re: Brian Kelly Files Suit Against LSU

quote:

---

If there truly was an issue prior to termination with Coach Kelly (and I am no fan of his), there should be written documentation — just like there would (or should) be for any other person working in the state, federal, or private sector from his boss, Scott Woodward.

---

I honestly think they were getting together a plan to fire BK at the end of the year but Scott Woodward sped that process up and screwed up the plan they had.
They were getting together information on a buyout settlement and were gathering information but when SW fired him all that got threw out the window.So now they are having to do things on the fly
Just my opinion

quote:

---

Facts in evidence Landry is an idiot.

---

I bet you voted for the person that should have been the governor.

quote:

---

It almost makes me wonder if the "donor" is getting cold feet for putting up the money. Originally LSU was "It's not a problem, we will pay his buyout." Now they are trying to wiggle out of it all together.

---

Same. It’s easy to say “yeah I’ve got $10 million towards the buyout” after 5 drinks in a suite during the game. Might have felt a little different the next morning.

Yall really cant be seriously ok with letting that con artist get away with what he did on LSU's dime? All I saw here was fire Kelly because we arent winning and he is on vacation or playing golf everyday instead of preparing his team. Now that its done , yall want to bitch about how it was done, frick this place is miserable.

quote:

---

Now that its done , yall want to bitch about how it was done

---

It isn’t hard to operate discretely and professionally. Well, it usually is for LSU and Louisiana in general, but it isn’t for most people and institutions.

quote:

---

In the end, it is a mess, but Kelly is trying to force a higher settlement and removal of any contractual obligations. LSU does not have to do either.

---

Where are y’all getting this?

From what I can tell, Kelly wants LSU to formally acknowledge that he was not fired with cause. Saying he’s entitled to the “full” buyout is not the same as saying he’s entitled to the full buyout as a lump sum with no preconditions.

All indications are that LSU is the side pushing for a lump sum settlement.

It appears that LSU is trying to use the threat of retroactively firing him with cause as leverage to negotiate a lower settlement. Kelly’s attorneys are saying that LSU missed their opportunity to fire him with cause, and that they need to acknowledge that the full buyout is due (in equal installments as required per the contract). That’s not a crazy position to take if LSU is posturing as if he wasn’t actually fired by Woodward.

Yes, football is entertainment and I support going full circus at this point - have Kelly show up with his LSU polo on ready to coach on Saturday and force the school to admit he has been fired by not letting him on the sideline. Think how many times the cameras would pan over to him during the game…. They’d have to either say he is suspended or “elevate him” to advisor role and put in booth.

quote:

---

And if you morons don’t think this shitshow will affect the coaching search, then the old cliche about selling you oceanfront property in Arizona applies.

---

The real morons are the ones that didn’t see this risk upfront or how it is still a risk with the next coach. Same folks were the first to want Kelly gone… they don’t understand contracts, negotiations or the stakes involved m. Now they are scared of the headlines. There are always risks in firing and hiring new coaches, it comes with the territory.

LSU negotiating the buyout is not stupid, unethical, etc. He stands to make the same money for less work, it would silly not to negotiate. Kelly has publicly said he is open to it, and with offset relief, he would be free to do whatever he wants moving forward. It’s fairly easy to see that he could wind up in a better position, if he still think he is a top tier coach.

There is no indication the Kelly is not being paid, and as long as he does, LSU is holding up their end of the deal regarding the buyout. Kelly has apparently turned down settlement offers and is now trying to force their hand so they can’t fire for cause, because he sees a risk now of getting nothing because he declined settlement. It’s a bold move by Kelly, who knows how LSU will or could potentially respond, but he is simply trying to eliminate the floor now that he has denied the middle.

All that said, I don’t really care if this scares off a potential coach. In fact it may help weed out candidates that aren’t committed or limits contract price or duration of the next coach. Nevertheless, there was no guarantee we walked out of this with a better coach, regardless of how we handled this. It seems like many still don’t understand this very basic and apparent concept.

quote:

---

That said, I’m not quite sure I understand the entire premise of the lawsuit - if Kelly says he hasn’t been fired, and is still being paid…is he relieved of his performance obligations? This move just seems premature.

---

Let’s assume the following facts, as alleged, are correct:

- Kelly is fired by Woodward.
- There is no mention at the time of cause.
- LSU offers to settle with a lump sum well below the NPV of the buyout and Kelly rejects that offer.
- Woodward gets fired, governor makes his comments, etc. and there is a lot of upheaval at LSU.
- LSU continues to negotiate, but new representatives take the position (two weeks after his termination) that they have “cause” for firing, effectively saying they have leverage to avoid paying any of the buyout if he doesn’t want to negotiate.
- Kelly’s attorneys point out that the steps required to fire him with cause were not taken.
- LSU’s new representatives respond that he wasn’t formally terminated despite the fact that they’ve publicly announced his termination and promoted an interim coach. Again trying to preserve the threat of a firing with cause (and therefore zero buyout) for leverage.
- Kelly and his attorneys say “frick that” and sue LSU to force them to acknowledge that he was terminated without cause.

The reason for the lawsuit is that LSU’s representatives allegedly told Kelly he hasn’t been formally terminated and that a for-cause firing was still on the table. If you’re Kelly, you can’t allow that position to stand. Think about it - he’s no longer going to work. If you allow LSU to act like he wasn’t actually terminated, you’re giving them cause. They’re nipping that argument in the bud.

It’s not about wanting the buyout as a lump sum or wanting the mitigation clause removed, or whatever else. It’s about keeping LSU from using any sort of backdoor to avoid paying him. Maybe Kelly would prefer a lump sum, but if so he wants the starting position to be the buyout he’s actually owed under the contract rather than the threat of a retroactive for-cause firing.

I don’t think it’s premature at all if the allegations about LSU’s comments (saying Kelly hadn’t been formally terminated and Woodward didn’t have authority) are true.

Bad look. What was the buyout if they waited until after the season? Still $54?