The defense would now like to call Scott Woodward to the stand...

DerekJohnson

Discuss.

Tequilla

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

doogsinparadise

You're 100% right, Azeem and the rest of the defense should make Woodward explain his dumb ass.

DerekJohnson

Tequilla said:

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

@Tequilla you don't see the point. Woodward would have to sit there on the record and document what occurred at UW and then answer for why he looked the other way for five years.

PostGameOrangeSlices

"Scott, why are you letting the school shut down the football program? We generate a ton of revenue, and we are about to turn the corner and become a legitimate contender. And these rumors about the stadium being converted into a botanical garden/pea patch hybrid...what the fuck?" - Azeem and the defense

"Well guys, upper campus has decided that the barbaric nature of football, coupled with the defense likening itself to 'death row', violates the safe space of our students. The state legislature is fully supportive of this, and believes it should have been done years ago. It's a shame that you young men risk permanent brain injury and death to play this violent, gladiator-esque sport. Those student atheletes on the team that are of color will be allowed to keep their scholarships and continue their education here at our great university. Bon voyage." - Pool P. Boy

DerekJohnson

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

"Scott, why are you letting the school shut down the football program? We generate a ton of revenue, and we are about to turn the corner and become a legitimate contender. And these rumors about the stadium being converted into a botanical garden/pea patch hybrid...what the fuck?" - Azeem and the defense

"Well guys, upper campus has decided that the barbaric nature of football, coupled with the defense likening itself to 'death row', violates the safe space of our students. The state legislature is fully supportive of this, and believes it should have been done years ago. It's a shame that you young men risk permanent brain injury and death to play this violent, gladiator-esque sport. Those student atheletes on the team that are of color will be allowed to keep their scholarships and continue their education here at our great university. Bon voyage." - Pool P. Boy

flagged for no reference to sustainability.

PostGameOrangeSlices

DerekJohnson said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

"Scott, why are you letting the school shut down the football program? We generate a ton of revenue, and we are about to turn the corner and become a legitimate contender. And these rumors about the stadium being converted into a botanical garden/pea patch hybrid...what the fuck?" - Azeem and the defense

"Well guys, upper campus has decided that the barbaric nature of football, coupled with the defense likening itself to 'death row', violates the safe space of our students. The state legislature is fully supportive of this, and believes it should have been done years ago. It's a shame that you young men risk permanent brain injury and death to play this violent, gladiator-esque sport. Those student atheletes on the team that are of color will be allowed to keep their scholarships and continue their education here at our great university. Bon voyage." - Pool P. Boy

flagged for no reference to sustainability.

"You can't flag a moderator's poast, even if he himself gave you a hurtful flag."

Tequilla

DerekJohnson said:

Tequilla said:

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

@Tequilla you don't see the point. Woodward would have to sit there on the record and document what occurred at UW and then answer for why he looked the other way for five years.

How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.

None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.

If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.

If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.

There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.

PostGameOrangeSlices

^graa

Meek

Woodward: "We were Owen12 and Coach Sark rebuilt the program. He did it the right way... go the stadium built, in fact. I can't comment on his drinking because I didn't see him drink at the office and I do my prayers at 10pm each night, read the bible with my wife until 10:38 and then we fall asleep just itching for the next day when we can help some under appreciated sport get the financial support it deserves."

ThomasFremont

Tequilla said:

DerekJohnson said:

Tequilla said:

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

@Tequilla you don't see the point. Woodward would have to sit there on the record and document what occurred at UW and then answer for why he looked the other way for five years.

How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.

None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.

If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.

If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.

There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.

disagree

pawz

Tequilla said:

DerekJohnson said:

Tequilla said:

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

@Tequilla you don't see the point. Woodward would have to sit there on the record and document what occurred at UW and then answer for why he looked the other way for five years.

There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds.

Patron. 45 shots. Bar tab. Expensed.

I do that.













I can't believe I read all that. Fuck.

RaceBannon

There is no amount of rampant incompetance at UW regarding the football program that tequila hasn't and won't apologize for

PurpleThrobber

The funny part of all this is Sark's crew is a bunch of amateurs compared to Uncle Denny's posse. Part Everett longshoremen, part Montana cowboys. Those fuckers could knock back the booze.

MisterEm

Fuck Pool Boy.


That is all.

Tequilla

You would be shocked at things I've seen offered up for reimbursement before ... a night of drinking isn't that uncommon

DerekJohnson

Tequilla said:

DerekJohnson said:

Tequilla said:

For what?

SC is going to call Woodward to the stand to say that Sark was a drunk at UW?

Then Sark's lawyers are going to ask them why they didn't do more to put Sark either in rehab or was his drinking to the point where they considered firing him? Woodward probably answers that he didn't proceed to fire him because of alcoholism being a delicate line to walk in terms of terminating somebody so instead he didn't put up much of a fight when SC tried to hire him away.

Hard for me to see how SC using Woodward as a witness helps them.

@Tequilla you don't see the point. Woodward would have to sit there on the record and document what occurred at UW and then answer for why he looked the other way for five years.

How do I not see the point when I stated that Woodward was going to be asked to talk about how drunk Sark was at the UW, why UW didn't do more to curtail the problem, and what help did they offer him? Sure seems to me that I acknowledged that Woodward was going to a) be on record and b) answer for what happened at UW. To say that he looked the other way is pure conjecture at this point because we don't know what was or was not done by the Athletic Department other than they didn't seem to go out of their way to keep Sark when Pat Haden came calling.

None of this matters anyway because this case will likely never get to court and Woodward will likely never be asked to testify. Best case is that he's asked to give a deposition ... which since the court will never be part of public record and the deposition will never be entered into such as evidence will never be available for public consumption unless leaked.

If this goes to trial then good chance that Woodward will have to answer on the record. But the odds of this are lower than the odds that Ektard gets a recruiting scoop right.

If I'm being honest, the part that bothers me here is the sense that we'll get to play "gotcha" on Woodward ... who cares? Seriously ... who cares? Lots of things happen behind closed doors that aren't anybody's business and on a need to know basis. One of the biggest problems I have with society right now is that everybody thinks that they are entitled to be all up into everybody's business. They aren't. We didn't pay a severance package to Sark. There doesn't appear to be any material misappropriation of funds. The on field performance wasn't such where you could argue that we weren't getting what we were paying for other than maybe it influenced a win or two a year at most. I get that Sark made millions. I get that Woodward makes a healthy chunk of change. But these kinds of situations happen all the time every single day around the world where C-levels, Presidents, VPs, etc. "resign" and given significant parachute packages to go away and remain quiet. In my general experience, those that complain the most about this are often those that don't understand why those packages are given whether it be for the institutional secrets that are known by those parties, risk of lawsuits, etc. Agreements are signed to maintain confidentiality and many times those individuals have non-compete agreements in place that protect the current employer. No question that sometimes these situations can get abused. But at the same time, when talking about people at these levels, those agreements require approval from an oversight committee, etc. The reality is that when you're running a detailed organization, which the UW AD is, there's plenty of different considerations that you have to make and balancing priorities and sometimes the lesser of two evils is the hand that you're played.

There's plenty of things to give Woody shit that are well within his control and reasonable to expect the UW AD to do better on. I'm not sure questioning how he handled the Sark situation is one of those. This is the kind of shit sandwich that nobody wants to handle and handling it is one of those that you have to do delicately or you end up in a court room getting your ass handed to you.

Could you please expand on this?

topdawgnc

One thing I am pretty sure of.

SC will find a way to UW put on probation for this outrage.

claycha

D

BayDawg

PurpleThrobber said:

The funny part of all this is Sark's crew is a bunch of amateurs compared to Uncle Denny's posse. Part Everett longshoremen, part Montana cowboys. Those fuckers could knock back the booze.

That is the understatement of the century. They could hammer the whiskey. Actually, quite impressive.

Meek

Tequilla said:

You would be shocked at things I've seen offered up for reimbursement before ... a night of drinking isn't that uncommon

perhaps, but with Sark it was apparently maybe a bit too regular?