• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Tom Burman's Contract - Performance Incentives Removed in 2022

Wyolie Coyote said:
He isn't bought and paid for unlike 7220.
Click to expand...
All the media is bought and paid for if they have big sponsors and editors. Alex may seem edgier because he is not tied to Laramie (I am not trying to invoke CST Potter days) and could be positioning himself for another role.
I have no insight just my idea on it. I think all our media has their quirks but they generally write good stories and sometimes really toe the line with not a D1 QB.
My only wish is that the media availability with Sawvel their questions would flow. We had 519 questions framed around will they start SIMS and it got old when I had other questions like is Ethan our best option right now at LB.
 
Vapoke said:
I guess would be a good time to start asking Eric Barlow and the state legislature people what they think of @OrediggerPoke findings. Emailing President Reeves will certainly help as well but pushing Barlow to force out some BoT members would help the cause as well.
Click to expand...
Out BoT is beyond useless. A bunch of small thinkers and sycophants
 
LanderPoke said:
Bro. What a crook. Burn down the entire institution and start over unbelievable.

PRESIDENT REEVES PURGE THE ENTIRE ATHLETICS DEPARTMENT AND LEGAL COUNSEL TEAM.

There is rampant corruption - obviously
Click to expand...
Don't forget Reeves is also an attorney that is certified to argue before the US Supreme Court and at one time was the head of the Dept. of Law at West Point......he'd have no problems running off any corrupt or incompetent lawyers, legal counsel or legal advisors that weren't/aren't up for the job. They won't be able to intimidate him with some legal mumbo jumbo lawyer speak bs. ha
 
Vapoke said:
I guess would be a good time to start asking Eric Barlow and the state legislature people what they think of @OrediggerPoke findings. Emailing President Reeves will certainly help as well but pushing Barlow to force out some BoT members would help the cause.
Click to expand...

Heard you make that point on the podacast/video.....I think reaching out to Barlow to stress the importance of having board members in the future that are all in on UW athletics is super important and a great idea!
 
Anyone wonder if Burman would have got rid of our home game against North Texas this year and agreed to give CSU another home game if the ticket sales incentive provision was still in his contract?

I have a hard time believing that Burman turns down ticket sales if his contract wasn’t amended in 2022 to remove the incentive because that would have been money out of his pocket. With the contractual amendment in 2022, the loss of the North Texas home game has no bearing on his compensation.
 
WyomingCoog said:
Don't forget Reeves is also an attorney that is certified to argue before the US Supreme Court and at one time was the head of the Dept. of Law at West Point......he'd have no problems running off any corrupt or incompetent lawyers, legal counsel or legal advisors that weren't/aren't up for the job. They won't be able to intimidate him with some legal mumbo jumbo lawyer speak bs. ha
Click to expand...
Great points. He doesn’t need any of us to review the contract for him. I have no doubts he can (and maybe has) reviewed these and fully understands them.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Anyone wonder if Burman would have got rid of our home game against North Texas this year and agreed to give CSU another home game if the ticket sales incentive provision was still in his contract?

I have a hard time believing that Burman turns down ticket sales if his contract wasn’t amended in 2022 to remove the incentive because that would have been money out of his pocket. With the contractual amendment in 2022, the loss of the North Texas home game has no bearing on his compensation.
Click to expand...
"We see that you can't achieve any of these performance based incentives so we'll just remove them and give it to you as salary"

Our bonuses are coming up and I'm going to ask that it just be included in my salary each year without regard to my performance. Wish me luck. 🤞
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Great points. He doesn’t need any of us to review the contract for him. I have no doubts he can (and maybe has) reviewed these and fully understands them.
Click to expand...

That too, but really my point in saying that is we all know that a non-legal mind or non-attorney (like myself) can easily be intimidated by lawyers and they can get out of sticky situations by saying they had to do A B and C because of some legal clause. Or use some legal term or cite a case for why they did what they did and the avg. person moves on. So was saying that if there are ethical or potential legal violations.....they wouldn't be able to weasel their way out of it which is too often the case.
 
WyomingCoog said:
That too, but really my point in saying that is we all know that a non-legal mind or non-attorney (like myself) can easily be intimidated by lawyers and they can get out of sticky situations by saying they had to do A B and C because of some legal clause. Or use some legal term or cite a case for why they did what they did and the avg. person moves on. So was saying that if there are ethical or potential legal violations.....they wouldn't be able to weasel their way out of it which is too often the case.
Click to expand...
I suspect the lawyers will simply say that they were advised by their ‘client’ to remove the incentives and add the guaranteed compensation that had been negotiated and thus the amendment changes. What I want to know is who negotiated those changes and why. Perhaps Reeves investigation should start in the General Counsel’s office though because it appears to be the same General Counsel in 2022 as now (Tara Evans).

PS - lawyers, under typical ethical rules, are supposed to advise clients on all risks that they are aware of (which might include business risks) but ultimately the client makes the decision and the lawyer is ultimately supposed to implement the client’s informed decision. Clients do lots of a things that a lawyer might not recommend. Good lawyers usually are able to recognize all risks (including business, legal, ethical, etc..) and then convince their client to make good decisions for the ultimate benefit of their client.
 
Last edited:
OrediggerPoke said:
I suspect the lawyers will simply say that they were advised by their ‘client’ to remove the incentives and add the guaranteed compensation that had been negotiated and thus the amendment changes. What I want to know is who negotiated those changes and why. Perhaps Reeves investigation should start in the General Counsel’s office though because it appears to be the same General Counsel in 2022 as now (Tara Evans).

PS - lawyers, under typical ethical rules, are supposed to advise clients on all risks that they are aware of (which might include business risks) but ultimately the client makes the decision and the lawyer is ultimately supposed to implement the client’s informed decision. Clients do lots of a things that a lawyer might not recommend. Good lawyers usually are able to recognize all risks (including business, legal, ethical, etc..) and then convince their client to make good decisions for the ultimate benefit of their client.
Click to expand...
Great breakdown! Guessing you have some background and time in the legal system. I believe Tara is still there, but one difference Reeves did make with the general counsel is that they’re no longer a VP.
 
WyomingCoog said:
Great breakdown! Guessing you have some background and time in the legal system. I believe Tara is still there, but one difference Reeves did make with the general counsel is that they’re no longer a VP.
Click to expand...
I was not aware of the dual functions she apparently served.

Probably a very wise and informed move by Reeves. It makes little sense to me how someone could be the lawyer and the Vice President at the same time. That is the VP is presumably a ‘client’ who typically would seek the advice of the lawyer. I struggle to see how someone could be both the client and the lawyer (advising themselves).

Theoretically- If Tara Evans was negotiating the contract with Burman in her role as Vice President and she goes to herself for the legal review and advice, that would basically eliminate the typical role of the lawyer (ie no one is there to provide separate legal advice to inform the client of the risks). That could create some interesting ethical dilemmas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top