Breaking: Max Siegel Expose in The Washington Post - It's going to be tough for him to survive this!!

nunabiznezzz wrote:

ruppandroll wrote:

I never realized he was black. Where have I been?

Of course he is. It makes everyone feel good to have a black "leader" even if he's terrible at his job. Ya know white liberal guilt and everything...

Countdown before the mods delete this. They have to delete this kind of stuff because deep down they know it's true.

YOU GOD DAMN JEW HATERS ARE GOING TO GET IT!

Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

$255,500

Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

$244,400

Your Honor I rest my case about insane CEO compensation in corporate America

Any word on what the athletes committee is saying about this?

Max isn't worried. Dwight Phillips sold out the athletes for his own gain long ago. He's in the Board's pocket.

NFP-Atty/CPA wrote:the fact remains that USATF has a mandate, via federal law and its USOC status, to support track & field - especially elite athletes competing in the Olympics and other protected competitions.

So, how is that going? Every indicator suggests most 'pro' T&F athletes aren't even making rent each month. Meanwhile, Max's endless promotion of their 10s of millions of dollars in annual budget, suggest it's going everywhere BUT to the athletes.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

NFP-Atty/CPA wrote:the fact remains that USATF has a mandate, via federal law and its USOC status, to support track & field - especially elite athletes competing in the Olympics and other protected competitions.

So, how is that going? Every indicator suggests most 'pro' T&F athletes aren't even making rent each month. Meanwhile, Max's endless promotion of their 10s of millions of dollars in annual budget, suggest it's going everywhere BUT to the athletes.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts.

What's more interesting is if you read the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1998 carefully (or do a search as I did), there is authorization to pay a salary for an "Ombudsman for Athletes" only. There is NO authorization to pay a professional staff, management team, or Board Of Directors, and at the time the act was written, you could infer that the writers of the act expected the staff of National Organization to be "Amateur" as specified in the titel of the Act. The word "compensation" does not come up in The Act at all, and the word "salary" applies to the Ombudsman (singular) only.

So I wonder if the management (not just Max) can be sued by those of use who are members to return their ill gotten gains.

Where does it say Trust Fundies are paid by USATF even though they don't need a dime ;-(

coach d wrote:

What's more interesting is if you read the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1998 carefully (or do a search as I did), there is authorization to pay a salary for an "Ombudsman for Athletes" only. There is NO authorization to pay a professional staff, management team, or Board Of Directors, and at the time the act was written, you could infer that the writers of the act expected the staff of National Organization to be "Amateur" as specified in the titel of the Act. The word "compensation" does not come up in The Act at all, and the word "salary" applies to the Ombudsman (singular) only.

So I wonder if the management (not just Max) can be sued by those of use who are members to return their ill gotten gains.

There is also no prohibition against having a professional staff.

You can "infer" whatever you like, but you would likely be incorrect.

dougruns26 wrote:

I don't necessarily have a problem with the 1st class travel or staying at luxury hotels. When I was a young lawyer many years ago, the Managing Partner of the law firm for whom I worked made it very clear to firm clients that if he was to travel for business, he would be staying in luxury hotels and eating in fine restaurants at the client's expense. His theory was that if he was leaving the comfort of his luxury home, he shouldn't have to downgrade his lifestyle.

Futhermore, the cost of a luxury hotel is sometimes not that much more $ than staying at a standard hotel.

I think you are missing a distinction (or several). You worked for a private corporation, not a non-profit. You billed your clients. They could have negotiated a different fee structure with conditions.

The optics look bad. Everyone expects lawyers to be shady and fly high, not so an organization that is non-profit.

I can accept the staying in the hotel if IAAF officials are there as well. It paid off (that could be a poor choice of terms) in that Siegel was named to an important IAAF committee. My fear is he will use it to benefit himself more than the sport.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

NFP-Atty/CPA wrote:the fact remains that USATF has a mandate, via federal law and its USOC status, to support track & field - especially elite athletes competing in the Olympics and other protected competitions.

So, how is that going? Every indicator suggests most 'pro' T&F athletes aren't even making rent each month. Meanwhile, Max's endless promotion of their 10s of millions of dollars in annual budget, suggest it's going everywhere BUT to the athletes.

I'm not sure where you are getting your facts.

My point and the facts say that USATF has a requirement to support the sport and its athletes and they are falling short - in part due to mismanagement, self-dealing and corruption, and failure to truly increase the overall "pie" beyond the Nike deal.

Keep up the pressure on USATF and ALL of their cronies....sad...dirty sleazy sick AND TRUE ....

It's not mismanagement if the BoD approves a healthy bonus for Max. The end result is we have so much more money that before Max was CEO. He deserves the bonuses he received.

We all win with MAX Seagull wrote: The end result is we have so much more money that before Max was CEO.

I would not argue there is "more money" - the question is how much was left on the table.

1. The more cash is almost exclusively up front money from the 24 year Nike deal (looks like it was paid over 2-3 years in $5M and $10M payments). Take $25M now out the total cash (which is probably $300M max - no one from USATF is disputing that big number $500M includes substantial amounts of product). There is already healthy debate on the merits of the long term deal (is it the best deal, what about the impact of inflation and so on). The $25M bonus - some invested but mostly spent - looks good on the balance sheet now but won't mean much in 2025 much less 2040.

2. Limited new sources of cash coming in. Few serious cash sponsors (again, comments about Rosetta Stone = free language DVDs not met with a rebuttal about the amount of cash paid). That 12K race is gone as is the title sponsor (at least it ran for three years).

Not sure if there are USATF staff or Max/Board apologists that comment on the LR, but a few people seem to repeat the same mantra about so much money, so much money. Look, a press conference. Bottom line, USATF is required to act in the best interests of the athletes and other constituents (coaches, members, non elite athletes). It is just my opinion, one developed after reading the tax returns and financials online as well as reasoned online comments, that Max is overpaid, likely violated IRS and other laws and is acting in his best interest first.

It seems like there should be a difference between a healthy bonus and an obscene bonus.

Plus BoD approval doesn't make it right. That just means that they are complicit in the mismanagement.

The crazy salary and bonuses aside, don't forget about the extravagant travel, lodging and probably entertainment costs - all BoD approved. And save it on those being necessary expenses so that he can perform at an "executive level" unless they can show actual ROI on those expenses.

The money on these frivolous things - not to mention the office remodel, security force, and top-heavy executive compensation - would be better invested in direct athlete support, infrastructure (that website is from the early 2000's) and programs for their various member groups.

Look at the 2014 990 - the organization ended the year with just over $3 million in net assets. By comparison, Swimming ended their year with $34 million, yet their CEO made about $850K and Max made almost $1.1 million?

Seems like the issue is not just the bonus or pay and not just the expensive travel. Seems like the conflict with the marketing agency should be the bigger deal here. Is USATF paying Max's current/former associates more than it should? Is max profiting from that directly or indirectly?

Record Exec wrote:

Plus BoD approval doesn't make it right. That just means that they are complicit in the mismanagement.

Agree with this 100%.

Max isn't the main problem here. Max is doing the job the Board directed him to do. Nothing will get better until we fix the Board.

+1

Then look at the Board and how and when they were appointed.