re: What is Kelly hiding?

quote:

---

I don’t think the issue is so much around the termination, but whether or not it was for cause. Contract breaches end in settlements all the time. The fact that negotiations ever happened suggest that LSU had leverage and did not intend to pay the full amount. Woodward was removed shortly after, who at LSU does Kelly think he made this deal with?

---

It's easy to look back and kick this around a bit and make it seem like Kelly is gaslighting LSU on this. But go back to Sunday October 26th - it got really smoky at midday...and by late afternoon / early evening the smoke became fire...and then the AD sent a message out publicly - he had fired Brian Kelly and that terms of the separation were being negotiated. So to answer your question...on that day, those deals were being negotiated with Scott Woodward, who he had every reason to believe was acting as an agent of the university.

quote:

---

From the lawsuit, the things that Kelly alleged are significant 1. He wasn’t really fired 2. Woodward didn’t have authority (because no president had been hired, hired shortly after) 3. Said he may be fired for cause for the first time - what do you think the settlement talks were about Brian?

---

I think #2 is really an interesting issue. I think it will be really hard to demonstrate a material difference in the effect that Woodward firing Kelly had and whether or not he was empowered to do that. If Woodward didn't have the authority to do it...then why did LSU stand by it? I guess it would have been embarrassing, but no more embarrassing than anything else that has happened since. LSU could have put out a statement that Kelly had not been fired, and that Woodward had gone rogue, and that instead they were dismissing Woodward. But they didn't - so whether or not Woodward had the authority or not looking back on it seems irrelevant - the damage had been done, Kelly had been terminated, and he had been replaced on an interim basis by Frank Wilson.

As for #3 - there are a lot of reasons to negotiate a buyout settlement of a contract; having dirt on the employee is one, but the broader reason is to hasten the final termination of the contract. LSU no more wants to be supplementing Brian Kelly's income for 6 years than Kelly wants to be contractually tied to LSU, especially if he wants to find another job coaching. It's simply cleaner and better, and standard practice, to at least attempt to move on from these things. That said, a $25mm buyout against a $54mm contract due is a joke. So is $30mm.

quote:

---

It’s quite possible that they are still following the procedures in the contract. My opinion is that Kelly’s legal team misinterpreted the 7 day cure period and jumped the gun filing this as soon as they possibly could (7 days in the middle of the night after the president was hired - per the contract the president is charged with the power to terminate).

---

Come on. The university had an interim President - Matt Lee. He was the President of the University at the time; either way, if there was a notice provided to Brian Kelly why haven't we seen it yet? We can see emails that Kelly sent but not a formal notice from the state that it intends to terminate the contract for cause? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

quote:

---

Both of my examples would be considered incurable, as they were part of a pattern, so I’m not even sure the 7 day cure period would kick in. Further, the cure period is for the employee to defend themself, not a contractual deadline for the terminating party.

---

How would your first example be considered incurable?

"Coach, fire the OC."
"No."
"Okay...here's your notice of our intent to fire you for cause. You have 7 days to fix this."
"Sloan, you are fired."

Again, I can see a thin case for your examples being "for cause," and let's say that LSU is in the midst of this process. Wouldn't it have served LSU better to have suspended Brian Kelly rather than publicly terminate him while stating that it was because of on field performance?

quote:

---

LSU is not bumbling around, they were in a good faith negotiation, Kelly was not. So LSU looks like they are caught with their pants down when Kelly turned the light on. I’d prefer we pull are pants back up before turning the lights back on and make Kelly look like the a-hole again. Don’t need to drag it out, announce we are paying the buyout to get past this, but we’re in active negotiations with Kelly to not fire for cause.

---

How do you know that they were in good faith negotiation? What evidence do we have that either side is engaging in good faith negotiation? My sense is that from the get go, tempers were flared and things were said...so both sides are doing what they can to cover their asses.

When I say LSU is bumbling around, they are not doing anything to contradict the very public perception that this whole thing was done without a plan, without alignment, and without leadership support.

quote:

---

He sends an email to wanting to start negotiations on a lump sum trying to start the 7 day timer. He negotiates in bad faith to get past the “cure period” then exits negotiations and sues. Bad form. What is he hiding that he chose to try to run out the clock?

---

He forgot Nuss used all the timeouts in the first quarter on the first plays of a drive

quote:

---

So to answer your question...on that day, those deals were being negotiated with Scott Woodward, who he had every reason to believe was acting as an agent of the university.

---

Right, but those deals were not finalized in writing and Woodward is gone. Gone quickly.

quote:

---

I think #2 is really an interesting issue. I think it will be really hard to demonstrate a material difference in the effect that Woodward firing Kelly had and whether or not he was empowered to do that.

---

The distinction is that per the contract, the President is the one that has the authority to terminate with cause, with a prescribed appeals process. It’s not that Woodward didn’t have authority to relieve him of his duties (fire him), it’s that per the contract, that notice comes from the president of the university. That document is yet to be written. So he is terminated from his position, but his contract has not been terminated.

quote:

---

That said, a $25mm buyout against a $54mm contract due is a joke. So is $30mm.

---

$30M lump sum vs $54M over 5 years, plus the removal of mitigation duty. That’s hardly a joke, it’s actually a very fair deal for someone that wants to work again.

quote:

---

Come on. The university had an interim President - Matt Lee. He was the President of the University at the time;

---

They brought up the 7 day thing in the lawsuit, so I am just guessing in the timing because the President had been there 7 days (interrupting the 7 day window of the interim president) - again this is just a guess

quote:

---

either way, if there was a notice provided to Brian Kelly why haven't we seen it yet?

---

There wasn’t, that’s the entire point.

quote:

---

We can see emails that Kelly sent but not a formal notice from the state that it intends to terminate the contract for cause? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

---

No, I don’t think it’s odd I think his attorneys wrote that message for him to establish their narrative in writing. They did this knowing they were verbally negotiating with LSU which would influence the final termination notice.

quote:

---

How would your first example be considered incurable?

---

Because they had asked him to do it previously and he didn’t. So LSU fired him after firing Kelly. It would be incurable for a coach to no longer listen to the AD. Timing was of the essence, they had 2 weeks to play bama, Waiting a week for Kelly to do what he has been told and fire the crappy OC would not be practical.

quote:

---

Again, I can see a thin case for your examples being "for cause,"

---

It’s pretty clear in the contract that it could be for cause. But I think your sentiment is reflected in the buy out offer that you consider a joke.

quote:

---

How do you know that they were in good faith negotiation? What evidence do we have that either side is engaging in good faith negotiation?

---

Because they were quickly presenting bonafide offers to move toward resolution while paying him under the current contract terms. The first offer was declined and they sent a better offer…that is how negotiations typically work for the side trying to make a deal. To our knowledge, Kelly said he was open to it, but simply declined the offers and never countered, and is now trying to claim some sort of contractual time window had closed.

Which one to you appears to be in good faith? Did one party seem more serious than the other?

quote:

---

My sense is that from the get go, tempers were flared and things were said...so both sides are doing what they can to cover their asses.

---

LSU presented a path for Kelly to walk away with $80M in 5 years and the ability to do whatever he wants with his future. Brian declined both offers and sued them, forcing their hand to either bring cause or pay the remaining buyout.

Brian is the one dragging this out, no getting around that. Don’t say you are open to negotiating if you are not.

quote:

---

When I say LSU is bumbling around, they are not doing anything to contradict the very public perception that this whole thing was done without a plan, without alignment, and without leadership support.

---

Which Brian Kelly has inflamed and is trying to capitalize on. He said he was open to negotiations, LSU did so, and then pulled the rug out publicly. It’s a horse shite move

Thanks for the fun debate on this - I think a reality is that we don't know all the facts, nor will we likely ever. But here are some thoughts in reply to your thoughtful comments...

quote:

---

Right, but those deals were not finalized in writing and Woodward is gone. Gone quickly.

---

Agreed, he was gone quickly, and it would be very hard for BK to hold LSU to a verbal deal made by a now-fired employee.

quote:

---

The distinction is that per the contract, the President is the one that has the authority to terminate with cause, with a prescribed appeals process. It’s not that Woodward didn’t have authority to relieve him of his duties (fire him), it’s that per the contract, that notice comes from the president of the university. That document is yet to be written. So he is terminated from his position, but his contract has not been terminated.

---

If you dissect it a bit there's a little bit of nuance here. The contract says that LSU, through the President, can provide written notice of termination for a variety of reasons. I'd assume you are suggesting that cause could have been derived from 11.A.e, wherein BK "unreasonably refused or repeatedly failed" to perform any duties imposed upon Employee or failing to perform to the best of his ability. This notice of termination does come from the University, and starts a 7-day cure period. If after 7-days no curative actions are taken, the university then provides written notice of intent to terminate, which contains the grounds and facts supporting the intent to terminate for cause. BK then gets 7 days to respond and the Athletic Director then reviews. The AD's decision is then appealable to the President, who makes the final call.

So yes, the President must give notice to terminate with cause; termination without cause does not contain such a disclaimer about who must provide it. Your distinction between being fired and the contract not being terminated is exactly what this lawsuit is about - it seems reasonable that both parties would want to have clarity here.

quote:

---

$30M lump sum vs $54M over 5 years, plus the removal of mitigation duty. That’s hardly a joke, it’s actually a very fair deal for someone that wants to work again.

---

Yeah, $30m isn't really a joke, that's fair. I wasn't really thinking about the removal of mitigation duty. But what we don't know is if BK really wants to work again. So maybe his bargaining position is "I want as much as I can get now, so I can make that choice in a year or 2."

quote:

---

quote:
either way, if there was a notice provided to Brian Kelly why haven't we seen it yet?


There wasn’t, that’s the entire point.

---

I was mostly making the point that it would be hard for LSU to justify, in court, that it had grounds for cause to terminate, but fired him before it enacted the contractually stated process for terminating for cause. I was pointing out that public records are easy to obtain - we have BK's email. I just think it's odd that no written anything has been issued outlining anything that has been made public.

quote:

---

Because they had asked him to do it previously and he didn’t. So LSU fired him after firing Kelly. It would be incurable for a coach to no longer listen to the AD. Timing was of the essence, they had 2 weeks to play bama, Waiting a week for Kelly to do what he has been told and fire the crappy OC would not be practical.

---

You are making an assumption about this; there are no evidentiary facts supporting this. Assuming it's true, though, I agree waiting a week to solve it would be bad...but it could have been cured that day, therefore it was not incurable.

quote:

---

Because they were quickly presenting bonafide offers to move toward resolution while paying him under the current contract terms. The first offer was declined and they sent a better offer…that is how negotiations typically work for the side trying to make a deal. To our knowledge, Kelly said he was open to it, but simply declined the offers and never countered, and is now trying to claim some sort of contractual time window had closed.

Which one to you appears to be in good faith? Did one party seem more serious than the other?

---

BK said in his email that he's open to a resolution as long as it makes financial sense. There was some report (probably rumor) that he asked for $43mm as a counter. Either way, none of us really know what Kelly has offered; until he was told that he may be fired for cause he didn't really have a reason to capitulate to a buyout for significantly less than he's owed under the contract. Being open to negotiation does not mean you have to accept or even incrementally counter an initial offer.

quote:

---

LSU presented a path for Kelly to walk away with $80M in 5 years and the ability to do whatever he wants with his future. Brian declined both offers and sued them, forcing their hand to either bring cause or pay the remaining buyout.

Brian is the one dragging this out, no getting around that. Don’t say you are open to negotiating if you are not.

---

Not sure where the $80mm came from - if he takes the $25 or 30m he'd have $65 or $70m in 4 years. Either way, not the point - why does BK have to move quickly here? He can walk away with $95mm across 10 years total if that's what he wants to do.

quote:

---

Which Brian Kelly has inflamed and is trying to capitalize on. He said he was open to negotiations, LSU did so, and then pulled the rug out publicly. It’s a horse shite move

---

Isn't it also a horse shite move to fire someone, then three weeks later say "well, we haven't actually fired you yet" and then start throwing around that we may now come up with a reason to fire you for cause, even though that's not why we fired you initially? Didn't the whole lawsuit stem from a negotiation meeting wherein a completely different approach was delivered to BK by LSU?

All in all - this thing is unnecessarily messy, and while I am thankful that BK is no longer the coach, I think LSU is handling this very poorly.

I think LSU basically is telling BK - "settle this thing or we are going to make this painful," and BK is basically saying back "you fired me, pay me what you owe me."

quote:

---

From the lawsuit, the things that Kelly alleged are significant 1. He wasn’t really fired 2. Woodward didn’t have authority (because no president had been hired, hired shortly after) 3. Said he may be fired for cause for the first time - what do you think the settlement talks were about Brian?

---

Kelly is alleging that LSU officials have stated in negotiations that Woodward didn't have the authority to fire him, thus the termination conversation was not valid and that they may move forward with firing him for cause, which can only happen if Woodward's termination of Kelly was invalid. He can't be retroactively fired for cause and without notification and the 7 day cure period.

Kelly's lawsuit specifically states that he does not agree with the position that he wasn't terminated or that his initial termination is invalid.

quote:

---

The fact that negotiations ever happened suggest that LSU had leverage and did not intend to pay the full amount. Woodward was removed shortly after, who at LSU does Kelly think he made this deal with?

---

LSU's leverage is that Kelly wants money now, not paid out over the next 6 years with mitigation. To get money now without a requirement to seek employment, Kelly would agree to a lower total amount. That's the leverage.

Kelly had discussions with Woodward as Athletic Director, an official representative of LSU. No deal was reached, which is why they're in this mess now. Woodward being removed after the fact would not automatically negate any deal that had been in place, if one were in fact in place.

quote:

---

As an LSU fan I’d prefer they stop bumbling through this and move on

---

LSU acted in good faith extending two separate buyout offers - both of which were (allegedly) rejected. What would satisfy you as "moving on"?

Moscona doesn't need to feed the internet rumor beast. No way this goes to court. Zero chance. This has to get settled in the next two weeks, period.