louth
Mop-Up Time
Posts: 115
Likes: 284
|
Post by louth on Jan 31, 2018 20:44:49 GMT -5
An article in the business section of the Inquirer paints a disturbing picture of the performance of the CEO of Safeguard. There is an uprising of shareholders who want to oust Mr. Zarilla. Safeguard stock has fallen 45% in a market that has risen 25% in the last year. I would be upset as well if I was a stockholder. Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 31, 2018 20:57:01 GMT -5
They should hire a consulting firm.
|
|
postup
Mop-Up Time
Posts: 90 
Likes: 25
|
Post by postup on Jan 31, 2018 21:22:07 GMT -5
I'm sure in light of this, La Salle will restrict Stephen T. Zarrilli's financial "expertise" to the purchasing of popcorn for the concession stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnocchi on Feb 1, 2018 0:13:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Feb 27, 2018 8:20:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd on Feb 27, 2018 10:00:05 GMT -5
Is he the one who auctioned off the 1952 NIT and 1954 NCAA trophies to pay for the Gola renovations?
|
|
|
|
Post by lasalle89 on Feb 27, 2018 10:00:18 GMT -5
Wow. Getting paid 2.4 million a year to run the company into the ground. Perfect choice for LaSalle to run its board.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd on Feb 27, 2018 11:45:44 GMT -5
Wow. Getting paid 2.4 million a year to run the company into the ground. Perfect choice for LaSalle to run its board. Yes, somehow La Salle errors are compounded daily. |
|
|
|
Post by sweat83 on Feb 27, 2018 13:20:13 GMT -5
Wow. Getting paid 2.4 million a year to run the company into the ground. Perfect choice for LaSalle to run its board. I wonder if he's got a clause in his contract for getting fired for "just cause". |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 27, 2018 13:22:35 GMT -5
Does anyone ever get fired for unjust cause? Who defines what is just?
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,483
Member is Online
Likes: 6,376
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 27, 2018 13:39:17 GMT -5
Feels pretty safe to say the answer to your first question is "yes".
|
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 27, 2018 14:43:42 GMT -5
Does anyone ever get fired for unjust cause? Who defines what is just? My incredibly not-a-lawyer understanding of this is that being fired "for cause" is for like egregious violations. So being fired for just being bad at your job isn't "for cause" but being fired for stealing could potentially be. Feel free to correct my rudimentary and likely wrong understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 27, 2018 15:03:33 GMT -5
Does anyone ever get fired for unjust cause? Who defines what is just? My incredibly not-a-lawyer understanding of this is that being fired "for cause" is for like egregious violations. So being fired for just being bad at your job isn't "for cause" but being fired for stealing could potentially be. Feel free to correct my rudimentary and likely wrong understanding. i know. The wording is just poor. |
|
|
|
Post by golasalle on Feb 27, 2018 15:22:42 GMT -5
Does anyone ever get fired for unjust cause? Who defines what is just? My incredibly not-a-lawyer understanding of this is that being fired "for cause" is for like egregious violations. So being fired for just being bad at your job isn't "for cause" but being fired for stealing could potentially be. Feel free to correct my rudimentary and likely wrong understanding. PA is an "at will" employment state, so, absent a contract with language to the contrary, an employer can fire an employee for any reason at all. State and federal anti-discrimination laws may come into play depending on the circumstances, but other than that, cause is not necessary to terminate employment. |
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 27, 2018 15:51:54 GMT -5
^^^ that is accurate. Sounds like someone either got fired or has fired  |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 27, 2018 17:37:30 GMT -5
My incredibly not-a-lawyer understanding of this is that being fired "for cause" is for like egregious violations. So being fired for just being bad at your job isn't "for cause" but being fired for stealing could potentially be. Feel free to correct my rudimentary and likely wrong understanding. PA is an "at will" employment state, so, absent a contract with language to the contrary, an employer can fire an employee for any reason at all. State and federal anti-discrimination laws may come into play depending on the circumstances, but other than that, cause is not necessary to terminate employment. Is cause just if someone pays a kid 100k or is it also "just" if someone loses a bunch of games in their tenure. |
|
|
|
Post by golasalle on Feb 27, 2018 20:31:21 GMT -5
PA is an "at will" employment state, so, absent a contract with language to the contrary, an employer can fire an employee for any reason at all. State and federal anti-discrimination laws may come into play depending on the circumstances, but other than that, cause is not necessary to terminate employment. Is cause just if someone pays a kid 100k or is it also "just" if someone loses a bunch of games in their tenure. Kinda depends on how contract is written. Seems like Miller's contract at AU pretty much allowed him to cheat and that wouldn't be cause. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Feb 27, 2018 20:57:54 GMT -5
Is cause just if someone pays a kid 100k or is it also "just" if someone loses a bunch of games in their tenure. Kinda depends on how contract is written. Seems like Miller's contract at AU pretty much allowed him to cheat and that wouldn't be cause. I need to hire a better agent. |
|
|
|
Post by las71 on Feb 28, 2018 8:42:11 GMT -5
Is cause just if someone pays a kid 100k or is it also "just" if someone loses a bunch of games in their tenure. Kinda depends on how contract is written. Seems like Miller's contract at AU pretty much allowed him to cheat and that wouldn't be cause. This is the part that I find most interesting. It does seem that the contract allows for rules violations. AU has lawyers who review these contracts and I'm sure that buyout jumped out at them and they discussed this with administrators. If it was left in there despite this, I think AU none too subtly acknowledged that cheating has become the norm in big time collegiate athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by explorerman on Mar 16, 2018 18:49:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Mar 16, 2018 18:54:39 GMT -5
Most of that stuff is over my head, but it seems sleezy.
Maybe La Salle should consider a new head of the BOT, at least temporarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Mar 16, 2018 19:02:30 GMT -5
Most of that stuff is over my head, but it seems sleezy. Maybe La Salle should consider a new head of the BOT, at least temporarily. Where is William Sautter these days? |
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,483
Member is Online
Likes: 6,376
|
Post by MisterD on Mar 16, 2018 19:56:30 GMT -5
The Zarrilli-allied board last week changed its rules, making it tougher for outside investors to buy more than 5 percent of Safeguard’s own shares without management permission.
Unless I'm reading something wrong here, this effectively attempts to protect them against what they do to other companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Mar 16, 2018 20:00:41 GMT -5
Uhhhhh, yup. Sorta messed up, sorta clever.
|
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Mar 18, 2018 7:37:43 GMT -5
The Zarrilli-allied board last week changed its rules, making it tougher for outside investors to buy more than 5 percent of Safeguard’s own shares without management permission.Unless I'm reading something wrong here, this effectively attempts to protect them against what they do to other companies. No, not at all. Safeguard doesn’t make public or hostile investments — they are all privately negotiated and over the recent years most are passive without any real control or control motive. |
|
|
|
Post by Gnocchi on Mar 18, 2018 10:45:02 GMT -5
The Zarrilli-allied board last week changed its rules, making it tougher for outside investors to buy more than 5 percent of Safeguard’s own shares without management permission.Unless I'm reading something wrong here, this effectively attempts to protect them against what they do to other companies. No, not at all. Safeguard doesn’t make public or hostile investments — they are all privately negotiated and over the recent years most are passive without any real control or control motive. NPOA |
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,483
Member is Online
Likes: 6,376
|
Post by MisterD on Mar 18, 2018 11:24:36 GMT -5
No, not at all. Safeguard doesn’t make public or hostile investments — they are all privately negotiated and over the recent years most are passive without any real control or control motive. So no influence on how the next "3-5 years" will be run in order to maximize return on their own investment? If so, I'll stand corrected. The article implied (or I inferred) the seemingly standard PE playbook. |
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Mar 18, 2018 13:12:45 GMT -5
No, not at all. Safeguard doesn’t make public or hostile investments — they are all privately negotiated and over the recent years most are passive without any real control or control motive. So no influence on how the next "3-5 years" will be run in order to maximize return on their own investment? If so, I'll stand corrected. The article implied (or I inferred) the seemingly standard PE playbook. Two strikes for you MrD. You not only read it wrong but the standard PE playbook is not to make public or hostile playbooks. |
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,483
Member is Online
Likes: 6,376
|
Post by MisterD on Mar 18, 2018 17:04:39 GMT -5
“PE invests for mutual benefit” is the new “just hire a top major assistant for less than we pay Giannini”.
|
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Apr 6, 2018 12:49:15 GMT -5
|
|
