- 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: Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money)
Posted on 11/11/25 at 2:50 pm to OceanMan
Posted on 11/11/25 at 2:50 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Its all just speculation.
Yeah, I think it is BS.
The lawsuit names several people that were in the meeting on LSU's side with Kelly. So, if this indeed happened, it should have been used the day he was fired if they feel it deems cause to fire.
Will those people testify that Kelly was insubordinate? Doubtful.
0
Posted on 11/11/25 at 2:50 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Either way, per the Contract, the LSU President has the explicit authority to terminate with cause
Who was President when Woody fired BK?
If I recall there was not a university president, he was hired a week or so after BK was fired.
So now are you saying that a new president can retroactively fire someone for cause who was actually already fired BEFORE said person was university president? That makes no sense at all
Posted on 11/11/25 at 2:53 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Was the cause curable?
He could have fired Sloan within the 7 day window, right?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:01 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
Who was President when Woody fired BK?
If I recall there was not a university president, he was hired a week or so after BK was fired.
Kelly filed the lawsuit exactly 7 days after the President was hired
quote:
So now are you saying that a new president can retroactively fire someone for cause who was actually already fired BEFORE said person was university president? That makes no sense at all
What I'm saying is that Woodward was not the President, and may not have had the authority to terminate with cause, which was suggested earlier
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:06 pm to UpToPar
quote:
He could have fired Sloan within the 7 day window, right?
Had it already been suggested that he be fired? This may have been the last refusal.
But again, this is speculation on my part. I just think with the news today, I think it was something small but also recurring (like going on vacation again during the bye week without permission) that started started the termination. Instead of going through with it, LSU and Kelly agree to re-negotiate the buyout. Then after 7 days, Kelly ends those discussions and try to say LSU has lost their window to fire with cause and the leverage it gave them to open up negotiations.
But the contract including "if it is curable" is an acknowledgement that some causes could not be cured. I think repeated insubordination would fall into that category.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:06 pm to lsuatty1311
Agreed - the relief requested in the lawsuit is simply a declaration that BK's termination with without cause and that he is entitled to the full amount of the buyout. The lawsuit does not request a monetary judgment.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:11 pm to lsuatty1311
Thank you LSU attorney. As an attorney myself, it is so ridiculous to see some of the comments that are made in here that people do not know what in the world they're talking about. So thank you for somebody with some reasonable minds to come through and let the rest of the public let the rest of these ranters know what is going on because I am truly believing 95% of them don't know their head from a hole in the ground. Thank you sir
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:15 pm to TigerDCC11
Brian Kelly is a scum bag human being and deserves NOTHING!!
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:19 pm to lsuatty1311
quote:
Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money), YET
FIFY
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:19 pm to Hale Lipari
quote:
Agreed - the relief requested in the lawsuit is simply a declaration that BK's termination with without cause and that he is entitled to the full amount of the buyout. The lawsuit does not request a monetary judgment.
Which is effectively a monetary judgement that was actively being negotiated
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:19 pm to lsuatty1311
quote:
There is no allegation that LSU has not paid or has refused to pay. Legally, this lawsuit is for a "Declaratory Judgment" to determine the relationship status between Kelly and LSU. Practically, it is a bullshite move designed to move the needle via social media. It is unnecessary and preliminary. Both sides were in active negotiations and would have likely settled without all of the dirty laundry. And if they did not settle on a lump sum settlement, then LSU would have still continued paying. Kelly is essentially daring LSU to bring out the dirt.
It’s the scorched earth move from someone negotiating in bad faith.
LSU should go to the mattresses
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:22 pm to Adam Banks
I'm with you on this one cake eater
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:35 pm to ActusHumanus
quote:
“The Head Coach shall, at all times, comply with and carry out the reasonable directives and decisions of the Athletic Director and the President. The Head Coach shall ensure that all assistant coaches and other football staff members also comply with the directives of the Athletic Director and President.”
This raises two separate questions:
1. Why would BK, not assume SW, his direct supervisor, had the authority to terminate his contract at this meeting on Sunday?
2. Why would LSU instruct BK, through SW, instruct BK to fire a staff member when the university has the ultimate authority on that issue?
I could just as easily interpret this very broad clause as to give authority to SW to terminate BK. Although I am sure it is outlined in another area of his contract.
If he was indeed terminated by SW at that meeting, BK has a legit argument.
Good for us we fired SW. Its not like hes an important witness to this fricking fiasco.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 3:47 pm to OceanMan
quote:
What I'm saying is that Woodward was not the President, and may not have had the authority to terminate with cause,
I get that but why is that BK’s problem?
If Woodward’s firing of BK was unauthorized, isn’t that LSU’s problem? Why should Bk be on the hook if Woody fired him without authorization?
If your boss fires you, and removes your access to the building, don’t keep showing up for work until his boss confirms it?
Isn’t a reasonable assumption that if your boss terminates you, he did so with authorization from his superiors?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:07 pm to lsuatty1311
Oh really? Here is what the lawsuit says:
As for "no monetary judgement". bullshite. Quit trying to pass of sophistry as logic.
What Kelly wants is his buyout. Period. THAT is the monetary judgment he seeks. And Attorney's fees.
quote:
LSU took the position that Coach Kelly had not been formally terminated and informed Coach Kelly's representatives, for the very first time, that LSU believed grounds for termination for cause existed. LSU also informed Coach Kelly's representatives that it did not believe that then-Athletics Director Woodward had the authority to terminate Coach Kelly and/or make settlement offers to him. Coach Kelly's representatives informed LSU that Coach Kelly disagreed with each of LSU's new positions, including (i) the idea that he somehow had not been terminated, (ii) that the then-Athletics Director Woodward was not acting with authority (in a meeting attended by several LSU athletics officials, including the current Athletics Director Ausberry), and (iii) that there were any grounds for termination with cause (or that LSU could manufacture any such grounds after his termination), thus necessitating this action.
As for "no monetary judgement". bullshite. Quit trying to pass of sophistry as logic.
What Kelly wants is his buyout. Period. THAT is the monetary judgment he seeks. And Attorney's fees.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:21 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
LSU also informed Coach Kelly's representatives that it did not believe that then-Athletics Director Woodward had the authority to terminate Coach Kelly and/or make settlement offers to him.
I’ve asked in a couple other threads and no one wants to answer, but how is this BK’s problem?
If Kelly’s boss fired BK without authorization, that is a Scott Woodward and LSU problem and BK, as much as I don’t like him, should not face any consequences from that.
In fact, if Woody fired him without authorization, would that not constitute an illegal termination and entitle Kelly to even more (buyout plus damages)?
If my boss fires me, am I supposed to help coming to work waiting to see if he was actually authorized to do so.
I think when Woodward informed BK that he was terminated, it was perfectly reasonable for BK to conclude that he was indeed terminated. Why would he assume otherwise?
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:28 pm to lsuatty1311
I upvoted your post, for the second sentence alone. Truer words have not been spoken.
Well, it depends. LSU told BK's reps yesterday, according to the lawsuit, that they had not yet formally terminated BK. That could be construed as an attempt to avoid the buyout.
Spot on. The only real issue in the lawsuit is whether or not he was fired for cause.
It was done to increase BK's leverage. Whether or not it was necessary depends on the status of the negotiations. Starting now, BK has to look for a job. If he is ready to retire then time is of the essence. So upping the leverage may be prudent for BK and his team.
And they will settle. It is not in BK's best interests to take a month by month buyout and risk further litigation over whether he is making good faith efforts to find a job.
LSU has not been served. The lawsuit may have been filed today (electronically), but the court is not open. They probably will not be served for at least another week. At that time, they will request the extension. But I suspect that they will have a response draft prepared by the end of the week.
quote:
There is no allegation that LSU has not paid or has refused to pay.
Well, it depends. LSU told BK's reps yesterday, according to the lawsuit, that they had not yet formally terminated BK. That could be construed as an attempt to avoid the buyout.
quote:
Legally, this lawsuit is for a "Declaratory Judgment" to determine the relationship status between Kelly and LSU.
Spot on. The only real issue in the lawsuit is whether or not he was fired for cause.
quote:
Practically, it is a bullshite move designed to move the needle via social media. It is unnecessary and preliminary.
It was done to increase BK's leverage. Whether or not it was necessary depends on the status of the negotiations. Starting now, BK has to look for a job. If he is ready to retire then time is of the essence. So upping the leverage may be prudent for BK and his team.
quote:
Both sides were in active negotiations and would have likely settled without all of the dirty laundry.
And they will settle. It is not in BK's best interests to take a month by month buyout and risk further litigation over whether he is making good faith efforts to find a job.
quote:
To its credit, LSU has not responded to the allegations yet.
LSU has not been served. The lawsuit may have been filed today (electronically), but the court is not open. They probably will not be served for at least another week. At that time, they will request the extension. But I suspect that they will have a response draft prepared by the end of the week.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:28 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
Good question.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:31 pm to lsuatty1311
This guys sucks. Rake his arse over coals and give him 0 pay for cause on whatever dirt you have on him. I'll bet that chaps his arse.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 4:37 pm to Dr. 3
quote:
I could just as easily interpret this very broad clause as to give authority to SW to terminate BK. Although I am sure it is outlined in another area of his contract.
The decision on whether or not termination was with or without cause is what’s in question. The contract says that needs to be in writing. In the “with cause” section, It says in the contract that LSU, through the President, can terminate with cause in writing.
IMO, if LSU has paid him as an employee and made the buyout offer, that would suggest that the possibility that this was for cause had been discussed and the termination notice from the president is pending.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News