- 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
0
Posted on 11/12/25 at 2:50 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Because future coaches are watching.
Tell them very publicly they get bks buyout as their signing bonus when we fire him for cause.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 3:28 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
it seems to put LSU and the state in a difficult position to defend.
Exactly why Landry jumped in and told him to go F himself, immediately. Woodward correct action should have been to walk out and go to BOS and get proper documents of approval, then draft a letter of termination .
Instead, he went and ran his mouth and, in turn, put LSU and the STATE OF LOUISIANA on the hook for the buyout in full.
Maybe now, the complete group of MORONS on the rant can understand why Landry had to immediately put a buffer between Woodward and the state. Landry and company know the only way there is a shred of hope to lower buyout amount, is to seperate us from Woodwards actions and maybe claim he wasn't acting thr legal channels as demanded in the contracts.
Now you know why his attorney thinks hes owed all, and we offered a lower (30M), using our shaky leverage
Posted on 11/12/25 at 3:57 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Not sure how you let him out the room without agreeing that his termination agreement is pending and that compensation will be status quo until that is determined...with arbitration/mediation included.
There’s a pretty simple and plausible (IMHO) answer to this question: Maybe they just didn’t actually intend to fire him with cause.
That’s basically what the lawsuit alleges. It says that in the meeting (with Woodward, Verge, and others) when he was terminated, he was told that the termination was without cause. It notes that the press release that same day announcing Kelly’s firing cites on-field success as the reason. It says Kelly’s representatives spoke to Verge, Cromer, and Laborde the next day, and that they confirmed again at that time that he was being fired without cause and that they would honor the buyout.
Then Woodward was fired on 10/30, and the lawsuit does not allege any further acknowledgement by LSU after that time. Is it that hard to imagine a scenario where LSU’s intentions changed after Landry’s remarks, Woodward’s firing, and the installation of the new system President?
If LSU didn’t intend to fire him with cause initially, there would have been no reason to memorialize anything related to cause. The baseline is his contractual buyout, and if they can’t reach an agreement then it just defaults back to that.
There may be more to the story and what we know right now is certainly skewed towards Kelly’s side, but I don’t find this scenario very hard to believe at all.
Posted on 11/12/25 at 4:46 pm to lostinbr
quote:
That’s basically what the lawsuit alleges.
Kelly is a dishonorable prick I don’t care what he alleges. He’s a liar.
quote:
There’s a pretty simple and plausible (IMHO) answer to this question: Maybe they just didn’t actually intend to fire him with cause.
I think you are right, but I also think he knows he should have been, which is why they entered settlement discussions.
My personal opinion is that he is trying to use the situation that LSU wanted to avoid (the ugliness of firing with cause) to get more than what he bargained for in the original contract.
You and I had an exchange regarding the PV of the buyout offer that I considered pretty eye opening, and appreciated the dialogue. It seems like it was actually a very fair offer. The value of his mitigation clause is about $15M. Given his duty to mitigate he would basically go over that with any HC job. To me, that implies he is actually trying to renegotiate to get more than what he originally had.
quote:
There may be more to the story and what we know right now is certainly skewed towards Kelly’s side, but I don’t find this scenario very hard to believe at all.
I appreciate your comments and find most of what you say reasonable and logical. I’ve got to run to kids football but look forward to future discussions with you
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News