Did Nero really leave GW with $1.3 million in his pocket?  Am not doubting you Joel but is anyone else here in a position to confirm this?  If true, I am in complete amazement.

We can't refer to Nero's departure as a firing with cause since it was announced as a resignation but the circumstances certainly had the look of one.  ML's side of the story had gotten back to President LeBlanc who wanted this entire matter investigated.  From there, many if not all of the anecdotes from the Deadspin article were revealed.  So was the video.  Nero's resignation was in the middle of a school year, and was very sudden.  He would be gone within two weeks.  He offered to remain a resource to the athletic department in the future yet I don't believe he was ever taken up on that offer.

Simply put, LeBlanc wanted him gone and fast.  Allowing him to walk away with $1.3 million as a going away present seems very unlikely under these circumstances unless PN threatened legal action and the school just wanted to again avoid this at virtually all costs.  How do you give an athletic director who allegedly did all of the things that Deadspin described $1.3 million?  As the school likes to say these days, "Only at GW."

Respectfully, why are we rehashing this?  What happened happened.  The effects of it were felt for a long time.  Now, we are in a new era.  We have an outstanding new coach, a program that appears to be healed (or healing) from their self-inflicted wounds, and an entire roster of exciting players.  We have a bright future.  

Please, let's just let this die.  If this is the best topic we can come up with because there is no new basketball news, then we don't deserve to have this message board.  I should talk to the guy who runs this thing about that.

B.

Gwmayhem wrote:

BGF, to borrow your word, respectfully, this is the first I had ever heard about a $1.3 million going away present.  I do not recall reading or hearing about this anywhere.  This new information differentiates this from a rehash.  If this information is true, I am thoroughly disgusted about it.  

GWRising, I sense your post was a bit tongue-in-cheek despite being truthful but I'll state the obvious:  The circumstances that led to Penders, Lonergan and Nero leaving school were all completely different from one another and by no means should have been handled the same way.  That said, yes, I recognize much truth in your post.

I agree Gwmayhem. In my mind, only one of those guys deserved a payout and his initials are not TP or PN.

Thanks Joel.  The Hatchet had this news about a month ago.  I missed it then so thanks for bringing it to our attention.

GWRising, OK, I'll ask.  Why did Penders, a coach whose team during his final season had two brawls with Tennessee and Duquesne, who had 4 players make $1,400 worth of phone calls while using his son's long distance code under his watch, and who recruited a player who committed violent crimes while at GW and HID THIS INFORMATION from his athletic director, deserve to be paid for the final THREE YEARS of his contract upon resigning? 

 

It is now 4 full seasons since ML has coached, and I am still pained by this, thinking where we could have been had he been stayed (notwithstanding what some others may think, the class that he recruited but never to to coach was quite good) as opposed to where we are now.  My anger at the handling of the situation will not subside until we have in fact turned it around.    I like JC and remain guardedly optimistic, but we have hardly regained relevance, yet alone the heights as to where ML took us.  I know I need to get over it...2 coaches and nearly an entire Athletic Department later, but watching us lose to bad teams in a nearly empty house is not really what I signed on for.

GWRising, TP's deal was for 6 years and he worked 3 of them.  So GW paid him for three additional years at approximately $450,000/year.  The fact that he tried to hide the Cosby situation from Kvancz was reason enough not to pay him an extra dime.

LSF, you're not alone in your thought process.  We all know that ML was the right guy, the school screwed up, and we've been paying the price ever since.  You are entitled to a "I'll believe it when I see it" point of view, but for now, the best we can do is ask ourselves whether we feel we now have the right guy in JC.  So far, despite the record last season, I have found more evidence to suggest "yes we have" than "no we haven't." 

Here is an article from The Hartford Courant on TP's hiring by Houston.  says he left three years into a 6 year deal.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2008-01-15-0801150400-story.html

And, here is The Hatchet article on the resignation, citing three years left on the contract

https://www.gwhatchet.com/2001/04/23/penders-resigns-amid-turmoil/
 

Yes, GWRising, I anticipated this response from you.  That's why I also included the article by the professional writer at The Hartford Courant.  He got the phone card detail right.  He got the Cosby legal issue right.  He said that Penders had three years to go but GW paid for all of them due to a contract clause.  And for the record, the Hatchet reporter got everything right as well.

If it were a five year deal with GW holding the option for a 6th, there's no way the school would have willfully paid for the 6th year under these circumstances.  As far as the contract clause is concerned, I can only speculate that language was put into the contract indicating that TP would receive his full contract value regardless of whether he resigned, fired without cause, or fired with cause.  Am fairly certain that JK talked Trachtenberg/Chernak into allowing TP to save face by referring to this as a resignation rather than a firing.  In reality, it most definitely should have been a firing with cause.  Willfully withholding a player's very serious legal issues from the school?  How could this not be?

I am basing the contract details on what two writers, one a professional journalist and the other, a student reporter who covered the team all season, had indicated was the case. I posted each article so it really shouldn't be difficult to comprehend where I am receiving this information.   If I'm wrong, then both of them are wrong too.  Or, perhaps it's conceivable that both writers are correct and whoever told you was wrong?

You are far more like Trump than you know.