- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
John Carmouche: "the taxpayer has never paid for a coach and never will"
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:26 am
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:26 am
Question was: "given the governor speaking points about the contract and the legalese of the contract for Brian, is it a point going forward to remove LSU as the liable party for these contracts?"
Carmouche: "Let me make it clear, the governor had a right to be concerned and we're working towards solutions, but the state and the taxpayer has never paid for a coach and never will...so..."
In other words, Landry is talking out of his arse and the board knows it.
Carmouche: "Let me make it clear, the governor had a right to be concerned and we're working towards solutions, but the state and the taxpayer has never paid for a coach and never will...so..."
In other words, Landry is talking out of his arse and the board knows it.
29
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:28 am to Ingeniero
quote:
other words, Landry is talking out of his arse and the board knows it.
Which is exactly what some of us have been saying, while emotional teenage girls bleed all over themselves about him running his mouth lol
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:28 am to Ingeniero
quote:
remove LSU as the liable party for these contracts?"
Wut
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:29 am to TackySweater
The only emotional teenage girl was our beloved Governor who could not help himself on twitter and in the news.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:31 am to TackySweater
The entire point is that Landry keeps banging the drum of "the taxpayer was on the hook if donors didn't step in!" As people here have pointed out, the only way to prevent that as a (nearly impossible) reality is to entirely separate the athletic department from the university. That's why everyone's saying Landry is just muddying the waters and causing problems. It's not a problem that exists.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:31 am to Ingeniero
quote:
In other words, Landry is talking out of his arse and the board knows it.
He's absurd. He doesn't even care to have a PR person help him out here.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:31 am to Ingeniero
Question was:” is the verbiage in the contract where the taxpayer may be on the hook?”
I paraphrase that because I’m not going back to look at it. But the question is
“why are the contracts stating that the taxpayers on the look for it, if the donor does not want to pay for it?”
I paraphrase that because I’m not going back to look at it. But the question is
“why are the contracts stating that the taxpayers on the look for it, if the donor does not want to pay for it?”
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:32 am to Tony The Tiger
quote:
The only emotional teenage girl was our beloved Governor who could not help himself on twitter and in the news.
And many many many posters here who can’t stop bleeding about LaNdRy iS ScArInG aWaY aNy gOoD cOaCh!!!
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:32 am to Ingeniero
landry is right. just because it has not happened does not make that smart at all to have LSU aka state as the guarantor of these ridiculous contracts SHOULD the TAF donors fail to pay. it is fricking stupid. hey let's just rely on winks and nods! contract was garbage. that dipshit approved it so wonder he defends it! LOL!
keep defending stupidity. you never ever expose yourself like that in contracts.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:33 am to dstone12
Landry is technically correct but not practically so.
They wouldn't have fired BK if donors weren't paying it.
No coach and agent will EVER agree to a contract that doesn't have the department (and the state) as ultimate guarantor.
And no department or state has ever, in any state, paid a buyout. Ever.
Landry knows this but wants to grandstand
They wouldn't have fired BK if donors weren't paying it.
No coach and agent will EVER agree to a contract that doesn't have the department (and the state) as ultimate guarantor.
And no department or state has ever, in any state, paid a buyout. Ever.
Landry knows this but wants to grandstand
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:33 am to TackySweater
quote:
Which is exactly what some of us have been saying, while emotional teenage girls bleed all over themselves about him running his mouth lol
But you dont go on national media spreading false info either. Many people who follow athletics knows boosters and donors front the bulk of the deal. Those who dont follow the ins and outs of this may not and could get stirred up by the thought of this especially with the state of things at the moment. You just can't be that irresponsible.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:35 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
landry is right. just because it has not happened does not make that smart at all to have LSU aka state as the guarantor of these ridiculous contracts SHOULD the TAF donors fail to pay. it is fricking stupid. hey let's just rely on winks and nods! contract was garbage. that dipshit approved it so wonder he defends it! LOL!
keep defending stupidity. you never ever expose yourself like that in contracts.
You are genuinely retarded. The chair of the board just said that Landry is making shite up (paraphrasing) and that contracts will continue to be written that way because it's not possible otherwise.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:35 am to dstone12
quote:
Question was:” is the verbiage in the contract where the taxpayer may be on the hook?”
I paraphrase that because I’m not going back to look at it. But the question is
“why are the contracts stating that the taxpayers on the look for it, if the donor does not want to pay for it?”
OP avoided that for obvious reasons. he is ok with that guy saying hey don't worry about it.....wink wink.....nod nod..... doesnt matter what congtract says nothing will evber go wrong!
like that makes it a smart contract. dumb as shite actually. OP is too fn emotionally riled up like a teen girl to get it.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:36 am to tigergirl26
quote:
Those who dont follow the ins and outs of this may not and could get stirred up by the thought of this
Ok so what
quote:
You just can't be that irresponsible.
The end result from it will be absolutely nothing
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:36 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
OP avoided that for obvious reasons
I transcribed the question and answer word for word from the press conference just now
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:36 am to dstone12
quote:
“why are the contracts stating that the taxpayers on the look for it, if the donor does not want to pay for
The language almost certainly makes no reference to donors being unwilling to pay. The language almost certainly refers to recourse for the Payee should the athletic department/TAF be UNABLE to pay.
As in, if the athletic department collapsed tomorrow. Which isn’t a thing that’s even slightly likely. Or wasn’t until King Coonass started getting involved.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:37 am to Ingeniero
Landry is technically right.
BK was the highest paid employee of the State. He was not paid individually by TAF, part of his contract is paid by LSU. That is why the BOS has to approve it.
Even if donations to athletics cover it, technically once donated it is LSU's money. So, If every bit of Donor money dried up. LSU (State of LA) would still have to pay the buyout.
Everyone is playing semantics here. Carmouche is being disingenuous as well.
BK was the highest paid employee of the State. He was not paid individually by TAF, part of his contract is paid by LSU. That is why the BOS has to approve it.
Even if donations to athletics cover it, technically once donated it is LSU's money. So, If every bit of Donor money dried up. LSU (State of LA) would still have to pay the buyout.
Everyone is playing semantics here. Carmouche is being disingenuous as well.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:38 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Landry is technically correct but not practically so.
Then practically take the taxpayer burden out of the technical contract.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:38 am to Fat Bastard
Every public university will be in this same situation on any buy out and thousands of coaches have been fired in D1 football and the situation Landry is using to justify firing Woodward has never happened.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 8:38 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
Fat Bastard
Every time you post about this you reveal that you have no clue how any of this works.
You really are dumb
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News