I'm on the road and won't be able to post anything on the homepage on this for a while so I'm posting her comments here to let USATF express its view.
She said, "I saw on your website the headline you put up: “USATF Board Gave Logan $140,000-A-Year Pay Raise 9 Days Before Starting Termination Process” as well as your brief comments that followed.
I would direct you to the quotes of Stephanie Hightower and Jeff Darman in the story, where they point out that the revised/restructured contract did not affect Doug’s net pay (simply moved it from one spot to another), nor did it affect the size of any potential “buy-out” or severance."
Our comments on the homepage are mainly based off of this statement by the Eddie Pells, the AP writer who has seen Logan's contract. Pells reported, "But because he was fired, it could end up costing USATF an extra $465,000 to pay off his contract."
Also, our reading of the story is different than that of Jill's. Our reading is the revision gave Doug more guaranteed pay and less potential max pay. As for the severance, Hightower does not address it while Darman says, "nor did the severance provisions change to benefit Doug Logan." This is a pretty generic statement. The severance provision could be the same under both contracts, something along the lines "if terminated without cause you will receive your base pay." However, if Logan receives a bump in base pay, then the amount of severance would rise. We did not see Darman's statement on the severance to refute the statement by Pells that, "But because he was fired, it could end up costing USATF an extra $465,000 to pay off his contract."
So I want to post Geer's comments but don't feel they conflict with our comments on the homepage. From our reading of the AP article, it seems like the bump in base pay entitles Logan to more severance. That's what we're commenting on. If the AP writer changes his article we'll change our comments.