- 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 3:19 pm to deathvalleytiger10
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:19 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
They can offer all they want. He is under no obligation to accept it
This will need to be my last post to you, you don't disagree with my position, you don't understand it. I said twice in my last post what I quoted above, see below:
quote:
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.
You are simply refusing to see we are missing important information.
quote:
He did not agree to terms outside the contract.
I didn't say he did. I'm saying he agreed to negotiate, and a settlement from those negotiations would have lead to those terms - and a document that was not a termination notice prescribed in the original contract. His lawsuit says LSU can no longer fire for cause, so he must have been fired without cause, because a termination notice prescribed in the original contract had not been sent.
For the last time, I'll simply suggest that he at least had the opportunity to plan this sequence, and had no real intention of negotiating.
quote:
The rest of your argument has no merit based on this premise.
Oh, well I'm sure you read it either way, I appreciate your attention.
But speaking of merit, You still have not explained why the $43M counter offer didn't make it to the lawsuit, or explained how that counter offer could be considered reasonable. You've abandoned that entire line of thought once I challenged its validity. I don't think your argument has had much merit for a while, I remember back when you said
quote:
My posts have constantly said "if" Kelly's lawsuit is factual. I have been VERY clear on this.
and
quote:
I simply made comments based on what has been put out in reports. If reports are wrong, my comments are incorrect.
Are the reports right or wrong?
1
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:21 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Obtuse1
Unfortunately, you will probably have to state this 10 more times to Ocean cause he has "thoughts".
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:21 pm to deathvalleytiger10
Yes. It is possible that a verbal exchange occurred.
Not sure how that affects the contract’s requirements for written notice.
Not sure how that affects the contract’s requirements for written notice.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:23 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
So you are admitting that what LSU did is not "normal"?
I'm saying that Kelly didn't negotiate, which is why I keep asking about the $43M offer that you no longer want to talk about
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:30 pm to OceanMan
quote:
I'm saying that Kelly didn't negotiate
Which you are stating as a fact, when in reality you have no idea. The same thing as what you are getting mad at people for doing.
quote:
which is why I keep asking about the $43M offer that you no longer want to talk about
What do you want to talk about? There are reports that LSU offered $25 million, BK countered with $43 million, and LSU countered with $30 million.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:31 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
But you stated it as fact. The same thing that you are mad other people are doing.
That Kelly wants more money than LSU offered? It is a fricking fact, are we seriously arguing about this?
quote:
Wait so now you believe Brian Kelly's legal team?
I said I took it as confirmation of reports, which appear to have come from LSU via the Advocate. Is there a similar confirmation for the $43M?
quote:
Or maybe he was open to negotiations until the dumbass governor started running his mouth.
Or maybe he wasn't open to them, considering he did not negotiate.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:33 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The reasoning behind the filing is abundantly clear. There is a better than 99% chance the words "for cause" were used by an agent of LSU as leverage in the negotiations.
When do you think those words were first used?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:35 pm to bayouboo
quote:
Yes. It is possible that a verbal exchange occurred.
Not sure how that affects the contract’s requirements for written notice.
If it comes to it, I think LSU arguing the position that he wasn't actually fired on October 26th because they didn't do it in writing would a) reflect very poorly on LSU and b) not hold up to legal challenge.
Everything they've done since that day renders the 7 day "for cause cure" period moot as Kelly can't possibly do anything to remedy the situation at this point.
The point of the lawsuit is to essentially get in writing the notice of termination without cause. Mind you, we're 17-18 days removed from the 26th.
I would argue, and I think it can be legally argued, that they can't retroactively issue a written intent to terminate for cause 3 weeks after issuing the verbal termination. And while I'm sure LSU is hearing from some lawyers that they can, it would be a mistake to go down that path without concrete new justification.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:35 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
What do you want to talk about? There are reports that LSU offered $25 million, BK countered with $43 million, and LSU countered with $30 million.
Why doesn't the lawsuit say anything about it ? Or does it? Because it talks about the other ones.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:36 pm to OceanMan
quote:
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.
I understand this completely. I disagree that this is what was happening. I do not believe they were negotiating a termination notice as you write here. I believe Kelly was open to a settlement as per his words.
quote:
I'm saying he agreed to negotiate
Point to words, statements, documents that support this. I fall back on the letter Kelly sent to LSU that I quoted previously.
quote:
You still have not explained why the $43M counter offer didn't make it to the lawsuit, or explained how that counter offer could be considered reasonable
How could I possibly answer the first part of that question? Neither can you. We can both speculate if you want, cause that is what you are doing. I said it was reported and you asked where. I linked it. This was in response to you say he did not negotiate. Maybe he offered that maybe he didn't. His letter speaks for itself.
Why the hell does it matter if the counter offer is reasonable? It's a negotiation. You can't find out what someone is willing to pay without asking them.
Hell, you are all caught up on him "agreeing to negotiate". I would contend that the lawsuit is a part of the negotiation.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:39 pm to OceanMan
quote:
That Kelly wants more money than LSU offered? It is a fricking fact, are we seriously arguing about this?
No, you said he wanted more than his full buyout.
quote:
I said I took it as confirmation of reports, which appear to have come from LSU via the Advocate. Is there a similar confirmation for the $43M?
What reports? Are there reports specifically saying that Brian Kelly did not provide a counter offer? If so, can you link them?
quote:
Or maybe he wasn't open to them, considering he did not negotiate.
How did you determine this to be factual?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:40 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Why doesn't the lawsuit say anything about it ? Or does it? Because it talks about the other ones.
Not sure. Maybe they didn't feel like mentioning it. Why does it matter if the lawsuit isn't factual?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:40 pm to OceanMan
quote:
When do you think those words were first used?
According to his filing November 10th.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:40 pm to bayouboo
quote:
No. LSU hasn’t sent him his official letter (that no one on this board is aware of).
He is trying to force them to send him one. But the contract states that they can send the notice anytime before the end of the contract expiration.
quote:No. The contract doesn't say they can send the notice any time before the end of the contract expiration.quote:Section 11 A and 11 B 1quote:Where?
But the contract states that they can send the notice anytime before the end of the contract expiration
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:49 pm to Salviati
What other meaning does “at any time prior to its expiration” have?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:51 pm to deathvalleytiger10
I appreciate the response, but not going to argue any more on this. We aren't having the same conversation, it happens sometimes in these settings, I don't want to waste any more of each others time.
I am a little disappointed we couldn't get on the same page about the counteroffer, but will accept that you consider the lawsuit as part of the negotiation, as that would make my point less relevant. I consider that resetting the negotiation, but we don't need to go there.
I am a little disappointed we couldn't get on the same page about the counteroffer, but will accept that you consider the lawsuit as part of the negotiation, as that would make my point less relevant. I consider that resetting the negotiation, but we don't need to go there.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:56 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
Not sure. Maybe they didn't feel like mentioning it.
Oh ok
quote:
Why does it matter if the lawsuit isn't factual?
you mean the one where they just put whatever they felt like in it
Posted on 11/13/25 at 3:58 pm to OceanMan
quote:
you mean the one where they just put whatever they felt like in it
Yeah. They same one that you have said is both credible and not credible lol
Noticed you don't want to talk about how you claimed that Brian Kelly wanted more than his full buyout. But then changed it to "Kelly wants more money than LSU offered"
Posted on 11/13/25 at 4:00 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
No, you said he wanted more than his full buyout.
Damn dude are we back here again? I can't really keep up with the questions you are asking, but I'm confident I've answered them all.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 4:03 pm to bayouboo
quote:
What other meaning does “at any time prior to its expiration” have?
I think there is a nuance that gets caught in translation here.
Yes, the contract says that.
Does LSU really want to make an argument that he was not terminated and thus no letter? Woodward used the word separation which generally means end of employment in employment law. I guess they might argue he wasn't terminated but I would think that is a tall hill to climb in court and definitely in the court of public opinion.
So LSU has a problem here as I see it. If he wasn't terminated, why did they put out statements to that affect, hold a press conference, and offer a settlement? If the desire was to fire for cause, they would have never entered negotiations.
If he was indeed terminated, LSU did not follow the contract with a written termination letter. What is the remedy for that? I'll leave that to legal scholars.
All I know is this, We are approaching 3 weeks and the LSU Board looks like a bunch of idiots. I hope they don't go down a path of entering some BS legal battle over when he was terminated. We should be better than that.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News