Somebody Catch Me Up On Terminating Kelly For Cause

Google.com.

It’s absolutely shady. LSU is taking the stance he was never formally terminated and they are working out the details of his compensation. They are arguing he’s not going to get the full buyout because he’s being terminated for cause.

Kelly is saying he was terminated and is suing to get a formal judgement that he was, in fact, terminated, and was terminated without cause. Meaning he’s entitled to the full $53 mil.

Both sides are maneuvering for leverage.

He sucked.

quote:

---

Does LSU actually have a legitimate case?

---

They have not presented one. Kelly has produced a lawsuit saying LSU has just informed him they may still fire him for cause.

There is a dispute as to whether there was a termination (which they’ve asked the court to rule on), and whether the termination was made with or without cause. The lawsuit takes the position that this was never discussed previously, and their opportunity to have told him that may have expired.

LSU hasn’t said anything about the lawsuit (or anything in it) as far as I know, but have been in negotiations with Kelly and have made a fair offer, but as far as we know Kelly has declined, without counter offer. LSU will likely take the position that the termination letter was pending the settlement discussions - which were effectively ended with the lawsuit, as they are seeking full liquidated damages.

So if he wasn’t fired/terminated, why did he tell the players in a meeting and then leave with his things and leave town??

quote:

---

OR are we doing shady shite and basically telling Kelly that our in-house counsel will eat up millions of dollars in legal fees and drag his name through the mud if he isn’t a good boy who takes a settlement?

---

It's this, but even more clownish because LSU didn't actually fire Kelly with cause when it fired him, and it can't do so now. So its official, legal position is that Kelly was never fired in the first place, and it's now going to do so with cause.

quote:

---

So if he wasn’t fired/terminated, why did he tell the players in a meeting and then leave with his things and leave town??

---

If he wasn’t fired/terminated why was there a formal announcement that he had been relieved of his duties effective immediately?

quote:

---

If it was for cause the steps to fire him were not followed so it’s moot. Too bad.

---

Which steps is that.

Woodward didn’t have the authority to fire him without BOS approval.

To my knowledge, that didn’t happen.

He is STILL being paid (or was until very recently).

quote:

---

So if he wasn’t fired/terminated, why did he tell the players in a meeting and then leave with his things and leave town??

---

He was. He has not accepted settlement offers, LSU expected to come to an agreement and draw up termination agreement…this is a move trying to now force LSU to pay the full buyout (this is all my best guess, I’ve posted a lot on this and abridging here…all of these things are in dispute)

quote:

---

If he wasn’t fired/terminated why was there a formal announcement that he had been relieved of his duties effective immediately?

---

He can be relieved of duties because he failed to performed them, which is an explicit cause that they can now use to officially provide notification of termination with cause.

The termination would have been without cause, as part of the settlement he has now refused

Again, that’s my speculation