- 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 7:12 pm to Hale Lipari
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:12 pm to Hale Lipari
But if the court rules in Kelly's favor then LSU will be obligated to pay him under the terms of the contract for being fired without cause.
Once that happens, if LSU doesn't negotiate an alternative and fails to pay, it is a real easy case before the court to order payments.
Once that happens, if LSU doesn't negotiate an alternative and fails to pay, it is a real easy case before the court to order payments.
1
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:16 pm to OceanMan
quote:
He ended the negotiations with the lawsuit. Did I need to actually include that part?
The lawsuit actually intended to force LSU to come to the table with more money. A lawsuit doesn't end negotiations. It just changes the dynamic. Kelly really doesn't want a protracted lawsuit. He knows LSU can't afford one in the court of public opinion while conducting a new coaching search.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:23 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
But if the court rules in Kelly's favor then LSU will be obligated to pay him under the terms of the contract for being fired without cause.
Once that happens, if LSU doesn't negotiate an alternative and fails to pay, it is a real easy case before the court to order payments.
I think there is less than 1% chance that this goes to trial. The purpose of this lawsuit was to force a settlement either with a 1) negotiated lump sum buyout, 2) an agreement for LSU to just pay liquidated damages but still have mitigation obligation in effect or 3) something in the middle.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:43 pm to lsuatty1311
quote:
The lawsuit actually intended to force LSU to come to the table with more money. A lawsuit doesn't end negotiations. It just changes the dynamic.
I definitely understand that, the negotiations may have reset but they definitely ended with this move. And while I understand it maybe intended to, I don’t agree this forces more money from LSU. don’t think there is a ton of meat left on that bone - the last reported offer was actually fair, lump sum that eliminated the mitigation duties.
quote:
Kelly really doesn't want a protracted lawsuit. He knows LSU can't afford one in the court of public opinion while conducting a new coaching search.
This is way riskier than I think you are appreciating it to be.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:45 pm to FWBTigah
quote:
I'll add to it.... also someone who is owed all of his buyout if he wants it
Owed by whom?
The state?
Good luck.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:47 pm to lsuatty1311
quote:
The purpose of this lawsuit was to force a settlement either with a 1) negotiated lump sum buyout, 2) an agreement for LSU to just pay liquidated damages but still have mitigation obligation in effect or 3) something in the middle.
He provided an opening for it to end with a termination for cause and a battle with the state over the damages.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:50 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Kelly really doesn't want a protracted lawsuit. He knows LSU can't afford one in the court of public opinion while conducting a new coaching search.
quote:
This is way riskier than I think you are appreciating it to be.
As I understand it, this puts the responsibility on paying his contract in the hands of the state.
That frees up millions (if not tens of millions) in private funds to go get a new coach / NIL.
If I have understood correctly…
BK is fricked
and
LSU is stacked
ETA - Sexton won’t allow for these loopholes to exist in any contract signed by a coach he represents.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:52 pm to OceanMan
quote:
He provided an opening for it to end with a termination for cause and a battle with the state over the damages.
I think people are missing this part.
The lawsuit is against the state.
If the state loses…he has to (somehow) extract that money from them.
That means the money people STILL have that cash readily available.
If I misunderstood the current circumstances, tell my where I’m wrong.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:57 pm to ActusHumanus
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
Remember LSU did not have a President in place at the time. Doesn’t say “and/or” or “or” it says both which would be impossible for BK to comply with.
Remember LSU did not have a President in place at the time. Doesn’t say “and/or” or “or” it says both which would be impossible for BK to comply with.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:09 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
The lawsuit is against the state. If the state loses…he has to (somehow) extract that money from them.
That means the money people STILL have that cash readily available.
Ding ding ding
Landry might actually be playing 4D chess here
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:13 pm to Gnash
quote:
Landry might actually be playing 4D chess here
That would make the seemingly moronic grandstanding about no taxpayer dollars being used for a coaches buyout prophetic.
It is a BAD look imho, but if that (supposed) stack of cash can be used for NIL, then whomever the next coach is will be a happy camper (provided his agent isn’t dumb enough to allow him to sign the same contract).
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:17 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
If I misunderstood the current circumstances, tell my where I’m wrong.
I think all of what you said is fair. This wasn’t just the next round of negotiations. He is applying a lot of pressure and introducing a complication of not having a guarantee for the funding by suing the state.
The state may sue TAF for the funds, and then proceed to do LA court shite until he is 90
He is essentially banking on the idea that LSU needs to keep things civil to not tank their coaching search, and otherwise move on - much more reputation to lose. I’m just not sure he calculated how much the suit, and related allegations may impact goodwill.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:34 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
That would make the seemingly moronic grandstanding about no taxpayer dollars being used for a coaches buyout prophetic. It is a BAD look imho
Yes it’s dirty and hopefully they would never publicly admit to it.
As dumb as they’ve come off so far in all of this, we forget that all these guys in LSU’s corner are attorneys with decades of law practice in this state.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 11/11/25 at 9:13 pm to Chad504boy
That is an unfair assessment of him.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 9:14 pm to mike4lsu
quote:
That is an unfair assessment of him.
frickumike4satan
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:32 am to OceanMan
Posted on 11/12/25 at 6:52 am to krewerider
I know he said he was open, but was he actually open to it? Which is why I asked if he countered.
ETA: I’m suggesting he was not actually open to it, because he was given a fair offer with no reported counter.
That email was written deliberately with or by his attorney to frame this as LSU’s decision and they planned to pay his buyout. He was planning this since before being let go.
ETA: I’m suggesting he was not actually open to it, because he was given a fair offer with no reported counter.
That email was written deliberately with or by his attorney to frame this as LSU’s decision and they planned to pay his buyout. He was planning this since before being let go.
This post was edited on 11/12/25 at 6:56 am
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News