ADVERTISEMENT

You all live in a fantasy world if you think this suspension is a spineless action

kennyschiano

All Conference
Gold Member
May 12, 2005
3,897
2,126
113
Investment Firm has a rule: do not email directly with employees of public companies
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action

rutgers has a rule: do not email directly with professors about student athlete grades
coach: email professor about grades
rutgers: this tarnishes our reputation which is not what we want as an institution as actually cares about academics unlike certain southern schools and the media scrutiny here is more than anywhere else
AD or Barchi: coach, you are suspended

how is a suspension a spineless act? do you stick up for the employee regardless of the action simply because he is an employee?
 
one who isn't stupid enough to do something he was specifically told not to do and then reminded not to do it. did you read the report?
Kenny, they did exactly what they should have done. They didn't have enough to fire him for cause, but they had way too much not to do something significant. My only question is the $50,000 the only financial reparations here or are the 3 games he's suspended without pay as well? I hope its the latter.
 
i agree and hope it is the latter - report is damning - he tried to avoid opra!
 
Investment Firm has a rule: do not email directly with employees of public companies
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action

rutgers has a rule: do not email directly with professors about student athlete grades
coach: email professor about grades
rutgers: this tarnishes our reputation which is not what we want as an institution as actually cares about academics unlike certain southern schools and the media scrutiny here is more than anywhere else
AD or Barchi: coach, you are suspended

how is a suspension a spineless act? do you stick up for the employee regardless of the action simply because he is an employee?
YES YOU DO IF HE IS THE HC OF FB.Besides 3 games is pure B.S. A one game suspension works just as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 50 yd line RR
that is where you live in a fantasy world. what if he is the head trader or the chief investment officer? stick up for him just because he is the head honcho?
 
Yes because working at an investment firm should have the same employee work rules as coaching college football.
 
Reading the detailed report, it seems they could probably fire for cause if they wanted. How could he not know of those policies, he's been at RU for how many years now? And if true that an academic advisor explicitly told him not to continue the contact, AND Flood stated that he was trying to avoid leaving a trail by using his gmail account and meeting the professor one on one...that's pretty damning stuff in my opinion.

Perhaps other incidents have come to light and are being investigated (maybe he's done this before and other professors are coming forward to report it). Could be that he's coached his last game at RU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coldsprings
YES YOU DO IF HE IS THE HC OF FB.Besides 3 games is pure B.S. A one game suspension works just as well.

Sure if he didn't go directly against someone telling him not to do something. It was a blatant disregard of the policies and the academic support staff. The punishment had to show that is serious.
 
one who isn't stupid enough to do something he was specifically told not to do and then reminded not to do it. did you read the report?

You clearly have an agenda, and want Flood out, you're vitriol is coming out loud and clear. We pretty much all can agree in light of the report, something needed to be done. I think one game was in order not three though, IMO.
 
Yes because working at an investment firm should have the same employee work rules as coaching college football.

Federal Insider Trading is not the same thing as this simply by the fact it doesn't involve jail time for the coach. BIG DIFFERENCE.
 
You clearly have an agenda, and want Flood out, you're vitriol is coming out loud and clear. We pretty much all can agree in light of the report, something needed to be done. I think one game was in order not three though, IMO.
Have you read the report? They could have and probably should have fired him. But realistically assuming this is the only incident of him doing this, this 3 game suspension will do.
 
Have you read the report? They could have and probably should have fired him. But realistically assuming this is the only incident of him doing this, this 3 game suspension will do.

Yes, I think it was dumb, suspension warranted, not sure 3 was necessary, thats just my opinion. I respect yours though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brista21
Investment Firm has a rule: do not email directly with employees of public companies
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action

rutgers has a rule: do not email directly with professors about student athlete grades
coach: email professor about grades
rutgers: this tarnishes our reputation which is not what we want as an institution as actually cares about academics unlike certain southern schools and the media scrutiny here is more than anywhere else
AD or Barchi: coach, you are suspended

how is a suspension a spineless act? do you stick up for the employee regardless of the action simply because he is an employee?
This is amateur hour and they are killing this program.No where else in the country would they pull this Sorry Kenny your wrong.
 
I have no issue with the suspension, I have issue with the nature of the suspension. Letting Flood do some of his duties for the next 3 weeks, but not do other things. Would have much rather seen a full suspension for a shorter time period.
 
one who isn't stupid enough to do something he was specifically told not to do and then reminded not to do it. did you read the report?
And let's not forget was stupid enough after the fact to tell the school he didn't even know the rule and never even heard there was compliance training that dealt with it. This, of course, being one of the school's demonstrations of institutional control.
 
Investment Firm has a rule: do not email directly with employees of public companies
employee: emails directly with employee of public company to ask what he believes is a harmless question
investment firm A: now we must restrict trading in the name which can cost us money as we cannot sell out of a position
boss: employee, you are suspended for this action

Here's where your wrong. Investment firms don't suspend employees. They live & die by their reputation and this employee tarnished the reputation.

Thanks to the magic of the google, here's 3 examples from just the last 60 days of Flood level transgressions that led to termination .

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ate-fired-managing-director-tokyo-court-rules

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/339569-wall-street-banker-emailed-interns-power-tips-used-advice/

http://nypost.com/2015/07/07/bankers-fired-for-making-mock-isis-execution-video/


Rutgers doesn't have the same standards these firms have, and is apparently happy to have Flood destroy the school's reputation through the mud recruiting common thugs & writing their Dance Appreciation papers.
 
They didn't have enough to fire him for cause, but they had way too much not to do something significant////////////////////

They did have enough for a cause termination.

The decision makers didn't want to do it. They chose not to.

Their decision, but just prolonging the inevitable and not letting the new day start.
 
They didn't have enough to fire him for cause, but they had way too much not to do something significant////////////////////

They did have enough for a cause termination.

The decision makers didn't want to do it. They chose not to.

Their decision, but just prolonging the inevitable and not letting the new day start.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT