• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

#CurrieOut

Because they didn't want to cut Manning off at the knees any more than they already have ?
 
Currie wanted to keep Manning and he used Wellman to deflect the blame for it.
 
knowell said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't make it but somehow Currie did? I assume you did not go to WFU.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Wake got pushed in time on the Currie hiring announcement by the Dave Glenn tweet.

Wake probably wanted Wellman to announce on Manning, then later, like next week, (April 1) announce the Wellman retirement and Currie hiring.
 
We really don’t know who made the decision nor why. Wellman went solo, or was Currie consulted? Was the money there, or not? BOT on board, or not? Big brouhaha, or Wellman’s ego ruled the day per usual?

I wish we did know how this all came down. Then I’d know whether Currie was involved. I doubt he had much say.
 
DirtySouthDeacon said:
You didn't make it but somehow Currie did? I assume you did not go to WFU.
Click to expand...

knowell is nothing but talk. He makes all sorts of bold proclamations, such as OMG!!! I'M DONE WITH WAKE FOREST! :willynilly::willynilly: NEVER AGAIN, and then shows back up to continue bitching.

Expect neither logic nor a coherence and his posts will read fine.
 
I just cannot believe Currie was not at least consulted or briefed on the situation before the decision was made. I know Wellman wants to be the guy, but I am sure Currie was told something like "the finances don't make sense, we can't afford the buyout, it is what it is" or something like that before they announced Mannings retention. I don't buy that he found out like the rest of us did on Twitter.
 
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 ?
 
HONDO2 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

don't know about his contract, but it's the last day of classes
 
Turd Ferguson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything here except 'why'. Yeah we want to hear it but Currie can't without embarrassing his mentor....which he wouldn't do. It's just a total clusterbuck !
 
HONDO2 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Tobacco Road said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pilchard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thatguy2016 said:
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
Click to expand...

I’m fine with this. But to be clear I think Wellman should have been forced to retire months ago and let Currie or whomever was hired take over early enough to do a real search this spring. And manning should be fired regardless of buyout. Having Wellman involved in all this and trotting him and manning out to talk about the program heading in the right direction and how this is a basketball decision is sickening. And does not bode well for the future.

Also I’m not judging Currie or Currie out or whatever. Just frustrated with more WF AD bs.
 
HONDO2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree with your assessment of Currrie's abbreviated time at Tennessee. He was undermined by Phil Fullmer and a fanbase that deludes itself about the status of the football program. Mike Leach would've won big at UT, and Greg Schiano won at the worst Power V program in the universe -- Rutgers, Schiano's resume is a 1000 times stronger than Jeremy Pruitt. UT fans unfairly smeared Schiano with the Sandusky pedophilia mess and then the mob mentality of an unbelievably dumb fanbase (and that is saying something among college sports fanbases) took over. UT would be in a better place right now if Currie was still the AD, rather than fat face Phil Fullmer.
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point. My precious post clears up some of my position. If Wellman signed a contract line it looks like he did and manning is forced on us for one or more years he should have been forced to retire early. All you ever hear about ADs is that they want to hire their guy. Well this is a ten year dumpster fire and the program is pretty much dead. And the fact WF wouldn’t retire Wellman a few months early to fix things is my big concern. Not Currie. This is beyond ridiculous at this point.
 
HONDO2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank Dave Glen for finding out about the Currie hire and tweeting about it when he did. I think that messed up the preferred timeline.
Early March: Wellman announces Manning being retained.
April 1 or thereabouts: Wellman retirement announced for end of school year. Currie announced as replacement AD, effective May 2.

This would have been a 1 month transition period. Reasonable for something of this magnitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top