- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Canada settlement agreement states he cannot interfere with football activities
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:52 pm
Or he forfeits his $1.7M
LINK
Posted on the rant as well.
Tenth, would this lend any credence to the talk that Canada had been running his mouth about LSU?
LINK
quote:
Matt Canada’s settlement with LSU could be voided if the former offensive coordinator “interferes” in the football program’s activities or if he “discourages” players or staff in the transition to a new coordinator.
He also cannot “interfere” with LSU prospects, some of whom he once recruited.
The Advocate obtained the eight-page separation agreement through a public records request, a document that ended a sometimes messy 12-month marriage between the school and Canada. Officially, Canada’s final day with the school was Tuesday. The agreement official terminated his original contract with LSU on Wednesday.
The coach will be paid $1.7 million of the $3.4 million left on his contract. He will get a lump sum of $1 million before the end of this month, and the school will pay the remaining amount in 20 monthly installments of $35,000. Those payments begin Feb. 28, according to the agreement.
In the settlement, both sides – LSU and Canada – agreed on non-disparagement clauses, forbidding them from making public statements that “defame, disparage or criticize” one another. The non-disparagement provision is a “material provision of the agreement and that any breach of this shall be a material breach of his agreement and that (Canada/LSU) would be harmed by violation of (the) provision.”
The two sides also agreed on a “waiver of claims,” both agreeing to never bring a lawsuit against the other.
Posted on the rant as well.
Tenth, would this lend any credence to the talk that Canada had been running his mouth about LSU?
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:55 pm to sicboy
Seems like this would be pretty standard buyout language
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:57 pm to sicboy
THEY COULDN'T EVEN SPELL THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL CORRECTLY.
Clown. Show.
Clown. Show.
This post was edited on 1/10/18 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:57 pm to sicboy
This is actually very interesting. But its all run of the mill buyout conditions.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:59 pm to sicboy
Pretty embarrassing that the school name is spelled incorrectly. Who drafts these contracts for LSU?
Posted on 1/10/18 at 5:59 pm to TenthTiger
Ok. I know you've stated before that would be career suicide and of course he wouldn't be doing that, but I didn't know if that was standard settlement language.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 6:02 pm to sicboy
Had he bad mouthed LSU to a recruit, he wouldnt of gotten a cent.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 6:04 pm to sicboy
I asked this day one
He probably can’t even give any details or what went down
He probably can’t even give any details or what went down
Posted on 1/10/18 at 6:05 pm to TenthTiger
Exactly
I don’t believe for a second he bad mouthed LSU
This is more to prevent him from saying anything
I don’t believe for a second he bad mouthed LSU
This is more to prevent him from saying anything
Posted on 1/10/18 at 6:44 pm to sicboy
I bet it’s standard. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Ed put it in there bc he’s clearly a paranoid control freak.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 7:51 pm to sicboy
Obvious Canada isn’t innocent in all this if he left that much money on the table. He must’ve fricked up
“I’m owed 3.3, but 1.7 sounds good”
Lol yeah right
“I’m owed 3.3, but 1.7 sounds good”
Lol yeah right
This post was edited on 1/10/18 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 1/10/18 at 7:57 pm to massiveattack
Perhaps he wanted out as bad as LSU wanted him out? And both sides negotiated it down to 50%. Seems logical
Posted on 1/10/18 at 8:16 pm to SportTiger1
It’s not logical when his contract said he’s owed twice that. He could’ve said kick rocks. LSU had no leverage to reduce it unless he did something. You didn’t see Les negotiating to take less money.
This post was edited on 1/10/18 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 1/10/18 at 8:32 pm to massiveattack
quote:
It’s not logical when his contract said he’s owed twice that. He could’ve said kick rocks. LSU had no leverage to reduce it unless he did something. You didn’t see Les negotiating to take less money.
Canada wants another job. If he got a job it reduced the buyout. The agreement now is not subject to reduction. So he gets this plus whatever money he can make in the next 2 years. He is gambling that he can make more than $1.6 mil in that time. He also got $1 mil up front, which ismlikely more than he would have had they not settled.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 8:33 pm to massiveattack
They probably could have shown cause if they had to. Risk on both sides with the that
Posted on 1/10/18 at 8:48 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Pretty embarrassing that the school name is spelled incorrectly. Who drafts these contracts for LSU?
O’s lawyer cousin. He has taken over for Dudley and Debosier as official attorneys of LSU
Posted on 1/10/18 at 9:11 pm to TenthTiger
quote:I don't agree with that. He clearly didn't something inexcusable, or he wouldn't have negotiated a lower buyout.
Had he bad mouthed LSU to a recruit, he wouldnt of gotten a cent.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 10:36 pm to airfernando
Yes he did, it wasn't about how the offense was run either, that's why everybody's lips are sealed.
This post was edited on 1/10/18 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 1/11/18 at 4:32 am to sicboy
I had a non-disparagement clause in the severance package of the last big company that laid me off.
It was good for about as long as it took the check to clear. Being a he said/she said kind of thing, those things are basically unenforceable.
It was good for about as long as it took the check to clear. Being a he said/she said kind of thing, those things are basically unenforceable.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 4:43 am to sicboy
O or Joe going to say something during the year that breaches the disparagement clause - book it.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News