- 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
Question about the buyout to address Landrys concern
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:16 pm
First off... Landry had no business weighing in on this situation. He made himself look like a clown.
Regarding his argument the state could be left holding the bag. This seemed pretty concerning and financially dangerous. I assumed there would be a novation agreement where another party would step in and assume the principals obligations (the state). Can anyone in the know let me know how this plays out?
Regarding his argument the state could be left holding the bag. This seemed pretty concerning and financially dangerous. I assumed there would be a novation agreement where another party would step in and assume the principals obligations (the state). Can anyone in the know let me know how this plays out?
7
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:19 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Regarding his argument the state could be left holding the bag.
While technically correct, practically the state is not moving forward without some reassurance that they will be reimbursed by donors to move forward.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:19 pm to ShermanTxTiger
The most logical scenario seems to be Woodward might've pulled the trigger without 100% securing booster funding for the buyout
I suppose if nobody stepped up, the buyout would be covered by LSU, which is a state owned institution. They said today that the buyouts had never and would never reach the taxpayers
So I guess Landry was technically right? But he's not going to force an incentive laden contract on the boosters, and nobody in Louisiana is paying a buyout any time soon
I suppose if nobody stepped up, the buyout would be covered by LSU, which is a state owned institution. They said today that the buyouts had never and would never reach the taxpayers
So I guess Landry was technically right? But he's not going to force an incentive laden contract on the boosters, and nobody in Louisiana is paying a buyout any time soon
This post was edited on 10/31/25 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:20 pm to ShermanTxTiger
I’ll tell you one thing… they weren’t firing Kelly unless they knew they had the private funds to do it, and that means someone with a huge bank account. What Landry did was basically use semantics in an attempt to make himself look like he was looking out for Louisiana taxpayers best interest, which is not only disingenuous, but a shitty thing to do.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:21 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
Right, LSU isn't firing a coach without the state's consent if there's a real risk of it becoming a state problem
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:22 pm to lsufan0582
I wonder if it is incumbent upon the AD to make the donors sign something equivalent to a promissory note prior to firing Kelly for example? That would be the prudent thing to do in lieu of a handshake.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:24 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
First off... Landry had no business weighing in on this situation
Actually, he did whether you agree with it or not. He's the governor of the state; so he can weigh in on any situation he wants to.
quote:
He made himself look like a clown.
In your opinion he did.....but to a lot he didn't. To a lot of people, he assisted on getting rid of the clowns at LSU.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:24 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Regarding his argument the state could be left holding the bag. This seemed pretty concerning and financially dangerous
Considering this has never happened before.. in our state or otherwise its not concerning at all. Unless you can provide an example where public $$$ when to buy out a coach.. go ahead
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:25 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I wonder if it is incumbent upon the AD to make the donors sign something equivalent to a promissory note prior to firing Kelly for example? That would be the prudent thing to do in lieu of a handshake.
It all goes through TAF, which is technically a separate entity from the institution.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:26 pm to Lee Chatelain
If no promissory note was executed Woody did put the state in a very financially risky spot between firing Kelly and receiving donor funds.
I mean, what if one of the donors says, "oh, never mind".
I mean, what if one of the donors says, "oh, never mind".
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:27 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
make himself look like he was looking out for Louisiana taxpayers best interest
then he shouldn't have gotten himself involved with the only athletic department that has the ability to turn a profit.
If the system works the way he says it does, then he should be looking at the athletic programs at ULL, La Tech, Southern, Grambling, ULM, Nicholls, and McNeese and wonder why theyre operating at a loss year in and year out and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:27 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
It all goes through TAF, which is technically a separate entity from the institution.
I have to imagine that TAF has all this process legally buttoned up. This ain't their first rodeo.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:34 pm to cajuntiger85
quote:
then he shouldn't have gotten himself involved with the only athletic department that has the ability to turn a profit. If the system works the way he says it does, then he should be looking at the athletic programs at ULL, La Tech, Southern, Grambling, ULM, Nicholls, and McNeese and wonder why theyre operating at a loss year in and year out and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
The fact of the matter is that this is how it works for pretty much every public institution that receives tax dollars, even the ones who operate in the red. Being as though LSU football generates a lot of money not only for the institution, but for the state, it is incumbent that the sitting governor, who is entitled to his opinion, doesn’t hurt the institution’s ability to attract a coach due to his political grandstanding and ignorance on matters such as Jimbo’s 70 million dollar buyout being attached to Woodward. A smart person would have done this behind closed doors.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:36 pm to ShermanTxTiger
Louisiana politicians have always been useless. This one just wants to be useless in public.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:59 pm to GumboPot
My man, do you honestly believe Woody or any other AD is unilaterally committing their school to a $50M+ buyout with a handshake agreement?
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:59 pm to GumboPot
quote:
If no promissory note was executed Woody did put the state in a very financially risky spot between firing Kelly and receiving donor funds.
I mean, what if one of the donors says, "oh, never mind".
I don’t know whether the AD/TAF go that far before firing a head coach, but I’d imagine it depends at least partially on the situation.
Consider the worst case scenario for this firing. Hypothetically, whichever donors initially said they would fund the buyout change their minds. LSU/TAF aren’t suddenly on the hook for a $53 million lump sum. Kelly’s buyout is 90% of his remaining pay, and that buyout is payable in monthly installments over the remainder of the contract term. So in reality, LSU just continues to pay him 90% of what they were already paying him (which is already part of the budget). It comes out to something like $8.9 million per year.
So if a donor backs out of the buyout, the worst case scenario is that LSU and TAF now have to deal with this $8.9 million/year expense when planning future budgets. That could mean there’s a lot less money available for the next coaching hire. It could mean that they have less money available for revenue sharing than they intended. Or it could mean that TAF has to dip into its ~$100 million in current assets to make it work.
Even in that scenario, though, they have a month or two to find another funding source before the next coaching hire and then 6 years to find that funding source after the next coaching hire.
Now let’s think about an alternative scenario where LSU and Brian Kelly negotiate a reduced lump sum buyout. Let’s say it’s $40 million. Instead of needing to cover ~740k/month over 6 years, LSU now needs to cover a $40 million lump sum payment. That’s an entirely different animal, and I’d be shocked if the BOS signed off on that settlement without having the money completely locked down.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:41 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:That is standard. At the end of the day the coach is hired by LSU with the approval of the board. The next coach's contract will say the same exact thing.
Regarding his argument the state could be left holding the bag. This seemed pretty concerning and financially dangerous.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News