re: What is Kelly hiding?

I agree with just about everything you are saying.

We are all basing what LSU is doing or saying on Brian Kelly’s lawsuit and random information that may or may not be true.

I’ve said this several times on here and I agree with you - a settlement is best. The two sides can mutually benefit. But if LSU is just now saying “hold up, we didn’t fire you” then any path they take here is rife with issues.

It may not be true, though, so LSU could just say “F off, we will pay you but we do not have to make this easier or better for you.” And if it is true, then my uneducated non lawyer brain tells me that LSU will lose hard on this. Any judge or arbitrator will say that it appears that they terminated him. And if LSU then comes out and says “well he violated the terms of the agreement on these dates,” LSU will then be asked “and where are the copies of the notices of intent to terminate on those grounds as soon as it happened?”


You see, LSU can’t say, “well he had a an extra marital affair back in 2023, and we are just now getting around to firing him for cause.” That’s what I mean by this path being a minefield.

quote:

---

Who said they’re claiming incompetence? All they’re telling Kelly’s attorneys is that he hasn’t been formally terminated yet. The incompetence is assumed but can’t be proven. They will just say the notice of pending termination isn’t binding per his contract language. Only written notice is acceptable

---

LSU's "no written notice, so no termination" schtick ignores the elephant stomping through the room: the October 27 press conference where Woodward declared Kelly "no longer the head coach," the immediate lockout from his office and facilities (as detailed in the petition), and the board's rubber-stamp silence while they lowballed him $25M/$30M under without-cause terms.

Not a whisper of "for cause" until Kelly lawyered up and called their bluff—now it's retroactive whataboutism on recruiting gripes they knew about for years?

That's not procedure; that's a bad-faith bait-and-switch, straight-up inducing reliance (Civil Code Art. 1967) so Kelly starts his job hunt in the "fired coach" penalty box, tanking his market value. The contract's good faith covenant (Art. 1983) nukes this equivocation; courts won't let them un-fire him on a technicality after the damage is done and the headlines are eternal. Woodward and the board own this—expect a judge to call it "termination by any reasonable measure" and hit 'em with interim payments before Thanksgiving IMHO.

quote:

---

LSU's "no written notice, so no termination" schtick ignores the elephant stomping through the room: the October 27 press conference where Woodward declared Kelly "no longer the head coach," the immediate lockout from his office and facilities (as detailed in the petition), and the board's rubber-stamp silence while they lowballed him $25M/$30M under without-cause terms. Not a whisper of "for cause" until Kelly lawyered up and called their bluff—now it's retroactive whataboutism on recruiting gripes they knew about for years?

---

Well I consider offering $25/30 when you have cause that could reduce it to zero generous but what do I know.


LSU announced his pending termination with negotiation of severance ongoing.


It would not be the first time a company paid a reduced buyout in lieu of pr nightmare litigation.

LSU alleges that they didn’t officially terminate him (which would keep their options open) which would not be surprising given they were trying to give a generous offer to avoid costly litigation both expense wise and PR wise. If they have cause why would they give up that option and start the clock do so when negotiations for a quiet parting are ongoing?

quote:

---

LSU alleges that they didn’t officially terminate him

---

No, Brian Kelly is alleging that LSU is saying they didn’t officially terminate him.

There is a difference. You are using a lawsuit as a statement of fact, and you are accepting the words they are putting in LSU’s mouth.

Fortunately for both parties, there is a contract that will dictate how this is handled, and now that there is a lawsuit, a judge will arbitrate based on facts and evidence rather than hearsay and innuendo.

Kelly will most likely lose this lawsuit in the second half. His teams usually fade after a furious start

quote:

---

Brian Kelly is alleging that LSU is saying they didn’t officially terminate him. There is a difference. You are using a lawsuit as a statement of fact, and you are accepting the words they are putting in LSU’s mouth.

---

I think that it’s safe LSU would publically say that they officially terminated him without cause rather than go through this PR nightmare if that’s what they had done

quote:

---

I think that it’s safe LSU would publically say that they officially terminated him without cause rather than go through this PR nightmare if that’s what they had done

---

You mean they need to say it more times that they fired him?

Has LSU ever made a public statement on this matter that equivocated on whether Kelly was fired?

quote:

---

I cant image Kelly ever steps foot in Baton Rouge or on LSU campus again.

---

If I’m LSU and i end up having to pay the buyout I make sure that it’s over the length of the contract and that no direct deposit allowed. He has to show up to the bursars office every month to get his check and that the check is voided if not deposited within 1 week of being written


I mean it would obviously be pretty easy for him to do so but just to make it as inconvenient as possible would be just a little bit satisfying

This statement by Woodward is the kiss of death for any “for cause” argument.

quote:

---

Well I consider offering $25/30 when you have cause that could reduce it to zero generous but what do I know

---

There is no real evidence anywhere at this point that LSU had “cause”.