Dave Brandon "resigned"?

If he "resigned", how is it he's getting a 3 million dollar buyout? Sounds like he was fired without cause, or he was asked to resign. Can someone explain.

Asked to resign, refused, the latest e-mail flap induced Schlissel to say screw it with trying to bargain the threat of a for cause firing (which would have been unlikely to have been sustained and expensive to pursue), for a reduction in the buy out and swallowed hard and got it done.

He was fired except in name.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

He was fired except in name.

'shoes

That's what I kind of thought, thanks for explanation shoes

I don't see much benefit for the university in having him resign as opposed to just firing him. Maybe they thought the public perception would be less negative if he resigned, like an amicable parting of the ways.

Did the conversation between Dr. Schlissel & James Hackett kinda go like this on wednesday afteroon?

James this is Mark, Univ. of M president, how are you doing? Hey what are you doing friday morning? Nothing, great, Would you like be interm AD at Michigan? AWESOME, can you be in Ann Arbor tomorrow to discuss some things?

OK, maybe a little more professional than that!!

The point is with only 2 days notice how you step in and run an athletic dept.? Yes I know he's been an successful businessman & CEO for almost 20 plus yrs. Maybe for someone with his experience its no problem stepping in.

Have to believe you still need more than 2 days notice to take over an athletic dept. the size of Michigan. Which leads me to believe James Hackett knew about this few weeks ago, gave him time to prepare.

jjabilene wrote:

I don't see much benefit for the university in having him resign as opposed to just firing him. Maybe they thought the public perception would be less negative if he resigned, like an amicable parting of the ways.

Well the agreement included a non disparagement clause on his part for whatever that is worth and he did have a few supporters who may have found this a little less offensive- minimal benefit I agree. I guess it also precluded him from filing a wrongful termination suit (though that would have been almost impossible for him to win as long as they paid him his buy-out).

booboo wrote:

Did the conversation between Dr. Schlissel & James Hackett kinda go like this on wednesday afteroon?

James this is Mark, Univ. of M president, how are you doing? Hey what are you doing friday morning? Nothing, great, Would you like be interm AD at Michigan? AWESOME, can you be in Ann Arbor tomorrow to discuss some things?

OK, maybe a little more professional than that!!

The point is with only 2 days notice how you step in and run an athletic dept.? Yes I know he's been an successful businessman & CEO for almost 20 plus yrs. Maybe for someone with his experience its no problem stepping in.

Have to believe you still need more than 2 days notice to take over an athletic dept. the size of Michigan. Which leads me to believe James Hackett knew about this few weeks ago, gave him time to prepare.

While reading up on Hackett since yesterday I've read a few articles going back to Rich Rod days that have Hackett in and around the program giving speeches to the team and what not. So maybe he wasn't there in an administrative capacity but it looks to me like he was clearly in the know about things. Plus he's been retired for almost 10 months so who knows what he's been doing with his time since then. He very well could have been a behind-the-scene-guy in certain aspects of the program. Of course this is all speculation on my part but I have to agree with you booboo, I highly doubt this was sprung on him in the last two days.

IMO, at the very least, Hackett could have been reached out to at the same time Manuel and Bates were (3 weeks ago).

Hackett very well may have told UM, "Okay, I'll step in until you find a permanent replacement" weeks ago. Then DB was asked to resign and refused. Then the emails came out and it was a done deal.

Again, pure speculation on my part.

wshoes wrote:

jjabilene wrote:

I don't see much benefit for the university in having him resign as opposed to just firing him. Maybe they thought the public perception would be less negative if he resigned, like an amicable parting of the ways.

Well the agreement included a non disparagement clause on his part for whatever that is worth and he did have a few supporters who may have found this a little less offensive- minimal benefit I agree. I guess it also precluded him from filing a wrongful termination suit (though that would have been almost impossible for him to win as long as they paid him his buy-out).

^^^This, pretty much....

As a guy who has some experience in employment law (I'm not an attorney, although I have represented clients at times) DB was told to resign or be fired which would have meant no buy-out. Originally when he was "asked to resign" he declined because there wasn't enough to show his personality. He just could have passed the buck and said, "not my fault". However, when the e-mails became public he could no longer do that so DB decided to step-down.

Even though I really don't like Brandon at all he did some great things for the University. He more than earned his paycheck via the funds that he raised, the buildings that he built/rennovated, the scholarships that he funded, etc. That would go a long way in an employment hearing and it would have been very difficult to prove a fireable offense before the e-mails came out.

Michigan typically doesn't fire people, most reputable organizations don't. They do "ask" people to step-down, retire, pursue other opportunities, etc. though.