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

quote:

---

I've answered most every question I've been asked, but there have been quite a few I have asked that have gone ignored.

---

Ok answer this one for me. I stated that Kelly wants his normal buyout and you responded by saying "He wants more than that." I then asked you what he wanted and you still haven't responded. So I will ask again, what more does Kelly want?

I have also asked for examples of current coaches that have been fired this year in which the school is prolonging their termination so they can find cause. After all, it's normal right? You never provided an example.

quote:

---

they mutually agreed to separate

---

Explain this.

You stated "He wants more than that" and now you are back tracking with "I'm going to make an assumption here, so please don't get mad"

quote:

---

I don't believe this is true, why are you asking me this?

---

Because you literally "this is normal"

What about this statement by you:

quote:

---

He has been given two offers and has not countered

---

Do you know that to be a fact? Or are you just going to accuse everyone else of making statements as if they are fact?

You are also making assumptions about the value of the offers without having a single clue what his next job will be or how much it will pay.

quote:

---

I have also asked for examples of current coaches that have been fired this year in which the school is prolonging their termination so they can find cause.

---

What facts have been released in any other case or been subject to the same level of scrutiny? Governor Landry made this a circus, which got worse when his interference led to Woodward being forced out. Not having an experienced AD in the middle of this certainly doesn’t help, but the media circus only brightened the spotlight.

Its funny LSU thinks they can do this and get away with it....lol. LSU fans think that Kelly filing against the state gets them off the hook for 54 mil. It wont end there....dont be suprised when the NCAA steps in because alot of other universities are gonna demand some kind of consequence for LSU pulling this shite. Bank on it....because its gonna make their dealings with head coaches more difficult because now every head coach is gonna want guaranteed buy out money up front. Dont be suprised if schools start dropping LSU from their schedules and everyone leaves LSU out in the cold with nowhere to go. LSU and their fans dont understand the ramifications of stiffing a coach or trying to make him take a settlement. Its gonna be funny when nobody wants to deal with LSU anymore all because of arrogant Brain Kelly and LSU's subborness to pay him.

This isn't a particularly difficult situation to understand. There are thousands of contractual dispute lawsuits all over the country right now. You just don't know about them because they don't involve LSU or a football HC.

The contract states that if LSU fires BK "without cause", they owe him liquidated damages as spelled out within the terms and conditions of the contract. If he's fired "with cause", LSU doesn't owe him those damages.

The very basic concept of the time value of money means that a lump sum settlement today, even for less than the full amount that would be paid over the course of 6 years, has some advantageous aspects for Kelly. But it's not anything he's forced to take.

Kelly lawsuit is essentially asking the court to issue a ruling that his termination was "without cause" in response to LSU's position (in the negotiations) that BK was fired "with cause". That threshold decision defines the obligations of the parties to the contract in connection with Kelly's termination.

Clearly the parties were at an impasse in settlements re: a lump sum. When that happens, there often has to be some reason for the parties to consider changing their settlement position. That's what the lawsuit is. Leverage to put on LSU that if BK prevails, LSU will owe the full amount of the contract.

NONE of this is some crazy action. It's pretty basic commercial litigation

quote:

---

they mutually agreed to separate


Explain this.

---

Why can't you just read what I have already said? At least twice now.

In short, I am saying that they agreed to settle his buyout. Per LSU, "Terms of the separation are still being negotiated." Now stay with me here - by negotiating the separation, they are both agreeing to terminate the contract with terms outside the original contract. Per his lawsuit, the first offer was given to him during his termination meeting. He cannot leave that meeting thinking LSU intends to do anything but settle.

Therefore, I can only infer that both parties intended to settle the termination with terms outside of his employment contract, which would mean that neither LSU nor Kelly should have thought he would be fired with or without cause.

I'm going to take this a bit further now, please be patient - this doesn't nullify Kelly's contract. But as I see it, Kelly abandoned the negotiations and is now demanding that he gets the buy out that is in the contract, which has disrupted the sequence established earlier that the parties would agree to something outside of the contract. This has muddied the entire situation, as the determination as to whether it was for cause or not for cause has been foregone. Again, this doesn't mean that Kelly has given up his buy out, but going back and saying that LSU should have issued a termination notice, knowing that you were negotiating it, is a huge disruption to the fact pattern and leaves room for speculation.

Clearly, the negotiations stopped abruptly, but we do not know why. Sure, LSU may have tried to go back to "cause" in the contract, but without knowing why they were so far apart, I think it is just as reasonable to assume that Kelly is the one that wants to abandon negotiations, because he is the one that did.

As I have detailed previously, I think Kelly was given fair offers, and we don't know the extent of his participation in negotiation, just that he rejected all offers. So I reject the premise that LSU has been trying to screw him. I think both parties agreed to settle and should have done so without the lawsuit - as you can tell, it makes LSU look really bad, and there isn't much benefit to setting the record straight if the intention is still to settle.

quote:

---

You are just making a ton of assumptions with every point

---

The entire premise of this thread is based on assumptions.

- If LSU tries to fire Kelly with cause (we don’t know that they will), and

- They weren’t investigating a potential “for cause” termination before letting Kelly go (which we don’t know to be true),

- Don’t have a strong “for cause” case (which we don’t know),

- It ends up looking like a blatantly transparent attempt to get out of living up to their financial obligations (which we don’t know), and

- It has a negative impact on the coaching search (which is unknown),

Then this is an absolutely horrible mistake on LSU’s part.

quote:

---

You stated "He wants more than that" and now you are back tracking with "I'm going to make an assumption here, so please don't get mad"

---

and my assumption was

quote:

---

I think Kelly wants a higher lump sum than what was offered

---

it was a joke, and what did you do, you got mad and stopped reading.

quote:

---

What about this statement by you:
quote:
He has been given two offers and has not countered

Do you know that to be a fact?

---

No, I don't, but as per Brian Kelly's legal team, it is. I said I took this as confirmation, as it was reported by several sources previously. And again, for like the fifth time, where is Brian's counter in that language?

quote:

---

You are also making assumptions about the value of the offers without having a single clue what his next job will be or how much it will pay.

---

I can see you are confused, it's ok if you don't understand, lot's of moving parts. The point is, he either wants his full buyout, or a lump sum figure close to, or above the PV of $54M, and to get out of his mitigation duties. I don't think that is what LSU had in mind when they offered him $25M when they fired him, and Brian shouldn't have said he was open to negotiations if he wanted more than what was in his employment contract.

quote:

---

Clearly the parties were at an impasse in settlements re: a lump sum. When that happens, there often has to be some reason for the parties to consider changing their settlement position. That's what the lawsuit is. Leverage to put on LSU that if BK prevails, LSU will owe the full amount of the contract.

NONE of this is some crazy action. It's pretty basic commercial litigation

---

I get all of this, I'm trying to piece together how it got there. But I do disagree to an extent, I do think that given the situation, this isn't exactly "basic" commercial litigation, Kelly should have maybe tried to negotiate before putting this narrative out there. Because he made lots of people believe that there have been crazy actions. The title of the thread suggests someone at LSU should be killed.