- 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
re: Brian Kelly’s Full Contract
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:37 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:37 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
From a practical standpoint you may be right about private donors but from a Legal standpoint it sounds like from your argument, he’s right ?
2
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:48 pm to kew48
That’s my takeaway. Practically, we all know that’s not how it works. But the contract says what it says.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:49 pm to Chalkywhite84
Absolutely
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:50 pm to Chicken
quote:
Someone his age didn't need a 10 year contract
I don’t give a frick what age he was no coach should ever get a 10year contract
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:53 pm to SaintLSU
We would've given Saban a 10 year deal to come back to LSU
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 4:58 pm to kew48
quote:
From a practical standpoint you may be right about private donors but from a Legal standpoint it sounds like from your argument, he’s right ?
From a legal standpoint, he's right, because the party that would be sued (in the event that the buyout would not be paid by TAF) would be LSU and the LSU Board of Supervisors (as the governing arm of LSU), because they are parties to the contract.
In practice, private donors through TAF pay the lion's share of the LSU head football coach's salary.
... but we all know that it's never going to get to that point, because boosters always put up the money.
He also lied during that press conference and said that TAF is taxpayer funded, when everyone knows that's a lie.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 5:00 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
Landry is trying to make people think that the state will still be on the hook in the event that boosters don't pay the buyout, when he KNOWS that boosters aren't going to pull the plug on a coach and fire him if they aren't prepared to transfer the money.
I honestly don’t understand why people seem confused about this.
Of course LSU is on the hook for the contract value. That’s Kelly’s employer. The “boosters are paying for it” argument doesn’t mean that LSU gets to ride into the sunset without paying a dime if the boosters re-neg. You’d have to be a fricking idiot to think that. So it shocks me to see people go “see, it says we have to pay him!” No shite, Sherlock.
The point is that the athletic department is fully self-funded. If a reduced lump sum buyout is negotiated, TAF will fork it over because the athletic department isn’t going to agree to pay a $30 million lump sum unless they have the money.
In the worst case scenario where a reduced buyout can’t be negotiated and boosters refuse to fund it, the athletic department / TAF just continues to pay Kelly’s salary as normal (well 90% of it anyhow) through the remainder of the contract, and they have to cut their budget elsewhere to make it work. There’s no scenario where the athletic department is holding their hand out to the university asking for $50 million to pay Brian Kelly. None.
And if you want to make sure the state doesn’t give money to the athletic department, you don’t do it in the coach’s contract. You do it by telling the athletic department “no” when they ask for money.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 5:23 pm to Mo Jeaux
He'll negotiate a lump sum.
Otherwise, LSU deducts any and all money he receives from coaching and or media.
JMO, but the second sentence is fact.
Otherwise, LSU deducts any and all money he receives from coaching and or media.
JMO, but the second sentence is fact.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 2:42 pm to BayouBandit24
There it is in black and white; LSU has no defense in getting out of paying this guy.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:25 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
From a legal standpoint, he's right, because the party that would be sued (in the event that the buyout would not be paid by TAF) would be LSU and the LSU Board of Supervisors (as the governing arm of LSU), because they are parties to the contract.
And this is exactly what just happened.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:26 pm to BayouBandit24
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:29 pm to BayouBandit24
No annual leave....hmmmmm I wonder.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:33 pm to BayouBandit24
quote:
Section 11.A.1.d might be the place to look.
But 11.A.1.s and 11.A.3. could be problems there. We don't know what written notices were given.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:54 pm to kew48
quote:
Landry says that the state of Louisiana is in the hook for liquidated damages if a donor does not step up . Where does it say that in the contract ?
Since it’s between the state and “Kelly”, the cost is on the state. That implies the taxpayers but not required. That’s what little lying landry didn’t understand. Donors pick up the buyout and always have.
As for legal costs to pay these massive legal costs, heh… that’s on the taxpayers.
Nice work Little lying Landry
Posted on 11/11/25 at 10:48 pm to Chicken
Imagine if the board told Woody 7 years max, BK scoffed at it, so he had to settle for Kiffin 
I guess to be fair we could have settled for Napier just as easily. But at least the buyout would have been a lot cheaper.
I guess to be fair we could have settled for Napier just as easily. But at least the buyout would have been a lot cheaper.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 4:59 pm to BayouBandit24
quote:
No Overtime
Did Kelly think this meant working extra was forbidden???
Posted on 11/12/25 at 7:34 pm to Chicken
Let us do it now 
Posted on 11/16/25 at 12:32 pm to Y.A. Tittle
It specifically has morality language as well as other language which implies good conduct
Posted on 11/16/25 at 12:37 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
. but we all know that it's never going to get to that point, because boosters always put up the money.
Lawsuit has been filed.
Posted on 11/19/25 at 6:31 pm to stein69
Bc they are still putting together their leverage for negotiations.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News