Topic: Growth and future wellbeing of Marshall University

[whf]

There is not doubt in my mind that the decisions taken for Marshall University's athletics in the last year have all been taken with the growth potential and wellbeing of our University as the first focus; desired results.  Many of us, me included often, may wonder about the "looks" of it all, but i don't doubt the leader's vision or mission.  Paths are easily challenged, perhaps we (again, me include) can stay a bit more focused with the overall objective over time just now.

[MUther]

Yeah I think the days of Marshall hurting Marshall for the sake of politics (I don't mean government politics) are finally gone with this administration.  But I understand people's skepticism after witnessing just that for so many years(decades).

[marshallmark]

There is not doubt in my mind that the decisions taken for Marshall University's athletics in the last year have all been taken with the growth potential and wellbeing of our University as the first focus; desired results.  Many of us, me included often, may wonder about the "looks" of it all, but i don't doubt the leader's vision or mission.  Paths are easily challenged, perhaps we (again, me include) can stay a bit more focused with the overall objective over time just now.

Let me give you a scenario and ask if you'd agree with the premise:

Let's say that you have an employee that's a rock star.  She is the best salesperson on the team.  Shows a lot of promise for the future.  Great personality and the customers and clients love her.  She is compensated appropriately at the amount that she agreed to at the beginning of her contract.  As the end of her contract nears, she comes in and asks for more money.  She's worth a large raise, but she's asking for unprecedented money AND a new car AND a housing allowance AND larger company contributions to her 401k.  She also demands that she be allowed to leave at any time with no non-compete clause for the new contract. 

You think about it - don't want to lose her because she's an asset to the company.  You agree to a significant raise, but not what she demanded.  You compromise on some of the perks she wants, but you just flat cannot agree to waiving the non-compete clause.  You tell her she's valued and that you want to work with her but need her to be more reasonable.  She rejects your proposals, specifically telling you that she cannot agree to the non-complete clause (you both know that she doesn't want that clause so she can shop herself around to other prospective employers). 

Under this scenario... are you not justified in telling her that you wish her well but that you are going to part ways?  Could you ever satisfy her if you give in to her demands (many that you can't afford, in any event)?  Could you trust her if you don't have that non-compete clause?

I agree that the optics aren't great, but if you look at it from that perspective Marshall really had no options. 

[Garbanjo]

Let me give you a scenario and ask if you'd agree with the premise:

Let's say that you have an employee that's a rock star.  She is the best salesperson on the team.  Shows a lot of promise for the future.  Great personality and the customers and clients love her.  She is compensated appropriately at the amount that she agreed to at the beginning of her contract.  As the end of her contract nears, she comes in and asks for more money.  She's worth a large raise, but she's asking for unprecedented money AND a new car AND a housing allowance AND larger company contributions to her 401k.  She also demands that she be allowed to leave at any time with no non-compete clause for the new contract. 

You think about it - don't want to lose her because she's an asset to the company.  You agree to a significant raise, but not what she demanded.  You compromise on some of the perks she wants, but you just flat cannot agree to waiving the non-compete clause.  You tell her she's valued and that you want to work with her but need her to be more reasonable.  She rejects your proposals, specifically telling you that she cannot agree to the non-complete clause (you both know that she doesn't want that clause so she can shop herself around to other prospective employers). 

Under this scenario... are you not justified in telling her that you wish her well but that you are going to part ways?  Could you ever satisfy her if you give in to her demands (many that you can't afford, in any event)?  Could you trust her if you don't have that non-compete clause?

I agree that the optics aren't great, but if you look at it from that perspective Marshall really had no options.

Spot on Mark

Have fun in Hattiesburg dbag supreme

LMAO

[MUther]

Great personality and the customers and clients love her.

I would even say that this is very subjective.  She's not universally loved, and as more truth comes out, love for her is diminishing.  And there are certainly personality quirks.

[marshallmark]

I would even say that this is very subjective.  She's not universally loved, and as more truth comes out, love for her is diminishing.  And there are certainly personality quirks.

The comparison was to the players, not the fans, fwiw.

[overherd1]

That scenario is spot on.  You can't please one and sacrifice all the others.  Difficult situation to be in for sure.  Almost a no win type of situation.  Hopefully things work out well moving forward for MU!

[whf]

I once had a client, owner, tease about being the second highest paid person in his organization; lamenting that his VP of Sales made more money than he did.  Actually, he was fine with it as without the outstanding sales results he'd have had less for himself, and a heck of a lot less for the rest of his team.  Sometimes its hard to determine who the owner is, who the employee is, and certainly who the team is. 

While the money was important, this owner would have never "sold" his business to someone for money only. I think that is what we've seen here, protect the future at the expense of the immediate; if required.

Finally, I know this won't go over well because it is a positive for Mike Hamrick, but I recall comments on here about him warning our last President about the "talk-abiity" of Huff, words matter.

[bighat]

Right on Marshallmark!