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

You volunteer to run my business for free. You help my business earn $1m.

I fire you and hire someone to run my business for $2m. He or she helps my business earn $25m.

Was paying someone $2m worth it to me?

What can you do for me? wrote:

You volunteer to run my business for free. You help my business earn $1m.

I fire you and hire someone to run my business for $2m. He or she helps my business earn $25m.

Was paying someone $2m worth it to me?

You might want to learn what the difference between revenue and profits is before posting again (or at least posting completely irrelevant attempted analogies).

rojo wrote:

If Siegel wants to stay there or fly first class, he should have enough in his own bank account to pay for it since USATF paid him $1.7 million but I'm not sure if he does as the article reveals he was being evicted from NY a few years ago apparently.

While there are major legitimate issues raised in the articles, I think the criticisms of flying first class and staying at nice hotels are somewhat overblown (though relevant in the context of comparing him to the previous administration).

USATF has a sponsorship with United Airlines, and they book an insane amount of travel through them every year. There is a solid chance that they get free upgrades for Max, or at least can upgrade to first class much cheaper than you or I could.

Also, comparing him and Craig... Craig is a really skinny guy. I don't think Max is fat, but he's a bigger guy than Craig, big enough that flying coach would not be very fun. I don't blame Max for wanting to fly first class (or hopefully it's business class when possible, but whatever), and I don't necessarily think it is inappropriate.

I don't know enough about the Olympic Trials marathon to judge that hotel situation, but I think staying at the Nines at World Indoors was fine. It's appropriate for Max to be rubbing elbows with all of the IAAF mucky mucks.

There has been a culture change at the National Office since Craig's time. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. It's not racist to point out that things are different, and the changes aren't because of race.

Alan isn't 100% wrong with everything in his blog post, but I think he's dead wrong with the idea that it's race-based character assassination. IMO anyway...

Not-for-profits execs should never be allowed to spend to the level Max has operated at. This reminds me of the Wounded Warriors situation; it needs to end and the USATF board needs to act or they too are guilty by association. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/11/470081279/wounded-warrior-project-fires-top-2-executives-after-reports-of-overspending

WindyHill is totally right, the NIKE deal is extremely heavy in VIK (product for athletes and product to brand USATF to sell), while there is nothing wrong with this practice it needs to be transparent. Also if Max's bonuses are calculated by total value of the deal (20million per year) then USATF made one of the dumbest business decisions ever made by awarding him a bonus for the VIK part of the deal. No one should ever do that, definitely a not-for-profit.

Polevaultpower, UNITED Airlines is not listed on the USATF website as a sponsor.

You volunteer to oversee the operations of my business and you manage to help my business net after taxes $1m. You take no salary or stock bonuses or any compensation what so ever. In other words you cost me nothing.

I no longer desire you services so I relieve you of your position.

I then hire a CEO for a salary of $10 million a year. He or she nets me after taxes and after his salary and after excessive spending $15 million dollars a year.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

I then determine that my new CEO's salary is too high and his expenditures are too excessive, so I fire him or her.

I hire a new CEO for $2 million a year. He in turn nets my business after taxes salary and controlled spending $5 million.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

What can you do for me? wrote:

You volunteer to oversee the operations of my business and you manage to help my business net after taxes $1m. You take no salary or stock bonuses or any compensation what so ever. In other words you cost me nothing.

I no longer desire you services so I relieve you of your position.

I then hire a CEO for a salary of $10 million a year. He or she nets me after taxes and after his salary and after excessive spending $15 million dollars a year.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

I then determine that my new CEO's salary is too high and his expenditures are too excessive, so I fire him or her.

I hire a new CEO for $2 million a year. He in turn nets my business after taxes salary and controlled spending $5 million.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

Again, your attempted analogy has nothing to do with the facts at hand. Why not just say "you hire a CEO for $1.7 million and he grows the business to a trillion dollars of revenue a year"? That scenario is as factually (not) comparable as yours.

Mr. Costner, with all due respect, you fail to get the point. If a CEO of any business, for profit or not for profit, can justify their salaries and spending by their job performance, then an argument for their being excessive can be justified. The fact is in the real business world, some executives can justify their spending and salaries and some can not.

So can Siegal's salary and spending habits be justified by his overall production? Should he be fired or should he simply be put under tighter reigns?

Facts at hand: Siegal has a $1.7m salary and spends money similar to high executives of major corporations. Siegal job performance (popularity not a factor) has managed to bring in a lot of money. Does one overshadow the other?

What can you do for me? wrote:

Mr. Costner, with all due respect, you fail to get the point. If a CEO of any business, for profit or not for profit, can justify their salaries and spending by their job performance, then an argument for their being excessive can be justified. The fact is in the real business world, some executives can justify their spending and salaries and some can not.

So can Siegal's salary and spending habits be justified by his overall production? Should he be fired or should he simply be put under tighter reigns?

Facts at hand: Siegal has a $1.7m salary and spends money similar to high executives of major corporations. Siegal job performance (popularity not a factor) has managed to bring in a lot of money. Does one overshadow the other?

I get the point you fail to show. He doesn't work in "the real business world." He works in the "not for profit world", which means he doesn't have shareholders or investors. He also has the benefit of a legal monopoly, which couldn't be any further form the "real business world". There is a market for what compensation is for someone leading a not for profit of this small size and his compensation is so absurdly above market it is indefensible. If he and you don't like it, then get a job in the "real business world" where you have to do things like pay taxes, don't have the benefit of monopoly protection and are accountable to your owners/investors. Based on his failure to pay taxes and rent while "in the real business world", my guess is that he is much better off fleecing not for profits.

Check out the Wikipedia

His summary paragraph doesn't even involve Track and Field. I bet this guy doesn't even know how long a track is. Probably thinks the 1500m is boring.

What can you do for me? wrote:

You volunteer to oversee the operations of my business and you manage to help my business net after taxes $1m. You take no salary or stock bonuses or any compensation what so ever. In other words you cost me nothing.

I no longer desire you services so I relieve you of your position.

I then hire a CEO for a salary of $10 million a year. He or she nets me after taxes and after his salary and after excessive spending $15 million dollars a year.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

I then determine that my new CEO's salary is too high and his expenditures are too excessive, so I fire him or her.

I hire a new CEO for $2 million a year. He in turn nets my business after taxes salary and controlled spending $5 million.

Mr. Costner, am I better off?

The question is what market value is for someone who can do what Max has done. And the answer is way less than what he gets. There's a lot of people who could be doing the job just as well, or way way better. And the article detailed how he little to do with the Nike deal that grew the revenue so much and was really nowhere near as good as it sounded.

I understand all that is being argued. I am not a corporate executive and have held a job in the business world for 40 years. I do not know Siegel. I am not necessarily defending him but rather the concept of an individual's worth based on what he or she brings to the table. If siegel does not bring value to the table, then he should be let go. Why was he hired in the first place?

Here's the 2014 990:

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/351/351475847/351475847_201412_990.pdf?_ga=1.13713015.1551166495.1473979648

It's disgustingly preposterous for a non-profit with only $22.1 million in revenue to be paying its CEO $1.1 million in compensation (especially one with a $708K loss). Obviously his comp got even more absurd in 2015 but there's no 990 on file yet. I note that this is money that could and should have been given to athletes. USATF perversely appears to exist to enrich its admin on the backs of its athletes.

BrooklynDude wrote:total value of the deal (20million per year)

Link, please. "The number" is secret. It is probably secret because it's a complex funding structure. But, that doesn't make it worth keeping it secret in a supposedly member-driven organization. (It's not.)

BrooklynDude wrote:

Polevaultpower, UNITED Airlines is not listed on the USATF website as a sponsor.

USATF can use USOC travel desk and discounts. Plus as much as he flies I am pretty sure upgrades are common. However, that is different than paying for them.

Anyone with information may contact their local FBI field office

Here are a few numbers

Federal Bureau of Investigation

9109 NE Cascades Pkwy

Portland, OR 97220

(503) 224-4181

Federal Bureau of Investigation

1600 Executive Pkwy #320

Eugene, OR 97401

(541) 343-5222

Federal Bureau of Investigation

8825 Nelson B Klein Pkwy

Indianapolis, IN 46250

(317) 595-400

What deals did Siegel broker?

How much cash did/does USATF deposit from them?

regarding the Nike deal:

I remember someone posting an in depth look at the Nike deal with some 'best guess' calculations that showed how little direct money it brought in.

Is outfitting outfitting the USAT&F team a business expense -advertising- for Nike?

How does Nike account for the items from their inventory that go to USATF?

pffffft