Shaw's salary in the news again

Shaw's salary in the news again - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw's salary in the news again (/thread-22928.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - SamuelMcF - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 01:57 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 01:18 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:59 PM)PVTree Wrote: in the 2020 form 990 I count 14 making more than $1m

- Shaw - $8.9m
- Robert Wallace - CEO of SMC - $4.6m
- Frank Hanley - chief ped cardiothoraric - $3.7m
- Greg Milani - SR. MD, SMC, THROUGH 7/9/2019 - $3.3m
- Yiping Woo - PROF. & CHAIR, CARDIO SURGERY - $2.7m
- John Hennessy - PROF SOE & FORMER PRESIDENT - $2.4m
- Lloyd Minor - Dean school of medicine - $2.3m
- Martin Shell - VP and chief ERO - $1.8m
- Marc Tressier-Lavigne - $1.7m
- John Etchemendy - PROF H&S & FORMER PROVOST - $1.6m
- Randall Livingston - VP BUS AFFAIRS/CFO - $1.5m
- Robert Reidy - VP lands and buildings $1.3m
- Persis Drell - provost - $1.3m
- Debra Zumwalt - VP general counsell - $1.1m

https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford-form-990-fy20.pdf

the document has more details on the various categories of pay (base, bonus & incentives, deferred comp, retirement, non-taxable benefits, and other as well as a discussion on pay for med school, development office, investment office, athletics professionals, and officers and others

Where are Haase and Tara?

Mick Cronin, Dana Altman, and Andy Enfield all make $3-4M a year, and even Mark Fox at Cal makes $1.5M. What does our guy make???

Meanwhile, as of a few years ago, I saw $2.3M for Tara. Why isn't she on this list?

Tara was in one 990 a few years ago but that's the only time I have seen her listed and I vaguely recall it was because her new contract that year got her in the top five paid list. I have not seen Haase listed. I'm also not a tax lawyer or accountant so don't know the exact rules for being listed as "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees".

There are two lists in the 990, one on page 8-11 and another on pages 94-95 of the PDF, the first one also includes trustees (who got paid $0)

You appear to have to list the top five paid employees, then the others are officers, trustees, and key employees, I could see Tara and Haase not making the list as key employees (there appear to be instruction for what a "key employee" is but it is not included in the 990) so they would not have to be listed. Page 8 only lists two "key employees" (Wallace and Minor) so that's why I think they are not listed

If neither are in our top 5 highest paid, that means both make under $2.7M.

For comparison, I believe $2.7M is roughly the median/mean for Pac-12 MBB coaches, and paying Haase less than that doesn't surprise me too much. IIRC Dawkins wasn't making a ton.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Giants - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

It is all about acceptance of Federal funding.

The Feds: “You happily take our money. Therefore, you no longer have the right to keep our prying eyes from looking into your affairs.”

Since every reputable university, private and public, accepts federal funding, every private and public university is subject to federal oversight.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - teejers1 - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 03:05 PM)Giants Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

It is all about acceptance of Federal funding.

The Feds: “You happily take our money. Therefore, you no longer have the right to keep our prying eyes from looking into your affairs.”

Since every reputable university, private and public, accepts federal funding, every private and public university is subject to federal oversight.

And the tax benefits of a non-profit, right? (One could argue a form of federal "funding").

Anywhoo, as a long-proponent of more regulation, not less, of NCAA sports - including capping coaching salaries - I am not opposed to this inquiry, and it should be across the board. Of course, having worked on the Hill and having a sense of how things operate there, I'm pretty confident in saying nothing will come of this . . . except perhaps for some universities having to respond to questions they would rather not answer.

Big shoulder shrug from here.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - crackpot - 02-07-2022

Wait, did I miss Rutger's coach's salary mentioned here? $4 million, and not a lot to show for it.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Spiny_Norman - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

Out of scope for Pascrell. He is on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight. Anything related to federal taxes, including the law on federal tax exempt status, is within committee scope. I don't think it is out of bounds to consider the question about whether the government should subsidize through a tax exemption the $100M+ businesses that schools are running through their athletic departments (even if most of those businesses lose money).

There is some recent precedent for looking into this aspect of academia. Beginning in 2018, Congress changed the law on tax deductions for some athletic donations. Donations to a booster club for the right to purchase tickets to an athletic event are now completely nondeductible which was not the case before the law was changed.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Maple Leaf - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 12:50 PM)Phogge Wrote: I would guess that those salaries pale into insignificance when compared to the average Cardboard Stanford alum.

nor would those salaries be in the same zip code of San Francisco State University Baseball Grads!

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - dabigv13 - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 05:10 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

Out of scope for Pascrell. He is on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight. Anything related to federal taxes, including the law on federal tax exempt status, is within committee scope. I don't think it is out of bounds to consider the question about whether the government should subsidize through a tax exemption the $100M+ businesses that schools are running through their athletic departments (even if most of those businesses lose money).

There is some recent precedent for looking into this aspect of academia. Beginning in 2018, Congress changed the law on tax deductions for some athletic donations. Donations to a booster club for the right to purchase tickets to an athletic event are now completely nondeductible which was not the case before the law was changed.

This is a good post, but do you really think any bill is getting written that limits college football coach compensation? I'll be interested then but I think the odds are slim, and I imagine he has more important fish to fry than cracking some skulls for a few news stories.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - TonyLima - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

Exactly. None of the govt’s business how much Stanford pays anyone. Exceptions for those who apply for NSF, NIH, other research grants.

(02-07-2022, 03:05 PM)Giants Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

It is all about acceptance of Federal funding.

The Feds: “You happily take our money. Therefore, you no longer have the right to keep our prying eyes from looking into your affairs.”

Since every reputable university, private and public, accepts federal funding, every private and public university is subject to federal oversight.

Yeah, I’ll wait for a SCOTUS ruling on that one. It’s the government making that argument, btw.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Spiny_Norman - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 08:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 05:10 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford is a private school. Pascrell should be focused on how SCOTUS is about to start telling Stanford who they can and can't admit, and not what the football coach makes. Dumbass.

Out of scope for Pascrell. He is on the Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight. Anything related to federal taxes, including the law on federal tax exempt status, is within committee scope. I don't think it is out of bounds to consider the question about whether the government should subsidize through a tax exemption the $100M+ businesses that schools are running through their athletic departments (even if most of those businesses lose money).

There is some recent precedent for looking into this aspect of academia. Beginning in 2018, Congress changed the law on tax deductions for some athletic donations. Donations to a booster club for the right to purchase tickets to an athletic event are now completely nondeductible which was not the case before the law was changed.

This is a good post, but do you really think any bill is getting written that limits college football coach compensation? I'll be interested then but I think the odds are slim, and I imagine he has more important fish to fry than cracking some skulls for a few news stories.

Absolutely 0% chance of any substantive legislation coming out of this exercise. Plus there is no precedent for government restricting compensation at non-profits. In similar situations when Congress wanted to shine a light on what the public considered egregious pay packages for corporate officers for publicly traded companies, Congress changed the law on tax treatment of some incentives. And they required public disclosure of top officer pay. None of which really had any effect. Compensation consultants and tax lawyers will find a way around anything Congress might do or might want to do.

Rather, I imagine what the chairman might want do is investigate and challenge the tax exempt status of universities with big time athletics. It's mostly for show. But I admit feeling a twinge of interest at the thought of Bernard Muir or Persis Drell in front of a microphone (and a bank of photographers) being grilled by the subcommittee members about the finances and operations of the Stanford athletic department.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - M T - 02-07-2022

I have minimal interest in this as regards to football, but one item hasn't been addressed (or maybe I missed it). Shaw is the "Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football". I presume the next director of football would get that position and money. So, perhaps we should step away from talking about the person, and instead talk about the position.

How much of the Director's compensation is from that source of funds? I presume that position is technically little different than the "The Carl and Elizabeth Naumann Professor for the Dean of the School of Medicine". Would any attempt to influence big payouts to football or basketball coaches also affect funded positions throughout universities?

If someone wanted to undercut universities from attracting and retaining leading men & women, then changing the tax consequences of giving directed money to universities would be such a path.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - JustAnotherFan - 02-08-2022

(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - GK3 - 02-09-2022

(02-08-2022, 05:43 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

So what happens if someone at Stanford receives compensation that is entirely from a private endowment? Is that still reportable? If it does not come from University funds is it reportable?

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - BostonCard - 02-09-2022

I’m sure that if creative accounting could have been used to hide Shaw’s salary, it would have been used.

BC

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Spiny_Norman - 02-09-2022

(02-09-2022, 12:57 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(02-08-2022, 05:43 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

So what happens if someone at Stanford receives compensation that is entirely from a private endowment? Is that still reportable? If it does not come from University funds is it reportable?

The annual salary for both Chip Kelly and Mick Cronin at UCLA is $300,000 per year. But they each get over $3M per year in "other compensation", which I assume comes from media rights payments, shoe and clothing deals, etc. UCLA reports the total amount of compensation in their public disclosures. I assume Stanford does the same.

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - PalmTree - 02-09-2022

(02-09-2022, 12:57 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(02-08-2022, 05:43 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

So what happens if someone at Stanford receives compensation that is entirely from a private endowment? Is that still reportable? If it does not come from University funds is it reportable?

Yes - reporting is of earned compensation (base + incentives, etc) regardless of the funding source used by the employer (endowment, general funds, gifts, etc).

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Treebound - 02-09-2022

(02-09-2022, 03:29 PM)PalmTree Wrote:
(02-09-2022, 12:57 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(02-08-2022, 05:43 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

So what happens if someone at Stanford receives compensation that is entirely from a private endowment? Is that still reportable? If it does not come from University funds is it reportable?

Yes - reporting is of earned compensation (base + incentives, etc) regardless of the funding source used by the employer (endowment, general funds, gifts, etc).

I believe that IRS Form 990 requires all income to be reported on the 5 highest paid employees of the university, making it difficult to hide "compensation" coming from other sources.

Perhaps some of these dollars should flow to some new assistants....Please!

RE: Shaw's salary in the news again - Jamesy - 02-09-2022

(02-09-2022, 03:00 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(02-09-2022, 12:57 PM)GK3 Wrote:
(02-08-2022, 05:43 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 08:59 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Getting attacked by the Feds now!?!
Poor guy just can’t win…

This is a completely unfair statement because he won THREE times in 2021!!

So what happens if someone at Stanford receives compensation that is entirely from a private endowment? Is that still reportable? If it does not come from University funds is it reportable?

The annual salary for both Chip Kelly and Mick Cronin at UCLA is $300,000 per year. But they each get over $3M per year in "other compensation", which I assume comes from media rights payments, shoe and clothing deals, etc. UCLA reports the total amount of compensation in their public disclosures. I assume Stanford does the same.

You can also view their compensation (and that of any state employee) at transparentcalifornia.com