• 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!

Wake can't afford to KEEP Manning

ChaosDeac said:
201011,833
20119,199
20128,675
20139,614
20149,000
20159,685
20169,520
20179,825
20188,425
20197,626
20206,904
Click to expand...

I really do not know why any Wake fan would attend a game. I have to question whether you can be an actual Wake fan while attending a game.

Every time you show up, you are voting with your dollars to keep Manning.

The only people in those stands should be fans of the opposing teams.
 
I know TV/stream ratings are a crapshoot these days, but I would expect that the drop in the viewership of our games mirrors the attendance drop, or might even be worse. So tack that onto the lost revenue calculations, even if it's not revenue that would directly transfer to the University.
 
JamesSokolove said:
6000 extra tickets sold at $30 in revenues (tix/concessions/parking) times 18 home games= $3.24M more that we pay Daniel before we bank penny in extra money

SHAKA would EASILY pay for himself at $5M.
Click to expand...

RJKarl said:
2020 vs. 2010=about 4900 less. At only $50 in revenue, it is a loss of $245,000/game. That's over $3.5million for 15 home games.
Click to expand...
 

Timing was odd here. It was almost like RJ was arguing with himself.
 
CantStandYa said:
I know TV/stream ratings are a crapshoot these days, but I would expect that the drop in the viewership of our games mirrors the attendance drop, or might even be worse. So tack that onto the lost revenue calculations, even if it's not revenue that would directly transfer to the University.
Click to expand...

Because Wake gets the same tv money regardless of viewership what financially is there to tack on? Again to the deciders it appears the decision is strictly a monetary decision weighing risking change versus risking no change. If you personally had to risk $20000 in this would you do it?
 
The only "money issue" that makes Danny's firing a problem is a massive lump sum payment due upon firing.
 
Deaconblue said:
The only "money issue" that makes Danny's firing a problem is a massive lump sum payment due upon firing.
Click to expand...

Does anyone really know that is the case? That's not the way guaranteed contracts work. You get paid some amount (base plus whatever other amount is indicated in the contract) until your contract term runs out. Then there is usually an offset clause and a due diligence to find appropriate work clause. A lump sum up-front would be a negotiated amount to get out of the contract. If Wake is on the hook for the full amount of the contract in one lump sum at time (or shortly thereafter) of termination, it would be the worst contract in the history of contracts. Of course the AD was Ron Wellman, so...
 
Bubble Boy said:
Does anyone really know that is the case? That's not the way guaranteed contracts work. You get paid some amount (base plus whatever other amount is indicated in the contract) until your contract term runs out. Then there is usually an offset clause and a due diligence to find appropriate work clause. A lump sum up-front would be a negotiated amount to get out of the contract. If Wake is on the hook for the full amount of the contract in one lump sum at time (or shortly thereafter) of termination, it would be the worst contract in the history of contracts. Of course the AD was Ron Wellman, so...
Click to expand...

If RW was afraid Kansas (or anybody else) was going to come after Danny, he may have wanted that as payable by Danny if he resigned to go elsewhere. Danny may have insisted on and gotten the reciprocal. Dumb, but not unheard of.
 
Bubble Boy said:
Does anyone really know that is the case? That's not the way guaranteed contracts work. You get paid some amount (base plus whatever other amount is indicated in the contract) until your contract term runs out. Then there is usually an offset clause and a due diligence to find appropriate work clause. A lump sum up-front would be a negotiated amount to get out of the contract. If Wake is on the hook for the full amount of the contract in one lump sum at time (or shortly thereafter) of termination, it would be the worst contract in the history of contracts. Of course the AD was Ron Wellman, so...
Click to expand...

Lump sum provision in these contracts are not unheard of. Texas A&M owed Kevin Sumlin the balance of contract owed within 30 days of termination. Gus Malzahn at Auburn has a similar provision. To restate OP, if this is what Wellman did with Manning, then it is indeed the worst contract in the history of EVER!
 
NewBernDeac said:
Because Wake gets the same tv money regardless of viewership what financially is there to tack on? Again to the deciders it appears the decision is strictly a monetary decision weighing risking change versus risking no change. If you personally had to risk $20000 in this would you do it?
Click to expand...

While advertising revenue would go directly to the networks/conference, there is quantifiable value in brand equity that comes with broadcast viewership. There are also downstream revenue implications of engaging your satellite fanbase that can't otherwise attend games in person, which I'm guessing is the overwhelming majority of Wake fans.

I wouldn't risk my own personal money, because I'd find it preposterous that the University requires donors to bail them out when the endowment is in the billions. I'd bet the actual bluehairs won't pony up because they think Manning is a good guy and hasn't gotten us in trouble, so they're fine with the status quo.
 
I can account for 5 of those season tickets not being sold. Have not had season tickets since Gaudio fired.

I will not send my kids to the "Danny Manning basketball camp". We can go over paint touches in the driveway.
 
we don't even have to pay the new coach that much, just find a young, hungry mid-major head coach that is making like $300k a year and double their salary, as long as they come in and win right away

has anyone thought of that?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
we don't even have to pay the new coach that much, just find a young, hungry mid-major head coach that is making like $300k a year and double their salary, as long as they come in and win right away

has anyone thought of that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, just hire a young, unproven and inexperienced coach...guaranteed to win right away! I don't know why all schools don't fire their expensive coaches and do the same.
 
Well, in all fairness, you could just not have any coach and still finish last in the conference and lose on the very first day of the ACC Tourney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top