station19
Moderator
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 22,605
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Craig James, with money.
Seems like if his money was actually put to use, it'd be kinda hard to give him his money back lol.
He runs a financial firm, but what about that makes him an expert on hiring football coaches? It's the AD and the President who are accountable for hiring the coaches, if the coach is a bust, the boosters who supported that hire aren't likely to say "oops, I really picked the wrong guy!" Generally, people like this want more than just input.
As was stated earlier, he probably has more experience with Pasqualoni in particular than many of the people within the athletic department at UCONN. He stated he didn't want veto power, wanted to be kept in the loop. We don't know the specifics of his donation and the stipulations under which he gave it to the university. If it was under the stipulation that he be kept in the loop on major athletic department decisions and the university agreed to these when accepting the donation then he has a right to ask for it back. I do not think he should have veto power however, but do not think it is to much to ask for a major booster to get his email and or voicemail returned in a timely fashion.
I agree with your last statement but I also think it's ridiculous if there was some kind of stipulation. If that was the case, then the money he gave was not truly a donation since he wanted something in return.
Maybe not, but if those stipulations of wanting regular communication were spelled out when he wrote out the check and the athletic department agreed by accepting the check then they have to uphold their end of the deal.
Maybe not, but if those stipulations of wanting regular communication were spelled out when he wrote out the check and the athletic department agreed by accepting the check then they have to uphold their end of the deal.
Craig James, with money.
They sound like completely different situations. Craig James gave nothing to Texas Tech and appeared to just be a father trying to get his son playing time. This is a man that gave $3 million to a program that he supported and now it has gone in a direction that he doesn't support. It isn't like Mr. Burton still has sons at the program which is a key difference between the situations.
Mr. Burton likely knows Mr. Pasqualoni better than anybody at UConn (from having been around him and his program for 4 years) and despite being the largest donor to UConn football and having this knowledge of Pasqualoni he was not brought in to the loop or used as a reference. That does seem pretty stupid on the UConn AD's part. I'm not saying that the donor should have veto power but I understand him getting pissed and wanting to take back his support for something he no longer supports.
My father is one of the hundred's of VP's for R.R. Donnelly, the biggest competitor of Cenveo, where Burton is the CEO and Chairman. From his dealings with Burton the guy is a total ass. He made his two sons executives right out of college without asking the board and is a whiny little s.o.b. when he doesn't get his way(when they tried to bey NEC). The fact that this guy wants his money back shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.
The irony here is that how many Gopher fans on here during the football coaching search (or the last several years for that matter) have basically said they considered withholding their donation pennies, by comparison, if Maturi wasn't fired or if other various things during the coaching search didn't happen the way they thought it should?
There's no irony. There is a vast difference between saying that you will not donate if you don't get what you want, and demanding your money back that you already donated.
Vast difference? Are not both individuals intent on depriving the athletic department of their funds if they don't get what they want? I fail to see a lot of difference.
And like I said, I highly doubt this guy thinks he's getting any money back or even wants it back. He's trying (pretty damn successfully it appears) to shed light on something he and possibly many others are concerned about; the state of the UConn Athletic Department
Aren't people who threatened to not renew their season tickets or stop donating money because they're upset with Maturi doing the SAME THING?
I must be missing something...
Vast difference? Are not both individuals intent on depriving the athletic department of their funds if they don't get what they want? I fail to see a lot of difference.
And like I said, I highly doubt this guy thinks he's getting any money back or even wants it back. He's trying (pretty damn successfully it appears) to shed light on something he and possibly many others are concerned about; the state of the UConn Athletic Department
Aren't people who threatened to not renew their season tickets or stop donating money because they're upset with Maturi doing the SAME THING?
I must be missing something...
You're definitely missing something. No difference? In one example you've given money but give no more. In the second, you give no more AND you take back a big some. Which way hurts the department more? Just because he's unlikely to win doesn't make his choice the same. People threatening to stop donating or buy tickets here at MN are example one, provide no more assistance. Unless your average joe season ticket holder is planning to take back 3 million dollars I'm not sure how they are even close to the same thing.
I do think they are equally dumb and fairweather however.
I doubt he gets it back either but the fact is that he's actually trying to and that he's airing this all out in public. This is Adam Kelly behavior from a guy with money and actual influence. All he's shedding light on is the fact that A) he's a dbag and B) that the UConn AD is an idiot for not finding a way to stroke this guy's ego.