re: Brian Kelly Files Suit Against LSU

quote:

---

The contract called for a 7 day notice if there was intent to fire for cause. There was no requirement to give prior notification of intent to terminate without cause.

---

Either the contract has been terminated, or it hasn’t. The contract says that termination, regardless of who terminates, whether there is cause or not, requires written notice.

And I read this a little differently. It’s not a 7 day notice period, it’s a cure period for the employee to provide a response from Kelly. He has the right, but not obligation to defend his position. And that is likely why it says “to the extent curable…employee has 7 days to cure”. It may not be curable, and rather than issue notice, they agreed to settlement negotiations before formal termination.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, Kelly doesn't need to accept anything other than what was agreed to in the contract. Now, he may accept less as a lump sum with no offset verbiage, but offering half while threatening to find "cause" after the fact is a bold strategy indeed.

---

My point is that Kelly has said this, not LSU. LSU has made a bonafide settlement offer to terminate the contract, which is standard practice. If he is still employed and contract hasn’t actually been terminated, I don’t see why he can’t still be terminated for cause

If he is no longer employed, I don’t think LSU can do anything. But again, Kelly has alleged this threat, LSU hasn’t said this publicly.

So do they have an uber-rich donor or not that is willing to front almost all of the buyout? If so, just buy him out and move on. You open the University up for scrutiny otherwise unless you have something gigantic that clearly was cause for termination outside of not winning enough.

quote:

---

Would this be the same as saying he doesn’t think he can, or isn’t planning to make more than $15M (or PV of that figure) over the next 5 years? For someone that actually wants to work (and thinks he’s worth $10M/year, because that’s what his current contract says), that seems like a pretty damn good deal. As of right now, he could make $50M and it would all got LSU. He takes the deal, and he nets $35M.

---

I think it’s a lot more complicated than that.

At baseline - yes, it comes down to the question of whether the PV of his future contracts is worth more or less than the $15m PV lost in a $30m lump sum settlement. I would agree that if he wants to work as a P4 head coach and a P4 school is willing to hire him, there’s a good chance he can make more than the $15m PV. But it’s not a guarantee.

Let’s be honest - he’s not getting another $9.5m/year contract. Someone in another thread floated a job like Syracuse where they currently pay their coach something like $4m/year. Over the 6 years remaining on his LSU contract (it’s 6, not 5) that would add up to $24m. But that’s assuming he gets another job in this cycle and that he gets a 6 year contract. Neither of those things are guaranteed. So there’s risk involved that you have to account for as well.

quote:

---

I was suggesting he could get sued by LSU for not pursuing work. Could be pretty costly for him and potentially free for LSU.

---

I understand. But keep in mind his contract doesn’t say he has to gain employment. It also doesn’t say he has to seek employment as a P4 head coach. It simply says he must “exercise due diligence and good faith seeking qualifying employment” - meaning “football-related employment, whether intercollegiate or professional, including coaching, administration, or media.”

So let’s say he doesn’t want to be a P4 head coach anymore. There are plenty of ways he can avoid doing so without necessarily opening himself up to a lawsuit. Maybe he takes a much lower-stress gig for a lot less money. Maybe he interviews for some P4 jobs knowing he won’t get them. Maybe he demands a salary that isn’t realistic - keep in mind that you yourself pointed out his current contract says he’s worth $10m/year, and it could be argued that accepting a lowball offer would also be problematic since it might appear to be taking advantage of his buyout at LSU.

The duty to mitigate isn’t nearly as easy to enforce as folks would like to believe, IMO.

On the other hand, let’s say he does want to be a P4 head coach again. My point was that if this is true, LSU dragging him through the mud might actually reduce his value on the the coaching market and either lead to a lower offset or give him reason to push for a higher lump sum.

quote:

---

There are a lot more reasons he could have been fired for cause that are somewhat soft and may make more sense to settle than litigate. Failure or refusal to perform stated duties seem to be overlooked. Among other things, some rumors suggesting the last fight had to do with coaching changes could actually result in termination with cause…

---

I do agree that folks are overlooking the possibility that there might actually be “recent” cause. To me, that’s the only hand LSU could really play and still have a chance to win in court. It’s just hard to give LSU the benefit of the doubt right now considering it’s looked like a clusterfrick all along.

quote:

---

Despite him being “fired”, was his employment contract officially terminated? We don’t know that.

---

Exactly

quote:

---

by default this is incorrect. His contract states such. He is owed the 54.

---

No, that’s not entirely accurate.

quote:

---

However the clause can reduce it like your saying. If LSU is using some bs shite to get him to fold and loses, huge bad look for LSU.

---

There is a clause to reduce it? There are three scenarios in which it can be terminated, each with stated liquidated damages that have been negotiated. The issue is whether the contract has already been terminated.

quote:

---

I hope the case gets allotted to an LSU alum Judge with LSU memorabilia all over chambers.

---

I think every judge in the civil division of 19th JDC is a Southern Law grad - even the two white guys.

quote:

---

They are claiming he was not given the right to cure.

---

Some causes are inherently incurable, which is acknowledged in the contract. If he was at odds with Woodward and unreasonably defiant, how could he cure it?

If they don’t ever give him written notice with cause, there is nothing to cure. I just don’t see how that window has closed. It isn’t unreasonable that they agreed to part ways a negotiate the buyout, rather than to pursue termination with cause. If that were the case, Kelly could have been trying to simply run out the clock, going through the negotiations in bad faith.

This is hypothetical, not my opinion. I clearly don’t want to work today.

quote:

---

Some causes are inherently incurable, which is acknowledged in the contract. If he was at odds with Woodward and unreasonably defiant, how could he cure it?

---

it was reported that Kelly left BTR for Florida during the bye week. That never happened even during the Hallman/Dinardo days.

https://saturdayblitz.com/brian-kelly-s-beach-vacation-during-the-bye-week-should-ve-been-the-final-straw
Assuming Woodward didn't approve this vacation in the middle of the season, this isn't curable. Looks like Kelly's attorneys and LSU are playing a high stakes game of chicken.

How is LSU going to ever recruit/hire a new coach if they continue with this BS about Kelly. All parties accepted the contract, pay the man and move on!

Just bad for the program.