- 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: Hate him or not GOV Landry exposed a problem in the contract.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:15 pm to The Baker
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:15 pm to The Baker
quote:
I agree with him that's an issue.
Do you think he knows more than you about the current state of college football? Does he know more than the average person who posts here? Not at all. If he did he’d have already known all this stuff that became brand new to him only a few days ago. And that’s what should scare you to death. He is treading into territory he knows nothing about with no thought about how this could affect matters. He’s putting on his own little show. He could have accomplished what he’s concerned about behind the scenes or at least gathered all the facts and nuances of big time CFB first. I sure hope he doesn’t all of a sudden “find out” about NIL and recruiting. Sure he’d probably be “right about that too” but that hayseed bastard would set us back to the the 90’s.
0
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:16 pm to The Baker
It wouldn't be the entire $53 million right? It would just be the buyout for the portion that's state funded which was $400k per year. The TAF would be sued for the rest if they don't pay it but that amount isn't pledged state money
The donors are going to pay it though. If they said they weren't going to pay, then they simply wouldn't proceed with the firing. The fear tactics Landry is trying to use is pretty outrageous and only makes him look like a moron.
The donors are going to pay it though. If they said they weren't going to pay, then they simply wouldn't proceed with the firing. The fear tactics Landry is trying to use is pretty outrageous and only makes him look like a moron.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:17 pm to carguymatt
quote:
LSU is a 8-4 to 9-3 program. Quit thinking you're better . Landry is saying don't expect the state to pay for this shite in the future just b/c you lost to the AGGIES
Brother we don’t mind you sitting in on the grown up table but don’t think any of us want to hear what you think. There are maybe 2 schools in the conference that wouldn’t trade trophy cases with LSU in a heartbeat. Please pipe down.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:17 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
There's a way to do this behind the scenes that achieves the exact same goal
Meh.
If you don’t say something about it loudly people like Woodward will always do what they’ve always done.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:18 pm to loogaroo
quote:
So we would have had to keep sucking until his contract was up?
If no donor was going to pay the buyout - yes that’s exactly what we would have done.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:21 pm to The Baker
If the state doesn’t have the money and no donors are willing to pony up then guess what. You’re stuck with the shitty coach.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:23 pm to The Baker
quote:
exactly
We were partially right saying we were stuck with him.
I really didn't think someone would step up.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:25 pm to The Baker
The contract does not say explicitly the state is required to fund the buyout if a booster doesn’t pay it.
That’s implicit because someone has to pay the buyout and those are really the only 2 sources of money for the football team.
That’s implicit because someone has to pay the buyout and those are really the only 2 sources of money for the football team.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:25 pm to The Baker
quote:
it is explicitly stated IN THE CONTRACT that if a donor does not step up to pay the buyout that the state of louisiana is on the bill
Please show your work.
The contract says LSU has to pay the coach.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:26 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
If no donor was going to pay the buyout - yes that’s exactly what we would have done.
So maybe Landry got some donor to step up and save the program and the state a bunch of tax funded money.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:32 pm to The Baker
Everyone in America already knew sexton and others are manipulating the system
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:32 pm to The Baker
Three things; first the buyout is a monthly deal.
Second SW had already gotten assurances that as boosters or boosters would make it good. Three TAF is an insurance policy of last resorts.
Second SW had already gotten assurances that as boosters or boosters would make it good. Three TAF is an insurance policy of last resorts.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:38 pm to BigBinBR
He is also leaving out the part that the AD of LSU is nothing more than a fraudster of the same ilk as the Nigerian Prince who will send you a fortune if you only put up a few dollars for his expenses.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:41 pm to Cito2point0
quote:
calling out the fact that Woodward and Kelly have the same agent. Seems like a conflict of interest in my opinion.
Assuming Landry is even right, explain to me how having the same agent is a conflict of interest. There are only a handful of agents in that business; I can assure you this is the case in multiple places. There are significantly more conflicts of interest in Landry's dealings than in Woodward's.
I say if because I don't know who Woodward's agent is, but I do know that
BK's agent is Trace Armstrong. Landry seems to think they all have Sexton as an agent, so he is wrong about that to start with.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:43 pm to BigBinBR
quote:So then we are back to rewarding failure.
But he’s leaving out the part that BK would not have been fired so there would have been no buyout if a donor hadn’t agreed to pay it.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:44 pm to mdomingue
quote:
Assuming Landry is even right, explain to me how having the same agent is a conflict of interest. There are only a handful of agents in that business; I can assure you this is the case in multiple places. There are significantly more conflicts of interest in Landry's dealings than in Woodward's.
You're the first person I've seen trying to carry the water for these agents. wow
quote:
I say if because I don't know who Woodward's agent is, but I do know that
BK's agent is Trace Armstrong. Landry seems to think they all have Sexton as an agent, so he is wrong about that to start with.
Landry listed Armstrong by name. not Sexton.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:51 pm to loogaroo
quote:
So maybe Landry got some donor to step up and save the program and the state a bunch of tax funded money.
So you think Landry contacted donors and got them to pay the buyout? The same Landry that has been on TV and thinks the buyout has to come from the taxpayers?
You are apparently completely ignorant as to how it all works and went down.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 12:51 pm to The Baker
quote:
You're the first person I've seen trying to carry the water for these agents. wow
Stating a fact is only carrying water to those with an agenda. But of course, you were deflecting and not answering my question.
quote:
explain to me how having the same agent is a conflict of interest.
Answer that for me. And let me be specific, how is that a conflict for either an AD or a coach rather than for the agent?
ETA:
quote:
Landry listed Armstrong by name. not Sexton.
In this clip, he references Woodward, Kelly, and the "A&M coach" having the same agent. He has no clue and is just spewing. I know Kelly's agent is Armstrong, Jimbo is Sexton, and I cannot find who represents Woodward, though I do think it probably is Armstrong.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:38 pm to Teddy1388
quote:
BK would not have been fired without a donor picking up the tab
Adonor picked up the majority. Who is paying the rest? BK was fired , then the buyout was figured out.
which parties paid what on the buyout? It could be true that the donors only had to pay part of the buyout and BK got the whole buyout.
Looking like Woodward went too far and fired BK. BK responded with ----pay me. As a guarantor State had to get involved.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 1:54 pm to The Baker
God bless the Govna
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News