Started By
Message
re: As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:14 pm to the808bass
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:14 pm to the808bass
And always take an escape goat with a grain assault. 
0
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:18 pm to tmc94
quote:
if written financial records exist (they likely don't)
You don't think a guy who runs what is likely a legitimate business would keep a record of a deductible $7,500 expense for tax purposes?
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:25 pm to BamaGradinTn
We aren't talking about Rhodes scholars here. What star college football player says "yea man I need $7500 for some rims but make sure you give me a receipt so I can send it to my CPA".
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:30 pm to Greg09Ag
He is talking the broker. 
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:31 pm to NATidefan
Broker didn't seem too bright either what with the mile long criminal record.
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:31 pm to Greg09Ag
quote:
Greg09Ag
As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
We aren't talking about Rhodes scholars here. What star college football player says "yea man I need $7500 for some rims but make sure you give me a receipt so I can send it to my CPA".
You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you?
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:33 pm to Greg09Ag
quote:
Greg09Ag
As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
Broker didn't seem too bright either what with the mile long criminal record.
So what's worse for aTm...Johnny Hancock's future riding on a sharp businessman who keeps impeccable records for tax purposes, or a moron?
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:35 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
You don't think a guy who runs what is likely a legitimate business would keep a record of a deductible $7,500 expense for tax purposes?
No, I think this is incredibly unlikely. These guys deal in cash. If you know anyone that runs a cash business, take a look at their books one day. If you have a financial background, ask to do their taxes
If they deduct this, they need to provide the athlete with a 1099 for services rendered (that would be a funny exchange). Anyone that has records of this shite is going to be busted for tax fraud. There are bound to be some dumb motherfrickers out there but the ones that really are probably don't keep any records, much less records showing they skirted on the IRS.
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:36 pm to Greg09Ag
That was a different broker, your talking about the Miami broker. The one that paid 7500 was the Connecticut broker.
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:40 pm to NATidefan
This forum was better when I could log in every 30 minutes and see 5 new JFF threads :(
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:43 pm to texasaggie08
You just miss the scooby doo days.
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:44 pm to texasaggie08
The NOI and NOA aren't sent by the NCAA unless and until informal fact finding and review leads to enough evidence to send the NOI and start the formal investigation clock.
A&M guys I know you are used to being investigated and new to all this, but you guys are really clueless.
We need one of the auburn defenders from ATPB to come on here and educate you guys on how all this works. They are the undisputed NCAA champions of being investigated. They are always under investigation for something
A&M guys I know you are used to being investigated and new to all this, but you guys are really clueless.
We need one of the auburn defenders from ATPB to come on here and educate you guys on how all this works. They are the undisputed NCAA champions of being investigated. They are always under investigation for something
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:49 pm to TutHillTiger
What Investigation?
It appears that Manti's girlfriend must be leading the NCAA investigation.
ESPN getting mighty damn quiet!
It appears that Manti's girlfriend must be leading the NCAA investigation.
ESPN getting mighty damn quiet!
This post was edited on 8/8/13 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:55 pm to Maroon Flash
No shite. This is the first night I haven't seen manziel all over sportscenter. Coincidence?
Posted on 8/8/13 at 11:59 pm to betweenthebara
Good thing Paul is back on Monday, just in time to provide his hard hitting analysis
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 12:00 am
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:03 am to Maroon Flash
HERE IS THE APPEAL PROCESS where students athletes win less than 10% of the time.
Jeremy Bloom describes, although not accurately, the student-athlete appeals process. That process, the infractions process and the enforcement process are all three separate and distinct, with no overlap of function, membership or even of NCAA administrative staff support. Infractions and student-athlete reinstatement decisions are appealable to separate appeals committees, again with no overlap in membership.
The infractions committee decides cases where institutions are charged with major violations. It does not conduct investigations. It does not interview witnesses. Its decisions are based solely on the hearing record. The enforcement staff as well as the involved institutions, coaches and other individuals each choose what to include in that hearing record.
The committee is independent and impartial. It has two former judges—one State, one Federal. It always has had university professors as members, currently two and as many as five. Past members include law professors Charles Alan Wright, a former President of the American Law Institute and author of a multi-volume treatise on Federal practice; Frank Remmington, who was a member of the Supreme Court's standing committees for both civil and criminal procedure; and Jack Friedenthal, co-author of one of the most widely used civil procedure case books.
The committee also is savvy about intercollegiate athletics. Its membership deliberately includes athletics administrators. They have credibility with the member institutions because they understand the particular pressures of college athletics. That same athletics' experience and background also means they cannot be conned.
The rules, investigative and adjudicative processes are all there to ensure that student-athletes have fair and equal opportunities to compete. An even playing field means more than simply evenhanded and consistent application of rules on the field. It also includes evenhanded and consistent application of rules off the field.
As directed by the member institutions, the Committee on Infractions has two critical jobs, first, to provide parties a full and fair opportunity to be heard and to treat them the same way as others charged with major violations; second, to ensure the broader systemic interests of NCAA member institutions, to ensure they are advanced. These include timely and efficient resolution of cases in a manner that safely applies NCAA legislation.
As all nine members of the current Supreme Court recently said, the NCAA is not a State actor. Even so, its enforcement, infractions, and hearing procedures meet due process standards. (THis is bullshite btw)In fact, they parallel, if not exceed, those procedures provided by public institutions.
Certainly, it is important that all NCAA processes, infractions and student-athlete reinstatement included, both be fair and seem to be fair. The perception problem is fed in part by the natural inclination of those who suffer adverse findings and penalties to justify their conduct sometimes by misrepresenting what they did, sometimes by misrepresenting the process itself, sometimes by doing both.
As public officials, the Members of this Subcommittee know better than I do the potential for media reports to be inadvertently inaccurate or to create misconceptions by telling only part of the story. If there are misconceptions about the enforcement, infraction or student-athlete reinstatement processes, the remedy lies in better communication about how these processes work and then perhaps a more discerning and less uncritical reception of descriptions by interested and disappointed parties regarding these processes, not by fixing systems that ain't broke at the risk of breaking them.
Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much.
Jeremy Bloom describes, although not accurately, the student-athlete appeals process. That process, the infractions process and the enforcement process are all three separate and distinct, with no overlap of function, membership or even of NCAA administrative staff support. Infractions and student-athlete reinstatement decisions are appealable to separate appeals committees, again with no overlap in membership.
The infractions committee decides cases where institutions are charged with major violations. It does not conduct investigations. It does not interview witnesses. Its decisions are based solely on the hearing record. The enforcement staff as well as the involved institutions, coaches and other individuals each choose what to include in that hearing record.
The committee is independent and impartial. It has two former judges—one State, one Federal. It always has had university professors as members, currently two and as many as five. Past members include law professors Charles Alan Wright, a former President of the American Law Institute and author of a multi-volume treatise on Federal practice; Frank Remmington, who was a member of the Supreme Court's standing committees for both civil and criminal procedure; and Jack Friedenthal, co-author of one of the most widely used civil procedure case books.
The committee also is savvy about intercollegiate athletics. Its membership deliberately includes athletics administrators. They have credibility with the member institutions because they understand the particular pressures of college athletics. That same athletics' experience and background also means they cannot be conned.
The rules, investigative and adjudicative processes are all there to ensure that student-athletes have fair and equal opportunities to compete. An even playing field means more than simply evenhanded and consistent application of rules on the field. It also includes evenhanded and consistent application of rules off the field.
As directed by the member institutions, the Committee on Infractions has two critical jobs, first, to provide parties a full and fair opportunity to be heard and to treat them the same way as others charged with major violations; second, to ensure the broader systemic interests of NCAA member institutions, to ensure they are advanced. These include timely and efficient resolution of cases in a manner that safely applies NCAA legislation.
As all nine members of the current Supreme Court recently said, the NCAA is not a State actor. Even so, its enforcement, infractions, and hearing procedures meet due process standards. (THis is bullshite btw)In fact, they parallel, if not exceed, those procedures provided by public institutions.
Certainly, it is important that all NCAA processes, infractions and student-athlete reinstatement included, both be fair and seem to be fair. The perception problem is fed in part by the natural inclination of those who suffer adverse findings and penalties to justify their conduct sometimes by misrepresenting what they did, sometimes by misrepresenting the process itself, sometimes by doing both.
As public officials, the Members of this Subcommittee know better than I do the potential for media reports to be inadvertently inaccurate or to create misconceptions by telling only part of the story. If there are misconceptions about the enforcement, infraction or student-athlete reinstatement processes, the remedy lies in better communication about how these processes work and then perhaps a more discerning and less uncritical reception of descriptions by interested and disappointed parties regarding these processes, not by fixing systems that ain't broke at the risk of breaking them.
Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:08 am to TutHillTiger
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
It is the responsibility of the NCAA enforcement staff to conduct investigations of potential NCAA violations within the procedural and investigative parameters set forth by the membership and the COI (Bylaws 19 and 32) and to present to the COI cases the enforcement staff has determined to involve commission of major violations for which institutions are responsible. Specific enforcement staff responsibilities include collecting and validating information to determine the possible existence of a violation; classifying violations as major or secondary; tape recording or otherwise memorializing the substance of an interview; disclosing the purpose of a campus visit; permitting representation of counsel at interviews; providing institutions and individuals alleged to have committed major violations timely notice of an inquiry that includes a list of particulars relevant to the violation; providing timely disclosure of information relevant to an alleged violation; maintaining a custodial file of all information relevant to an investigation at a location convenient to institutions, individuals, and their counsels; conducting a pre-hearing conference independent of the COI to narrow the issues in dispute and to gain information leading to the possible amendment or withdrawal of allegations; and to provide an enforcement staff case summary for the COI hearing that sets forth the allegations, together with the facts and circumstances relied on to substantiate the allegations.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The enforcement process is cooperative, not adversarial. Although, obviously and necessarily, preparing an enforcement staff case summary and presenting a case to the COI entails a staff determination that there is sufficient information from which to believe that major violations were committed, nonetheless the enforcement staff is required to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory information and to present a balanced rendition that gives full sway to information indicating that violations either were not committed or cannot be proved to the evidentiary standard required by the COI. In addition, the enforcement staff has the general responsibility to assist institutions and individuals in their efforts to gather information relevant to alleged violations. Procedural protections include timely, and periodic, notice of the progress of an investigation; the right to assistance of counsel; access to all information relevant to a violation; and a statute of limitations that, with limited and specified exceptions, requires that any alleged violation presented to the COI must have been committed within four years before issuance of a notice that an investigation has been initiated.
It is the responsibility of the NCAA enforcement staff to conduct investigations of potential NCAA violations within the procedural and investigative parameters set forth by the membership and the COI (Bylaws 19 and 32) and to present to the COI cases the enforcement staff has determined to involve commission of major violations for which institutions are responsible. Specific enforcement staff responsibilities include collecting and validating information to determine the possible existence of a violation; classifying violations as major or secondary; tape recording or otherwise memorializing the substance of an interview; disclosing the purpose of a campus visit; permitting representation of counsel at interviews; providing institutions and individuals alleged to have committed major violations timely notice of an inquiry that includes a list of particulars relevant to the violation; providing timely disclosure of information relevant to an alleged violation; maintaining a custodial file of all information relevant to an investigation at a location convenient to institutions, individuals, and their counsels; conducting a pre-hearing conference independent of the COI to narrow the issues in dispute and to gain information leading to the possible amendment or withdrawal of allegations; and to provide an enforcement staff case summary for the COI hearing that sets forth the allegations, together with the facts and circumstances relied on to substantiate the allegations.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The enforcement process is cooperative, not adversarial. Although, obviously and necessarily, preparing an enforcement staff case summary and presenting a case to the COI entails a staff determination that there is sufficient information from which to believe that major violations were committed, nonetheless the enforcement staff is required to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory information and to present a balanced rendition that gives full sway to information indicating that violations either were not committed or cannot be proved to the evidentiary standard required by the COI. In addition, the enforcement staff has the general responsibility to assist institutions and individuals in their efforts to gather information relevant to alleged violations. Procedural protections include timely, and periodic, notice of the progress of an investigation; the right to assistance of counsel; access to all information relevant to a violation; and a statute of limitations that, with limited and specified exceptions, requires that any alleged violation presented to the COI must have been committed within four years before issuance of a notice that an investigation has been initiated.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:11 am to Maroon Flash
This is awesome. aTm hires a firm. JFF's family hires counsel.
It seems everyone is united and on the same page.
No fireworks could come from this at all.
It seems everyone is united and on the same page.
No fireworks could come from this at all.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:15 am to TutHillTiger
Posted on 8/9/13 at 12:16 am to NBamaAlum
Manziel Called The NCAA Tipping Point
NCAA is going to be happy to close all this out asap. It already cost them money on jersey sales.
NCAA is going to be happy to close all this out asap. It already cost them money on jersey sales.
Page 220 of 340
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News