Because they didn't want to cut Manning off at the knees any more than they already have ?
Sorry, I did not make the mess. If you think dollars are the problem, then you need to take some econ courses. Keeping Danny is costing much more than getting rid of him, even in the short term.
Long term, keeping Manning is a disastrous financial decision.
They should have announced/hired Currie and let HIM make the decision. What's the point of hiring a new AD if you are going to tie his hands for the first year. If Currie felt like Manning couldn't be fired (due to circumstances beyond Currie's control) then let Currie announce it and explain why. This is the only way to build any credibility. All this shows me is the new athletic department isn't going to be an improvement over the old one under Wellman.
You didn't make it but somehow Currie did? I assume you did not go to WFU.
Of the many angles the one I can't grasp is the date of May 1st. Is it simply the date when Wellman's contract expires ?
They should have announced/hired Currie and let HIM make the decision. What's the point of hiring a new AD if you are going to tie his hands for the first year. If Currie felt like Manning couldn't be fired (due to circumstances beyond Currie's control) then let Currie announce it and explain why. This is the only way to build any credibility. All this shows me is the new athletic department isn't going to be an improvement over the old one under Wellman.
They should have announced/hired Currie and let HIM make the decision. What's the point of hiring a new AD if you are going to tie his hands for the first year. If Currie felt like Manning couldn't be fired (due to circumstances beyond Currie's control) then let Currie announce it and explain why. This is the only way to build any credibility. All this shows me is the new athletic department isn't going to be an improvement over the old one under Wellman.
Of the many angles the one I can't grasp is the date of May 1st. Is it simply the date when Wellman's contract expires ?
How often is a retirement and new hire announced with the new hire taking over the next day? Any examples? I would think for admin positions that is not an immediate transition once a the decision for change is made/announced. I am not sure it is reasonable to think that just because the decision to hire Currie is made, that he shows up the next morning in charge. As is, Wellman is continuing through the end of the academic year, then Currie takes over. That seems like a reasonable, and expected transition date for a University. I am broken from where our bball program is and pissed that we have Manning for another year. Especially, I am frustrated to not have been in a position to compete for Oats. But I don't hold any of that against Currie. Nor do I think it is a negative that he wants to "start early" in working with the University before a takes over the AD. I'll judge Currie based on his performance once he is in charge.
Wellman's deal with WF has a specified term, and it's most likely that the end of the term coincides with the WF academic calendar. With that said, WF, Wellman and Currie could've agreed to an early termination and early start for Currie, but apparently, chose not to go that route.
This thread is so fringe WF board crazy. Knocking the incoming AD before his term as AD even begins and before he has any authority to bind WF to a decision is comical. Yes, Currie is starting to have input, but WF decided to hire him three weeks ago, and like almost every major job, there is a planned transition in place before Currie assumes the AD position. Guess its too much to ask to wait until Currie actually becomes the AD and actually makes decisions about the future of the athletic department before trashing him.
Not really what I was saying. Or meant to say. It’s weird that we were clearly interviewing and hiring and announcing a new AD while our old one is still running the show. If there was time between Wellman leaving and Currie taking over then fine. That is normal. Wellman should have already been gone then. No reason to have him making the decision about manning for next year and then letting Currie take over next month. The whole point in hiring a new AD is for him to make decisions. Yes starting on day one. Given how this has all gone I’m doubtful about things changing for the better with the new AD.
so, Currie should have issued a press release stating "I wanted to fire Manning, but I don't have enough money to do it. So as soon as I do get the money, he's out!"
I don't think that's a good idea
Respect your thoughts but I'm still 50-50 on Currie. He made a major blunder at Tennessee, got fired, and basically had been out of work....that's baggage. Then he either willingly or was dumb enough to get himself into this Wellman-Manning mess....either way he comes off poorly and begins his duties in a lousy spot.
That's not weird at all. That's the way most high professional roles are transitioned. Currie is not WF's AD yet. I think there is confusion because some are looking at this like a situation when a coach is fired and immediately replaced. Wellman wasn't fired. He may have been (likely was) told that he would no longer be the AD after the end of the current contract term, but as much as the fanbase rightfully despises Ron Wellman, WF did not terminate his contract for cause. It just wasn't extended. There is a big difference. WF was never going to send their AD of 25 years packing in the middle of the athletic season. Understand, why many think that is what should've happened, but it's just not reality.
Respect your thoughts but I'm still 50-50 on Currie. He made a major blunder at Tennessee, got fired, and basically had been out of work....that's baggage. Then he either willingly or was dumb enough to get himself into this Wellman-Manning mess....either way he comes off poorly and begins his duties in a lousy spot.