DrEdgeLSU

quote:

---

I don’t think the issue is so much around the termination, but whether or not it was for cause. Contract breaches end in settlements all the time. The fact that negotiations ever happened suggest that LSU had leverage and did not intend to pay the full amount. Woodward was removed shortly after, who at LSU does Kelly think he made this deal with?

---

It's easy to look back and kick this around a bit and make it seem like Kelly is gaslighting LSU on this. But go back to Sunday October 26th - it got really smoky at midday...and by late afternoon / early evening the smoke became fire...and then the AD sent a message out publicly - he had fired Brian Kelly and that terms of the separation were being negotiated. So to answer your question...on that day, those deals were being negotiated with Scott Woodward, who he had every reason to believe was acting as an agent of the university.

quote:

---

From the lawsuit, the things that Kelly alleged are significant 1. He wasn’t really fired 2. Woodward didn’t have authority (because no president had been hired, hired shortly after) 3. Said he may be fired for cause for the first time - what do you think the settlement talks were about Brian?

---

I think #2 is really an interesting issue. I think it will be really hard to demonstrate a material difference in the effect that Woodward firing Kelly had and whether or not he was empowered to do that. If Woodward didn't have the authority to do it...then why did LSU stand by it? I guess it would have been embarrassing, but no more embarrassing than anything else that has happened since. LSU could have put out a statement that Kelly had not been fired, and that Woodward had gone rogue, and that instead they were dismissing Woodward. But they didn't - so whether or not Woodward had the authority or not looking back on it seems irrelevant - the damage had been done, Kelly had been terminated, and he had been replaced on an interim basis by Frank Wilson.

As for #3 - there are a lot of reasons to negotiate a buyout settlement of a contract; having dirt on the employee is one, but the broader reason is to hasten the final termination of the contract. LSU no more wants to be supplementing Brian Kelly's income for 6 years than Kelly wants to be contractually tied to LSU, especially if he wants to find another job coaching. It's simply cleaner and better, and standard practice, to at least attempt to move on from these things. That said, a $25mm buyout against a $54mm contract due is a joke. So is $30mm.

quote:

---

It’s quite possible that they are still following the procedures in the contract. My opinion is that Kelly’s legal team misinterpreted the 7 day cure period and jumped the gun filing this as soon as they possibly could (7 days in the middle of the night after the president was hired - per the contract the president is charged with the power to terminate).

---

Come on. The university had an interim President - Matt Lee. He was the President of the University at the time; either way, if there was a notice provided to Brian Kelly why haven't we seen it yet? We can see emails that Kelly sent but not a formal notice from the state that it intends to terminate the contract for cause? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

quote:

---

Both of my examples would be considered incurable, as they were part of a pattern, so I’m not even sure the 7 day cure period would kick in. Further, the cure period is for the employee to defend themself, not a contractual deadline for the terminating party.

---

How would your first example be considered incurable?

"Coach, fire the OC."
"No."
"Okay...here's your notice of our intent to fire you for cause. You have 7 days to fix this."
"Sloan, you are fired."

Again, I can see a thin case for your examples being "for cause," and let's say that LSU is in the midst of this process. Wouldn't it have served LSU better to have suspended Brian Kelly rather than publicly terminate him while stating that it was because of on field performance?

quote:

---

LSU is not bumbling around, they were in a good faith negotiation, Kelly was not. So LSU looks like they are caught with their pants down when Kelly turned the light on. I’d prefer we pull are pants back up before turning the lights back on and make Kelly look like the a-hole again. Don’t need to drag it out, announce we are paying the buyout to get past this, but we’re in active negotiations with Kelly to not fire for cause.

---

How do you know that they were in good faith negotiation? What evidence do we have that either side is engaging in good faith negotiation? My sense is that from the get go, tempers were flared and things were said...so both sides are doing what they can to cover their asses.

When I say LSU is bumbling around, they are not doing anything to contradict the very public perception that this whole thing was done without a plan, without alignment, and without leadership support.

The scenarios you described may in fact be realistic and could have even happened.

Did the university then follow the procedures laid out in the contract to handle this?

No - instead they publicly announced the termination and linked it to the team’s performance. It’s hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

Neither party looks good here - it’s in everyone’s interests to handle this quickly and quietly. As an LSU fan I’d prefer they stop bumbling through this and move on.

quote:

---

One of the reasons for cause listed in his contract 11.a.1.e is failure to perform his duties to the best of his ability. Taking a vacation during a 14 week season would not be performing his duties to the best of his ability.

---

And if this was the case, and it was not approved by his boss, then it could be grounds for notice…followed by a 7 day cure period…etc.

Again, that did not happen.

An employer can’t be fine with your behavior until your performance sucks…then try to fire you for the behavior and not the performance. Especially not when there’s a contract to govern it.

A post that essentially summarizes PhillyTiger’s post on the Coaching Changes Board.

Nice.

quote:

---

LSU alleges that they didn’t officially terminate him

---

No, Brian Kelly is alleging that LSU is saying they didn’t officially terminate him.

There is a difference. You are using a lawsuit as a statement of fact, and you are accepting the words they are putting in LSU’s mouth.

Fortunately for both parties, there is a contract that will dictate how this is handled, and now that there is a lawsuit, a judge will arbitrate based on facts and evidence rather than hearsay and innuendo.

quote:

---

So what stance do you think they are taking in these negotiations? Why was the suit filed? Use a little bit of common sense and connect the dots. It’s in LSU’s best interest, monetarily anyway, to have not officially terminated him without cause. If you need it spoon fed to you fine, but LSU’s stance in this can be pretty easily deduced.

---

Wow, ok.

I asked a pretty simple question - where has a spokesperson for LSU said anything that contradicts the idea that BK was terminated on 10/26?

LSU has apparently made settlement offers. Why would they do that if they were trying to terminate for cause?

It’s actually in LSU’s best interests monetarily to come to a professional and viable settlement in this matter. The implications of how this is handled can have long term significance.

I’ll say this again - if lsu had a valid case for cause, they would have instituted it when it became grounds for termination. Any other path they take is a minefield.

quote:

---

There’s an entire thread about it stickied to the top of the board.

---

There's an entire thread about a lawsuit that Brian Kelly filed alleging that LSU said they never fired him.

I could file a lawsuit and say anything I want. "Brian Kelly had a meeting in which he was informed by LSU that he would be paid the full amount of the buyout in bitcoin and saltine crackers."

I asked "where has LSU said this?" In the article linked in the thread you are referring to, LSU had no comment.

The lawsuit is an allegation; it is not a statement of fact.

quote:

---

The tweet announced a leadership change for LSU football.

I’m not sure if Scott’s wording but I would venture it is something similar.

He may have been “released of his duties as LSUs football coach” but still an lsu employee

---

The article leads with "LSU Athletics has made the decision to separate with football head coach Brian Kelly effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced Sunday."

It's hard to interpret this as anything other than Brian Kelly is no longer affiliated with LSU Athletics.

quote:

---

He was sending the email to have a paper trail.

LSU has not issued the notice. Kelly sent the email to have a paper trail of him having been verbally terminated by Woodward in attempts to start the 7 day clock.

---

STOP. It is so painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. The 7 day clock is the period set forth in the contract for the employer (LSU) to give the employee (Kelly) time to address a potential fireable issue.

LSU terminated Brian Kelly. It announced to everyone that it did.

To terminate the contract for cause, the following needed to happen before Kelly was terminated:
- LSU needed to give notice to Kelly that he was acting in a way that could get him fired for cause and give him 7 days to correct it (cure period).
- After that 7 days, LSU would then have to give notice of its intention to terminate with its evidence laid out.
- After that, Kelly would have 7 days to respond.
- The AD would then give its decision.
- Within 7 days of that decision, Kelly could then appeal to the President, who then has 14 days to render a final decision.

If all of this happened, then it would have to at the earliest started 5 weeks before October 26th, and it would have all been very public.

The email Kelly sent had literally nothing to do with the clock.

quote:

---

I can’t wait to spend $16 for this with no fries or drink.

---

You really can't put a price tag on that "my pleasure" as you drive off.