- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: You need evidence to allege "termination for cause" or else it's defamation.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:18 am to Havoc
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:18 am to Havoc
quote:That's not what Kelly is doing.
How can you prove defamation against LSU over social media rumors?
LSU and Kelly have been negotiating the terms of his buyout. The issue of whether Kelly could be fired for cause was raised. Kelly asked LSU to confirm that he wasn't fired for cause. LSU failed to do so.
By failing to confirm that Kelly was not fired for cause, LSU is suggesting that it has grounds to fire for Kelly for cause. According to the terms of the contract, any grounds to fire Kelly for cause would impugn Kelly's character. Either LSU concedes that it has no grounds to fire Kelly for cause, or LSU better have proof that it has evidence to support those allegations. Otherwise, that's defamation.
3
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:20 am to Salviati
quote:
Either LSU concedes that it has no grounds to fire Kelly for cause, or LSU better have proof that it has evidence to support those allegations. Otherwise, that's defamation.
It's not defamation. The statement has to be made to the public. If LSU officials made suggestions that they may have cause to fire BK under the terms of the contract during private settlement negotiations, that's not defamation. Not even close.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:20 am to Salviati
I can tell you one thing... everyone involved better be clean. You can't pick and choose who gets fired and who doesn't based on some morality clause that is only enforced when you want to enforce it. How long has this been going on? Last year... why not fire for cause then?
Most likely this is an overall losing proposition. Really can't understand the LSU position at this point.
Most likely this is an overall losing proposition. Really can't understand the LSU position at this point.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:21 am to Salviati
quote:
The time-value of periodic payments will reduce a lump-sum payment, but Kelly's getting more today that he was two days ago.
nah
He'll either get an agreed upon settlement or get paid in full over time.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:22 am to Salviati
quote:
According to the terms of the contract, any grounds to fire Kelly for cause would impugn Kelly's character. Either LSU concedes that it has no grounds to fire Kelly for cause, or LSU better have proof that it has evidence to support those allegations. Otherwise, that's defamation.
No, that's not how defamation works
If this actually goes to court (doubtful) and Kelly wins, he'll get a judgment to enforce the contract and a judgment for his attorney fees. How can he possibly allege damages when the provision in the contract he's trying to enforce was an agreed upon contractual amount for liquidated damages, with mitigation language on top of that. Unless Kelly proves that, absent LSU firing him, he would have made MORE than the money guaranteed to him, then he has no argument for damages in excess of what he's already agreed to in his contract.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 11:33 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:22 am to Tridentds
quote:
I can tell you one thing... everyone involved better be clean.
If only. Our interim/non-interim-but-not-really-permanent AD has previously been accused of covering up sexual assault.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:23 am to Salviati
Landry should be primaried for this shite
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:28 am to UpToPar
quote:One could argue that making that claim would inevitably lead to the lawsuit which makes it public.
It's not defamation. The statement has to be made to the public. If LSU officials made suggestions that they may have cause to fire BK under the terms of the contract during private settlement negotiations, that's not defamation. Not even
Even if you don't agree with that, their response to the lawsuit will assuredly be public. At that point they claim to have cause or not.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:29 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Even if you don't agree with that, their response to the lawsuit will assuredly be public. At that point they claim to have cause or not.
They can make a claim that is both true and not grounds to terminate him for cause. That wouldn't get him to his burden of defamation
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:34 am to Salviati
quote:
According to the terms of the contract, any grounds to fire Kelly for cause would impugn Kelly's character. Either LSU concedes that it has no grounds to fire Kelly for cause, or LSU better have proof that it has evidence to support those allegations. Otherwise, that's defamation.
That is so NOT defamation FFS.
The “grounds” you state are vague and open to interpretation.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:36 am to lsufball19
quote:You apparently have no idea what the lawsuit is about.
No, that's not how defamation works
If this actually goes to court (doubtful) and Kelly wins, he'll get a judgment to enforce the contract and a judgment for his attorney fees. How can he possibly allege damages when the provision in the contract he's trying to enforce was an agreed upon contractual amount for liquidated damages, with mitigation language on top of that. Unless Kelly proves that, absent LSU firing him, he would have made MORE than the money guaranteed to him, then he has no argument for damages in excess of what he's already agreed to in his contract.
That lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that LSU has no grounds for firing Kelly “for cause.”
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:36 am to Salviati
It's looking more and more like Woodward and Kelly got in a heated discussion and Woodward said,"You're Fired".
LSU said Woodward did not have that authority and fired Woodward.
I was a AD on the high school level and yeah, I had the authority to fire coaches, but I always got it approved with my principal before I did it. I didn't just get mad and fire a coach because "I could".
What a mess. There has to be a 30 on 30 on this in a few years, right?
LSU said Woodward did not have that authority and fired Woodward.
I was a AD on the high school level and yeah, I had the authority to fire coaches, but I always got it approved with my principal before I did it. I didn't just get mad and fire a coach because "I could".
What a mess. There has to be a 30 on 30 on this in a few years, right?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:37 am to theballguy
quote:
Brian Kelly is not an idiot.
No, but you are
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:42 am to mmcgrath
quote:
One could argue that making that claim would inevitably lead to the lawsuit which makes it public.
One could make that claim, but it would be laughed out of the court room.
quote:
Even if you don't agree with that, their response to the lawsuit will assuredly be public. At that point they claim to have cause or not.
Claiming to have cause (even if the court disagrees) and defaming someone are two very different things.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:45 am to LSU1SLU
quote:
Inb4 some idiot comes in and defends Landry in the name of politics.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:47 am to Salviati
All of this is true.
And Kelly is going to come out looking like the good guy while LSU and Louisiana looks like a bunch of corrupt morons, which is also true.
And Kelly is going to come out looking like the good guy while LSU and Louisiana looks like a bunch of corrupt morons, which is also true.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:47 am to Salviati
quote:
You apparently have no idea what the lawsuit is about.
That lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that LSU has no grounds for firing Kelly “for cause.”
Right. And if the court finds that LSU does not have cause to fire him, that doesn't give rise to a claim for defamation. Do you think every party that loses a lawsuit is liable for defamation because they took a position that the court ultimately disagreed with?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:48 am to Havoc
quote:Are there grounds to fire Kelly that do not impugn his character?
That is so NOT defamation FFS
The “grounds” you state are vague and open to interpretation.
If not, then it's defamation to assert there are such grounds, unless LSU has proof to support those grounds.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:51 am to Tridentds
It’s possible LSU’s attorneys might argue that the “cause” for firing Kelly might be his handling of Greg Brooks’ illness, and the financial exposure that brought against LSU. [I’m not saying it’s a winning argument, just that it’s possibly what they may claim.]
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:54 am to Salviati
So, this is an all or nothing play assuming LSU doesn't actually have evidence for cause. If they do, then they owe Kelly nothing, everything is good except for all the bsd blood and bad PR so good luck getting another big name HC. If they don't, then LSU and likely the state of La (all thanks to the Gov) are on the hook for a whole lot more than a $53 million buyout. Oh and good luck getting another big name HC.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News