re: Whoever decided "hey lets try to job BK out of his contract" needs to be sent to pasture

So far all we have is Kelly’s lawyers claiming LSU is trying to fire him with cause. LSU hasn’t filed any court documents to that effect nor have they stated publicly any intent to do so. Unless they have an air tight case, it would be madness to do so. Not only would it create a PR nightmare that would negatively affect the coaching search, but it would also make Kelly damaged goods. With the offset language in the contract, LSU wants Kelly to get as high a paying job as possible. That’s why I don’t believe LSU has any intention of trying to fire Kelly with cause.

Everyone keeps acting like LSU is trying to force Kelly to accept a settlement for less money than he is owed without any offsetting financial benefit to him. That’s just not the case. The idea is to come up with a number that’s acceptable to both sides that closes the books without the need for ongoing payments, monitoring, legal haggling, etc. Supposedly LSU has offered Kelly $30M in two installments paid out much sooner than the monthly payments through 2031 that he’s currently set to receive. The timing of the payments is a real benefit to Kelly. The bigger benefit is that all the stipulations related to future employment would go away. He doesn’t have to prove he’s making a good faith effort and he doesn’t have to prove he’s accepting a market value offer. More importantly, his buyout is no longer offset by future earnings. That means if he were to sign a deal worth more than $23M, he would come out ahead. So, yes, he risks leaving money on the table if he doesn’t find another high paying position, but he also has the potential to come out ahead. LSU would face the same risks in that scenario (in the opposite direction), but they would gain the clarity of a specific dollar amount they have to pay out. It’s really in the best interests of both sides to agree to a number and make a clean break.

The most likely thing that is going on here is that both sides are wrangling for leverage to get the most favorable negotiated settlement they can. I’m sure LSU is playing coy with the possibility of firing Kelly with cause because it gives them leverage in the negotiations and puts pressure on Kelly’s side to agree to a number to avoid the possibility of going down that route. LSU isn’t going to just give away an option available to them until there is a deal in place. It’s not smart business to show your hand before you have to. Kelly’s filing is nothing more than an attempt to force LSU to show their hand. They are attempting to remove firing with cause as an option to gain an upper hand in the negotiations. It doesn’t mean either side ever thought that was a route LSU intended to pursue.

quote:

---

So you are moving goal posts from he was not negotiating to it was not a serious offer.

---

That’s not negotiating. And I’ve said that I don’t believe it was ever made. Why was it not in the lawsuit? Am I missing it (maybe I am but I don’t see it)?

I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m waiting on you to mix the concrete so we can get them set.

quote:

---

He filed suit asking for confirmation that he was terminated without cause

---

Dude, WTF? The answer to that question goes one of two ways, either he was fired without cause or with cause. The lawsuit asks for clarification. If he is fired without cause, clarify it. If not, clarify that as well.

quote:

---

Kelly and LSU entered into negotiations to avoid terminating with cause

---

That is asinine. They were not negotiating with that on the table.

Absolutely stupid to think that.

quote:

---

Is it not reasonable that Kelly had no intention of negotiating, and intended to use the negotiation period to run out the clock his lawyers describe from his employment contract?

---

That is in no way reasonable. Amateur hour nonsense.

With your statements, you are contending that LSU looked as negotiations as "we will negotiate if we are firing you with cause or not based on you taking a lump sum we negotiate to."

To think Kelly would be negotiating under those conditions is ridiculous.

That is the dumbest shite I have ever heard.

quote:

---

Do you believe that LSU has told Kelly what the the cause is?

---

I believe there was an impasse between Woodward and Kelly to the point where he refused direction, and that this was very much apparent to Kelly. It could have been as simple as refusing to fire Sloane, which is Kelly’s duty, as is following the direction of the AD - Sloane was fired right after Kelly. This would be grounds for termination with cause.

I think this type of thing is exactly why most buyouts are settled, and that Kelly is not behaving like most coaches in this situation.

quote:

---

It's just a fact. LSU is still paying him his full salary, not his buyout amount.

---

So would it be fair to say that they are still trying to negotiate his separation? If they are still treating him as an employee?

I've never seen so much fretting and panicking over what is routine legal posturing in any large breach of contract matter.

LSU is not doomed because Kelly's lawyers filed a complaint.

quote:

---

OceanMan

---

You are just making a ton of assumptions with every point you make then when someone provides a counterpoint your response is “you don’t know the facts”

quote:

---

They already did that. 4 years ago. LSU still owes him $54 million of what they agreed to pay him.

---

No, that’s the number that is paid out over a 6-year period that comes with an offset for future earnings and requirements to look for another job in good faith paid at market value. Annuities are negotiated to lump sum payments all the time in business, especially if removing the offset for future earnings is part of the equation. It’s in the best interest of both parties to find a negotiated settlement that works for both to close the books on this sad chapter.

quote:

---

If you didn't have the money to buy him out, you shouldn't have fired him. Economics 101.

---

LSU’s reported offer doesn’t necessarily save them money. It requires more money upfront and could be more than they would have to pay if Kelly finds another job paying more than $24M. What it gives them is a specific number to budget and spares them the headache of having to fight with Kelly over whether he is really making a good faith effort to find work. In return, Kelly gets the opportunity to make more than $54M and be free of scrutiny by LSU over how he chooses to look for work.

quote:

---

LSU’s reported offer doesn’t necessarily save them money. It requires more money upfront and could be more than they would have to pay if Kelly finds another job paying more than $24M. What it gives them is a specific number to budget and spares them the headache of having to fight with Kelly over whether he is really making a good faith effort to find work. In return, Kelly gets the opportunity to make more than $54M and be free of scrutiny by LSU over how he choose to look for work.

---

Thank you. It was a fair offer.

quote:

---

You guaranteed him the money. In writing. Regardless of his performance. Period.

---

That's not exactly true. it's not fully guaranteed. we've litigated this already multiple times in the last 48 hours. short version, this was a negotiation tactic where the optics don't look good for LSU in the public sphere, but this will get settled and we will move on. The sky is not falling, but this could have been handled better.