re: “Nearly Impossible” for Kelly to get a job

quote:

---

The fact that he interviewed for the Penn St job and gave a commitment to them before they fired Franklin

---

This a fact or a rant fact?

If true, that's why he's trying to get terminated so bad. He's got a job lined up, but if he takes it without getting termed, he forefeits that money.

Why would anyone want to hire a coach for any price that can completely ruin a football program like LSU's. the man was and will always be a fraud. He relies completely on his assts, and he is such a fraud that he hired assts that didn't know what they were doing and BK didn't know the difference until it was too late. I wouldn't give bk $10 to coach a small hs program. He is that much of a football fraud.

yet he was still able to talk to other schools about a job.

Kelly got lazy and soft , no one wants that.

quote:

---

The letter states that due to the unclear nature of his termination that he is having difficulty finding employment This argument is likely based in the claim that LSU hasn't stated he isn't being fired for cause so other schools are not interested in talking to him until they know what cause LSU may have.

---

A claim that Kelly, not LSU, has made in a very public manner.

Again, LSU gave him an offer to settle during the same meeting he was fired during. They were never trying to hold the show up or hang the the threat of being fired for cause over his head.

quote:

---

Taking everything at face value because we don't have a comment from LSU on the allegation, this could all be remedied by LSU putting it in writing that they terminated Kelly without cause.

---

Which they may very well have been doing, they said in the last few days they are going through with the termination. But here again, Kelly is being aggressive and changing the narrative by making claims he cannot honor the contract that would actually entitle him to full damages.

If Kelly wants this to simply go away, maybe his legal team should STFU. Many on here think, in alignment with Kelly’s claims, that LSU can no longer fire for cause - if that’s truly the case, then be patient and wait for the paperwork. If it is impossible to mitigate, he should have documentation that he has tried in good faith, making this a non-issue.

quote:

---

The terms were already negotiated. They will most likely be renegotiated, but it's not required.

---

Ok, not sure what the point is here.

quote:

---

He doesn't have a duty to mitigate if he hasn't been terminated. This letter is an argument that the unclear status of his termination is causing him to be unable to find new employment.

---

Then he doesn’t have much to worry about. Get one school or agent to put this in writing to defend yourself in the event that LSU ever sues claiming he didn’t attempt to find work in the period of time that his termination status is unclear. That’s what someone confident in their legal position would do, if they simply wanted to work within the original contract.

quote:

---

It's really quite simple. If LSU wants this all to go away, they need to terminate him without cause. Brian Kelly would then be required to mitigate.

---

What does LSU need to go away? I don’t understand this position. LSU isn’t fighting anything and have been very quiet during this process.

If Kelly thinks he is terminated, then he will continue to get paid. Until that doesn’t happen, or some legal action from LSU happens (like enforcement of the mitigation duty), Kelly’s getting exactly what he is asking for.

quote:

---

If Brian Kelly fails to mitigate then that could be subject for future litigation.

---

Yet he is currently paying to preemptively defend himself without any threat of that litigation. It would be quite easy to defend this moment in time that you attempted to mitigate, if that conversation ever happened to take place. Which brings us back to negotiations. If you are already worried about this, and think you may be challenged on it, settle the damn contract quietly like a big boy.

His lawyers, unlike he, are duty-bound to do their best for him.

quote:

---

It’s baffling that so many don’t see this. I suppose everyone just thinks he is owed the remainder of his contract and LSU must be the ones slowing down the process. The reality is Kelly is “piling it on” because he does want to negotiate, but wants to strip LSU of any leverage they may have before that happens. Even if that leverage is just putting the school in a position of protecting its own brand.

---

See, this is where I disagree. You say Kelly wants to negotiate but from everything I’ve seen, I don’t think that’s true. I think he wants to collect his buyout.

From everything we’ve seen, it looks like LSU has been the party that wants to negotiate the buyout to a lump sum. And it appears they pivoted, at some point, to using the threat of a retroactive for-cause firing as a “stick” to force that negotiation.

This whole fiasco only makes sense if LSU is actually willing to fire him with cause. Which - if true - is something they probably should have initiated way earlier based on the contract terms.

If LSU confirmed that he was fired without cause a month ago, all of this goes away. Maybe they continue to negotiate behind closed doors. Or maybe they don’t, and the focus turns to Kelly’s duty to mitigate. But right now it’s not even clear whether he has a duty to mitigate because even though he was fired a month ago, we still don’t know whether he was fired with or without cause.

I agree with your stance that he probably wants to have his cake and eat it too (collect the buyout without actually searching for a job) but we haven’t even reached the point where that becomes relevant.

There’s nothing that says the termination has to be negotiated. LSU could just fire him and move on, enforcing the duty to mitigate provision once that time comes.