- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:25 pm to Salviati
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:25 pm to Salviati
quote:
The contract does not require written notice directed solely to him.
It merely requires a written document, and that he have notice of it. The Athletic Department's press release suffices.
I think this is arguable
"to employee" and "to employee and company" are specific, and distinct from one another. As is who can write it and the contents of the message.
1
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:27 pm to OceanMan
quote:
I do think it matters, and Kelly's legal team is very explicit about the first time it was discussed.
IMO it does not. It was mentioned in the filing as a simple statement of fact but has no substantive import. The reality is Woodward could have brought him in hi office on Oct 1 and told him they were going to fire him for cause and it makes no difference. There was not WRITTEN notice given and the cure/mitigate period that follows. Again I know there was no written notice because there is zero chance they would have filed this specific action if there had been any written notice. Verbal notice is simply irrelevant.
quote:
Which brings me back to my original point, why did negotiations break down, and when was this actually first discussed?
The negotiations broke down the minute for cause was mentioned and the suit was filed as soon as possible afterwards. Those two words were uttered and the moment they were the negotiations came to a halt. That is a nuclear option and you can't negotiate with it out there at least when Kelly does not think it is on the table.
quote:
If LSU made an offer during the meeting he was fired like the lawsuit says, it should have been agreed to at that time that the termination would not be with or without cause, but a mutual separation.
There is really no such thing as "mutual separation" allowed under the K. It is either a firing for cause, firing without cause, or the employee quits. In each case the parties have differing obligations. Technically there are other issues eg force majeur, death or disability but those aren't applicable here. They can call the firing anything they want in the public sphere but in the legal side it is either with cause or without.
quote:
Curious, what do you think is the compensation structure?
100% hourly. Retainer paid then worked against with monthly bills. Skadden probably bills associates at around $1000 an hour and partners at $2500 and up. I don't know about the cost of Stone Pigman I don't practice in LA and Stone Pigman isn't a AmLaw 200 so I can't even guess.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:30 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
All it does is put them back at day one. The contract as written is still valid and they could still have a settlement.
It wouldn't be valid, it would be terminated, because they confirmed that they terminated it without cause.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:31 pm to OceanMan
quote:
"to employee" and "to employee and company" are specific, and distinct from one another. As is who can write it and the contents of the message.
And how does LSU ensure “company” read the press release?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:32 pm to OceanMan
quote:Notice that they intended to terminate him for cause should have been the first thing they said to him. They should have followed the entire 11.A procedure if they intended to fire him for cause.
I still wonder why this wouldn't have been communicated when they told him he was fired and offered $25M during the meeting. My logic would tell me this would be the correct time to at least mention it.
Of course, if they had mentioned the notion that they intended to fire Kelly for cause, he would have immediately ended settlement negotiations and told them to contact his lawyers.
The thing is, they did NOT intend to fire him for cause. That came up later, and that ended negotiations and prompted the dec action.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:40 pm to OceanMan
quote:The mitigation clause is part of the termination without cause language.
It wouldn't be valid, it would be terminated, because they confirmed that they terminated it without cause.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:41 pm to OceanMan
quote:
It wouldn't be valid, it would be terminated, because they confirmed that they terminated it without cause.
You don’t understand the contract and that might explain everything you have posted.
If they fire him without cause, he’s due the remainder of the contract over the remaining life of the contract ( I believe at 90%, but that maybe incorrect).
It doesn’t change the terms of the contract.
LSU could offer a lump sum to amend the contract and BK could accept it or deny it.
How do you see it?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:46 pm to bayouboo
quote:This is a simple fact question: did the company have actual notice through a written document. Yes, it did.
And how does LSU ensure “company” read the press release?
One has to understand the reason for the written notice requirement: to allow either party to prove that notice of termination was provided.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:49 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:90% is correct. It would have jumped to 100% if he had won a National Championship.
If they fire him without cause, he’s due the remainder of the contract over the remaining life of the contract ( I believe at 90%, but that maybe incorrect).
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:51 pm to Salviati
Is it a requirement that they acknowledge receipt via verbal or written response?
Just curious with your take as it is not outlined in the contract.
Just curious with your take as it is not outlined in the contract.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:56 pm to TaderSalad
you are so right. i have never seen so many chicken littles before. all everybody on this board knows is the rumors going around. and as said before, there is one major donor who will pay the bulk of the buyout. don't understand the constant whining. just let the whole thing play out. it won't cost anyone on here any money.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 5:59 pm to bayouboo
quote:That would depend on what the written notice contains. Written notice of termination without cause would not require any response.
Is it a requirement that they acknowledge receipt via verbal or written response?
Just curious with your take as it is not outlined in the contract.
Written notice of termination with cause gives Kelly the opportunity, but not the obligation, to respond by cure, contest, and appeal.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:06 pm to Salviati
That is the confusing part about the lawsuit.
If it is fact that he received a termination without cause notice via the press release, why is he asking for a judgement on how he was fired? Shouldn’t he be suing for the damage payments to begin immediately instead?
If it is fact that he received a termination without cause notice via the press release, why is he asking for a judgement on how he was fired? Shouldn’t he be suing for the damage payments to begin immediately instead?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 6:28 pm to bayouboo
quote:
why is he asking for a judgement on how he was fired?
Because apparently they are not sure themselves.
He can’t make decisions on his future if he doesn’t even know what LSU plans to do.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:42 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
IMO it does not. It was mentioned in the filing as a simple statement of fact but has no substantive import.
I think they were very deliberate about what was in the document, and so do you, right?
quote:
Again I know there was no written notice because there is zero chance they would have filed this specific action if there had been any written notice.
Seems pretty confident. So they went through every written communication he has for an entire month, but they are adding arbitrary statements in a short court document? I’m not sure I agree.
quote:
There is really no such thing as "mutual separation" allowed under the K
I know, I’m saying it’s a theoretical document that that would operate like a MOU to terminate the employment contract.
quote:
It is either a firing for cause, firing without cause, or the employee quits. In each case the parties have differing obligations. Technically there are other issues eg force majeur, death or disability but those aren't applicable here. They can call the firing anything they want in the public sphere but in the legal side it is either with cause or without.
Yes I understand, but virtually any contract can be mutually terminated. Since the employment agreement doesn’t outline that, or related procedures, an alternative agreement would need to replace it. Do you not agree?
quote:
100% hourly. Retainer paid then worked against with monthly bills. Skadden probably bills associates at around $1000 an hour and partners at $2500 and up. I don't know about the cost of Stone Pigman I don't practice in LA and Stone Pigman isn't a AmLaw 200 so I can't even guess.
Thanks. Stone Pigman is a good firm, I know how much they cost
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:11 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
You don’t understand the contract and that might explain everything you have posted.
I understand the contract, and the nuance of related employment status enough to know that none of us truly can determine that distinction at the moment.
I do know that if a contract is terminated, it is no longer valid. In this case, as you mentioned, there would be liquid damages due because of that termination, depending on the type stated in the termination agreement.
So round and round we go.
quote:
LSU could offer a lump sum to amend the contract and BK could accept it or deny it.
Why would he voluntarily lower the damages? What scenario would that make sense for him? To give up damages that he asked a court he is confirmed are owed to him?
quote:
How do you see it?
Man I don’t know. It’s a mess. I feel like it didn’t need to be this way, and 100% think Kelly started this shite some time ago. I feel like many fellow Tiger fans want it to go away so badly they don’t see the situation clearly. They are willing to accept LSU as the bad guy, because they don’t care about the checks being cut, and no it’s best to end quickly - I completely get it
Edit: deleted what was below this because he didn’t read it.
This post was edited on 11/13/25 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:18 pm to Salviati
quote:
Notice that they intended to terminate him for cause should have been the first thing they said to him. They should have followed the entire 11.A procedure if they intended to fire him for cause. Of course, if they had mentioned the notion that they intended to fire Kelly for cause, he would have immediately ended settlement negotiations and told them to contact his lawyers. The thing is, they did NOT intend to fire him for cause. That came up later, and that ended negotiations and prompted the dec action.
Thinking out loud… what if what transpired in the Sunday meeting itself was their reasoning to consider for cause firing?
And to complicate matters he hopped on a plane and high-tailed it out of town within 48 hours after meeting.
From all reports, LSU did not intend to fire Brian Kelly that Sunday. Something happened in that meeting that changed things.
This post was edited on 11/13/25 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:21 pm to Salviati
quote:
The mitigation clause is part of the termination without cause language.
I know this and was implicit in my response.
Y’all actual lawyers don’t always read so good
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:41 pm to Salviati
quote:
Although he was clearly terminated "effective immediately," Kelly was not "provided with written notice of contemplated termination and a statement of the grounds and facts in support thereof" "prior to termination for cause. Therefore, he could not have been terminated for cause.
Isn’t the argument that LSU is making now that the AD did not have the legal authority to issue such a notice, therefore there is currently no legally binding termination and the clock has not yet started? Isn’t that the question Kelly’s lawyers are asking the court to decide? If it were unambiguous that LSU did not terminate for cause, what need would there be for Kelly’s lawyers to file their claim?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 9:42 pm to OceanMan
quote:
I think they were very deliberate about what was in the document, and so do you, right?
Yes, but it does not advance your argument as you see it. There are two reasons you put a "fact" into a filing. One, it is part of the foundation of your legal argument. Two, it prevents the opposition from using its absence against you. An example of something similar within the four corners of the filing is the email from Verge in response to the memorializing email. They are using the fact he didn't take issue with anything other than who would contact them as not having issue with anything else stated in the email. The majority of the words in the filing are not relevant to their argument, which is relatively simple; they are there to forestall potential arguments, even though they would likely be expanding the scope of what is being ask of the judge. Again, I do not think it is salient to the specific question they are asking the court to decide, but there in anticipation of a wider scope.
quote:
Seems pretty confident. So they went through every written communication he has for an entire month, but they are adding arbitrary statements in a short court document? I’m not sure I agree.
You don't have to agree but this is the most confident I am on anything I have said. If the attorneys were aware of any written communication that even hinted at for cause firing, they would have made a preemptive argument in the filing. They went to great lengths to discuss Kelly's entire coaching CV and accomplishments to head off some very unlikely arguments but left out written communication about for cause firing, please. If there had been any written communication of the intent to fire for cause they would have included it and made the argument why it was not contract compliant, simple as. In the end, everyone knows the truth is they fired him for on filed perfomance of the team, the timing alone gets you 90% of the way there. Everyone also knows he was told he was fired in the Woodward et al meeting. Note there is a difference between something that anyone with a brain knows and what is proveable but the real truth is always wind in your sails.
quote:
I know, I’m saying it’s a theoretical document that that would operate like a MOU to terminate the employment contract.
quote:
Yes I understand, but virtually any contract can be mutually terminated. Since the employment agreement doesn’t outline that, or related procedures, an alternative agreement would need to replace it. Do you not agree?
I agree they can call it anything they like and agree to anything they care to agree upon. It is totally irrelevant since there was clearly not a meeting of the minds on this mythical mutual separation. The whole reason we are here is to dispense with the notion that for cause is a possibility. If they wanted to go down that road they shouldn't have fired him emotionally and went through the contractually required process. All the discussion around this in the media and on the internet has them rethinking what they should do but that are using their brain instead of their heart about a month too late.
quote:
Thanks. Stone Pigman is a good firm, I know how much they cost
Now I am intrigued. What is their billing rate for associates and partners?
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News