- 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 11/14/25 at 12:02 pm to Steelnrose
quote:That refusal might constitute cause for termination.
Kelly's "willful refusal" to fire Sloan materially breaches his duty to supervise/direct assistant coaches and comply with reasonable AD directives. It reads pretty straight forward to me.
But there is a BIG problem with this allegation.
LSU terminated him "effective immediately," but the contract requires LSU to give him an opportunity to cure, contest, and appeal that refusal before it can terminate Kelly.
Kelly's lawyers would love for LSU to make that allegation.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:04 pm to Steelnrose
quote:
Kelly's "willful refusal" to fire Sloan materially breaches his duty to supervise/direct assistant coaches and comply with reasonable AD directives. It reads pretty straight forward to me. These are normal duties of all NCAA head coaches.
We will see it play out in court, OR, Kelly settles and goes away, hopefully the latter. Either way this circus needs to end.
I don't disagree with the notion of willfully refusing to comply with a reasonable directive of the AD, but again I ask - was there an opportunity to "cure" this issue? Was notice of intent to fire over this provided, and an opportunity to resolve it?
I guess if I'm BK's lawyer, couldn't I argue that the contract stipulates that BK had the authority to hire / fire coaches and that the AD's role in this matter was advisory, and that there's a slippery slope with respect to failure to follow an AD directive?
I don't think this ever gets to court, to be honest. I can't imagine either side really wanting to get into this any deeper than they already are - and it really harms LSU more the longer this drags on.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:28 pm to Salviati
There’s a difference between changing an employee’s role & duties vs canceling or terminating a contract.
My understanding is LSU’s position is that Kelly’s role as head coach has changed, but the contract is still in place until it can be renegotiated. Kelly’s attorneys are seeking clarification that he isn’t fired for cause, eliminating their client’s downside.
This lawsuit will not go to trial.
My understanding is LSU’s position is that Kelly’s role as head coach has changed, but the contract is still in place until it can be renegotiated. Kelly’s attorneys are seeking clarification that he isn’t fired for cause, eliminating their client’s downside.
This lawsuit will not go to trial.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:33 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:No, LSU terminated his contract.
There’s a difference between changing an employee’s role & duties vs canceling or terminating a contract.
My understanding is LSU’s position is that Kelly’s role as head coach has changed, but the contract is still in place until it can be renegotiated.
LSU Athletics has made the decision to separate with football head coach Brian Kelly effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced Sunday.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:36 pm to Salviati
Can you point out the specific words that show LSU is not still paying Kelly?
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:40 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:That's irrelevant to the issue of whether LSU fired him.
Can you point out the specific words that show LSU is not still paying Kelly?
Besides, LSU is obligated to pay him liquidated damages because it fired him without cause.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:42 pm to Salviati
It’s actually not irrelevant. It’s the point.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:49 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:No. Continuing to pay him has no legal significance. The question is whether LSU fired Kelly.
It’s actually not irrelevant. It’s the point.
LSU has answered that question: "LSU Athletics has made the decision to separate with football head coach Brian Kelly effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced Sunday."
LSU Press Release
Posted on 11/14/25 at 12:54 pm to Salviati
If I conflated duties and contract, I would agree with your position. If I see these as 2 separate things, I would think differently.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:00 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:Duties and contract may well be two different things. It doesn't matter. LSU did not announce that it was changing Kelly's duties. LSU did not announce that Kelly was taking different duties at LSU.
If I conflated duties and contract, I would agree with your position. If I see these as 2 separate things, I would think differently.
LSU announced that it was terminating his contract.
"LSU Athletics has made the decision to separate with football head coach Brian Kelly effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced Sunday."
LSU Press Release
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:01 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:
There’s a difference between changing an employee’s role & duties vs canceling or terminating a contract.
My understanding is LSU’s position is that Kelly’s role as head coach has changed, but the contract is still in place until it can be renegotiated.
The contract is for the position of Head Coach though. Changing BK’s role would be a material breach.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:04 pm to Mo Jeaux
Yes, there's very specific language in the contract stating that BK's duties could be assigned by the AD as long as those duties are consistent with those duties typically assigned to head coaches at colleges and universities at the same competitive level as LSU.
They can't just arbitrarily turn him into a field turf technician.
I still think if LSU really wanted to go this way they should have suspended him, with pay, until all formalities had been adjudicated. Now, that may very well be LSU's position - that they are still paying him so technically he's just barred from performing his duties. But that's a tricky position to be in and probably could constitute breach on LSU's part.
They can't just arbitrarily turn him into a field turf technician.
I still think if LSU really wanted to go this way they should have suspended him, with pay, until all formalities had been adjudicated. Now, that may very well be LSU's position - that they are still paying him so technically he's just barred from performing his duties. But that's a tricky position to be in and probably could constitute breach on LSU's part.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:05 pm to Salviati
I could have sworn that the press release said that the terms (i.e. the contract) were still being negotiated.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Changing BK’s role would be a material breach.
Someone posted the contract here. The AD can determine Kelly’s duties. If LSU made a material breach, that would have been called out in the lawsuit by his attorneys.
A material breach would be missing a payment.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:09 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:
I could have sworn that the press release said that the terms (i.e. the contract) were still being negotiated.
His separation was being negotiated.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:12 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:
Someone posted the contract here. The AD can determine Kelly’s duties. If LSU made a material breach, that would have been called out in the lawsuit by his attorneys.
A material breach would be missing a payment.
You’re wrong, other than the part about missing a payment (yes, that would also be a material breach). If the position for which he was hired was changed, it would be a material breach. I’ve read his contract.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:15 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:
If LSU made a material breach, that would have been called out in the lawsuit by his attorneys.
I just reread this. Are you ok? I didn’t say that they breached the contract. I said they would have if they had just changed his role (which is what you were alleging). LSU terminated the contract.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:15 pm to Fast Times @ LSU
quote:It appears that LSU and Kelly are negotiating the terms of the separation: (1) how much LSU will pay of the liquidated damages (90% of Kelly's Base Salary and Supplemental Compensation); (2) when those payment(s) will be made, and (3) any amendment to the mitigation clause.
I could have sworn that the press release said that the terms (i.e. the contract) were still being negotiated.
This post was edited on 11/14/25 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 11/14/25 at 1:19 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
I don't think this ever gets to court, to be honest. I can't imagine either side really wanting to get into this any deeper than they already are - and it really harms LSU more the longer this drags on.
I want to know what dipshit thought it was a good idea to suddenly say we were firing him for cause. This is a mess of LSU's creation. The procedure for terminating the contract for cause is crystal clear.
This post was edited on 11/14/25 at 1:20 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News