- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
lostinbr
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, LA |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12522 |
| Registered on: | 10/15/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: What is Kelly hiding?
Posted by lostinbr on 11/12/25 at 7:11 am to TigerGrad03
quote:
Moscona made a comment on the Locked on Podcast today about if Kelly were to win, the money would have to be appropriated by the state legislature since the suit is against the state. He said there is apparently $300M of awards owed by the state to people that are just hung up becasue the state hasn't or can't budget them in. This could be another leverage point from LSU. If Kelly doesn't take a lower buy out amount they will let it go to court, Kelly will probably win, and then the state will take it's sweet time appropriating the funds.
Moscona is a dumbass.
If Kelly wins this lawsuit it just means the school has to acknowledge he was fired without cause. It’s not asking for a monetary award. No money would have to be appropriated by the legislature.
If the school then refused to pay his monthly buyout, he would have to sue again for breach of contract. But it will never come to that because the LSU athletic department isn’t going to just say “nah, we still aren’t paying you” if they lose this first court case.
0
quote:
He wants all of his money instantly and doesn’t want to do what he agreed to do when he signed the contract.
Yet again I will ask.. where has anyone said he wants the entire buyout as a lump sum?
That’s not what they’re saying at all.
re: Lawsuit against the State of Louisiana is a brilliant move by CBK and his attorneys
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 10:57 pm to homemadeshine
Where do you people come up with this crap?
His lawsuit is against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University.
That’s because his contract is also with the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University.
There is no 4D chess going on here with “filing against the state.” He simply filed the lawsuit against the counterparty to his contract. Him winning a lawsuit against the BOS would just mean they have to pay him his buyout per the contract.. it doesn’t change the party responsible for paying it.
His lawsuit is against the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University.
That’s because his contract is also with the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University.
There is no 4D chess going on here with “filing against the state.” He simply filed the lawsuit against the counterparty to his contract. Him winning a lawsuit against the BOS would just mean they have to pay him his buyout per the contract.. it doesn’t change the party responsible for paying it.
re: What is Kelly hiding?
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 6:37 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Kelly wants a judge to rule that he has been terminated weeks ago and that since he was terminated and not notified for cause LSU didn’t give him a 7day cure period.
No. Kelly wants a judge to rule that he was terminated without cause weeks ago based on (alleged) verbal confirmation of this by LSU officials at the time along with the fact that they still have not communicated any cause for the firing.
re: What is Kelly hiding?
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 6:28 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
No shite.
LSU maintains that they have not issued the written termination.
That is the entire argument.
Hence Kelly trying to start a paper trail.
Kelly tried to start a paper trail immediately acknowledging he was fired without cause. That’s.. prudent, and he would be a fool not to do so (just like LSU would be somewhat foolish to not immediately start a paper trail saying he was fired without cause if that was their stance).
But that paper trail has absolutely nothing to do with the “7 day timer” you so confidently referenced in your OP.
ETA: Again, back-dating the clock on that 7-day cure period would actually be very bad for Kelly because it would mean he had not addressed whatever issue led to the firing.
quote:
Right. Which is why he getting his salary right now bc that what he’s entitled to under the contract’s termination clause. He gets paid his full salary until the contract term ends EVEN if he’s terminated.
First off, I don’t think we know what he’s “getting” right now. His normal compensation is payable monthly and he was fired at the end of October so it’s not entirely clear whether any changes to his pay would have taken effect yet.
Second, he doesn’t get paid his full salary until the contract ends if he’s terminated. He gets paid 90% of the remaining contract value (which, notably, is not 90% of his current pay because of the way the annual pay is structured) in equal monthly installments. This would almost certainly be a different value than his normal monthly pay while employed.
But without having insight into Kelly’s exact pay dates and payment values, I don’t think anyone can draw conclusions one way or another about what those payments mean in the grand scheme of things.
re: What is Kelly hiding?
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 5:54 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
He sends an email to wanting to start negotiations on a lump sum trying to start the 7 day timer. He negotiates in bad faith to get past the “cure period” then exits negotiations and sues.
The 7-day period is his opportunity to “cure” the issue behind the for-cause firing. The end of that 7-day period means LSU can move forward with the firing him.
So basically you’re saying he intentionally ran out the clock on his own opportunity to get out of being fired for cause.
Y’all come up with some off the wall shite. :lol:
quote:
You asked when a single taxpayer cent has gone towards LSU athletics so I provided an example.
Ironically, an example that probably hasn’t actually provided any funding to LSU athletics yet, considering the tax just went into effect 3 months ago.
Also somewhat ironically, an example that only exists because Jeff Landry himself signed it into law earlier this year.
I can say this with confidence - LSU athletics have not reported a cent of direct state or institutional funding since at least 2004. And only stopping at 2004 because that’s as far back as the NCAA financial reports go on LSU’s website.
quote:
What incentive would LSU have to pay up-front $43m versus the contracted $800k/mo til 2031?
None.
That’s why the final settlement will be about $35m
A lot of our fans on this board don’t understand present value. LSU will only pay less than the PV. Anything equal or greater than the PV LSU will simply continue paying the $800k/mo.
I posted this in another thread, but approximate PV of the buyout at various annualized rates of return:
4%: $47.2 million
6%: $44.5 million
8%: $42.4 million
10%: $40.1 million
12%: $38.3 million
You could argue that $43m is a lot closer to PV than $35m. Of course there’s also value associated with the elimination of offsets/duty to mitigate.
Your point about the PV isn’t wrong though.. contrary to popular belief, this is basically a zero-sum game. There aren’t really any win/win settlements here.
re: Pete Nakos has obtained the lawsuit...
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 1:25 pm to Chad504boy
Yeah idk. I think it’s an error with the document scan or something because there are also 2 T’s missing from “attachments” in the red text at the top.
re: Pete Nakos has obtained the lawsuit...
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 1:19 pm to Tiger of the Shire
quote:
Attorneys do not receive any other response from Carmouche, Verge or otherwise. Kelly's attorneys go on to use this email response from Verge as an additional supporting exhibit in the filing to show how Verge corrected them on something he felt was wrong (misquoting him referencing that someone from Gov.'s office would reach out). They contend that Verge's silence on correcting anything else about the email implies he did had no disagreement with their contention that he previously communicated LSU's intention to honor the terms of the Agreement pertaining to termination without cause.
If the lawyer just slipped that reference in about the governor's office to bait Verge into a response... I admit that was pretty slick.
Take-away: Don't ever even reply to lawyers trying to get you to rep something on paper. Even your silence in failing to retort something can be used against you.
Came here to say exactly this. :lol:
It definitely looks like Verge got baited, though I’m not sure we truly know whether Carmouche or anyone else responded.
We’ll see what comes out if this actually goes to court, but a law firm sent a 2 page letter via email, including a statement that Verge verbally agreed that LSU terminated Kelly without cause (on the same call where he allegedly said someone from the BOS/governor’s office would reach out).
With that in mind, this response seems… misguided:
quote:
Would this be the same as saying he doesn’t think he can, or isn’t planning to make more than $15M (or PV of that figure) over the next 5 years? For someone that actually wants to work (and thinks he’s worth $10M/year, because that’s what his current contract says), that seems like a pretty damn good deal. As of right now, he could make $50M and it would all got LSU. He takes the deal, and he nets $35M.
I think it’s a lot more complicated than that.
At baseline - yes, it comes down to the question of whether the PV of his future contracts is worth more or less than the $15m PV lost in a $30m lump sum settlement. I would agree that if he wants to work as a P4 head coach and a P4 school is willing to hire him, there’s a good chance he can make more than the $15m PV. But it’s not a guarantee.
Let’s be honest - he’s not getting another $9.5m/year contract. Someone in another thread floated a job like Syracuse where they currently pay their coach something like $4m/year. Over the 6 years remaining on his LSU contract (it’s 6, not 5) that would add up to $24m. But that’s assuming he gets another job in this cycle and that he gets a 6 year contract. Neither of those things are guaranteed. So there’s risk involved that you have to account for as well.
quote:
I was suggesting he could get sued by LSU for not pursuing work. Could be pretty costly for him and potentially free for LSU.
I understand. But keep in mind his contract doesn’t say he has to gain employment. It also doesn’t say he has to seek employment as a P4 head coach. It simply says he must “exercise due diligence and good faith seeking qualifying employment” - meaning “football-related employment, whether intercollegiate or professional, including coaching, administration, or media.”
So let’s say he doesn’t want to be a P4 head coach anymore. There are plenty of ways he can avoid doing so without necessarily opening himself up to a lawsuit. Maybe he takes a much lower-stress gig for a lot less money. Maybe he interviews for some P4 jobs knowing he won’t get them. Maybe he demands a salary that isn’t realistic - keep in mind that you yourself pointed out his current contract says he’s worth $10m/year, and it could be argued that accepting a lowball offer would also be problematic since it might appear to be taking advantage of his buyout at LSU.
The duty to mitigate isn’t nearly as easy to enforce as folks would like to believe, IMO.
On the other hand, let’s say he does want to be a P4 head coach again. My point was that if this is true, LSU dragging him through the mud might actually reduce his value on the the coaching market and either lead to a lower offset or give him reason to push for a higher lump sum.
quote:
There are a lot more reasons he could have been fired for cause that are somewhat soft and may make more sense to settle than litigate. Failure or refusal to perform stated duties seem to be overlooked. Among other things, some rumors suggesting the last fight had to do with coaching changes could actually result in termination with cause…
I do agree that folks are overlooking the possibility that there might actually be “recent” cause. To me, that’s the only hand LSU could really play and still have a chance to win in court. It’s just hard to give LSU the benefit of the doubt right now considering it’s looked like a clusterfrick all along.
re: Brian Kelly Files Suit Against LSU
Posted by lostinbr on 11/11/25 at 9:42 am to Lester Earl
quote:
Unless something happened the week of the A&M game, lsu did not move on any incident that may have happen “for cause.”
I will say this.. the reports that he went on vacation during the bye week were interesting. His contract states that there is no annual leave, and that any absence “from Employee’s usual duties and responsibilities” must be approved by the AD.
I have no idea what actually happened during the bye week but if he wasn’t in town during a week of practice midseason, without the AD’s approval, right before we got wrecked at home by Texas A&M.. I could see an argument that it’s both cause (knowingly committing a material violation of the terms of his agreement) and incurable.
Now that the lawsuit has been filed, it seems like LSU’s going to have to shite or get off the pot.
quote:
This is what Kelly’s team wants you to believe. And they are succeeding. LSU bad, Kelly good. Poor Kelly is being victimized by LSU. LSU will end up having to pay his full amount in a lump sum because of this now. That’s what they’re trying to do despite Kelly lying his arse off about coaching again and settling for a lower buyout.
I keep seeing people post this, but I have no idea why. There’s not a single report saying Kelly is pushing for the full buyout as a lump sum.
He wants LSU to acknowledge he was fired without cause, and that his full buyout is owed per the terms of the contract (e.g. over 6 years). That’s the purpose of the lawsuit, and it is a response to LSU claiming they can still fire him with cause.
The fact that he rejected $30 million over two payments doesn’t mean he expects $54 million in a single payment.
quote:
The BOS is saying Scott Woodward didn't have the power to fire BK without permission.
Well, there were reports of meetings with the BOS and Jeff Landry himself before the firing so it’s hard to believe. There’s also a press release that specifically states the BOS was consulted.
quote:
Not sure how all this works but is that true at every institution? That the active AD can't fire anyone without approval.
Not “anyone.” Just high level contract employees.
quote:
I guess you are right, but I do think Kelly is still posturing for something not spelled out in the contract. Just a personal opinion but I don’t think he wants to look for a job anytime soon. I think that aspect of these contracts are often overlooked when we hear “guaranteed”. LSU can continue to be a pain in the arse about that over the next 5 years. It’s really the only obligation that would ever make these deals make sense. Given where Kelly is at in his career, he probably wants full autonomy of that situation. Again, just my personal opinion, but I think that part of whatever settlement offer he received made him not take it.
LSU reportedly offered $25 million and then offered $30 million spread over 2 payments. So the NPV spread over 2 payments is actually less than $30 million. NPV of the contractually-obligated buyout in a single lump sum payment would be something like $44.5 million at 6% APY.
Elimination of offsets and duty to mitigate is certainly a carrot, but is it a carrot that’s worth $15 million? I don’t think so.
LSU can make it a pain in the arse for him but realistically it’s something he only has to deal with once each year (during “hiring season” at the end of the year). If he wants to retire, I don’t think it’s really that hard to deal with the duty to mitigate. Also - somewhat ironically - if LSU drags him through the mud it might actually make it easier for him to avoid work.
I think there’s probably a number between the $30 million LSU offered and the $45ish million NPV that Kelly would agree to. But this lawsuit is basically cutting through the strong-arm tactics and forcing LSU to shite or get off the pot. Either prove you can fire him with cause or stop bluffing. If LSU actually has a legitimate argument to fire with cause (including an argument as to why proper notice wasn’t given) it could work out in LSU’s favor. But I have to assume Kelly’s side is pretty confident considering they immediately filed a lawsuit when LSU made the threat.
quote:
There is no indication the Kelly is not being paid, and as long as he does, LSU is holding up their end of the deal regarding the buyout. Kelly has apparently turned down settlement offers and is now trying to force their hand so they can’t fire for cause, because he sees a risk now of getting nothing because he declined settlement. It’s a bold move by Kelly, who knows how LSU will or could potentially respond, but he is simply trying to eliminate the floor now that he has denied the middle.
The bold move is claiming that the guy you publicly fired 2 weeks ago hasn’t actually been fired yet. This lawsuit amounts to Kelly calling LSU’s bluff.
quote:
That said, I’m not quite sure I understand the entire premise of the lawsuit - if Kelly says he hasn’t been fired, and is still being paid…is he relieved of his performance obligations? This move just seems premature.
Let’s assume the following facts, as alleged, are correct:
- Kelly is fired by Woodward.
- There is no mention at the time of cause.
- LSU offers to settle with a lump sum well below the NPV of the buyout and Kelly rejects that offer.
- Woodward gets fired, governor makes his comments, etc. and there is a lot of upheaval at LSU.
- LSU continues to negotiate, but new representatives take the position (two weeks after his termination) that they have “cause” for firing, effectively saying they have leverage to avoid paying any of the buyout if he doesn’t want to negotiate.
- Kelly’s attorneys point out that the steps required to fire him with cause were not taken.
- LSU’s new representatives respond that he wasn’t formally terminated despite the fact that they’ve publicly announced his termination and promoted an interim coach. Again trying to preserve the threat of a firing with cause (and therefore zero buyout) for leverage.
- Kelly and his attorneys say “frick that” and sue LSU to force them to acknowledge that he was terminated without cause.
The reason for the lawsuit is that LSU’s representatives allegedly told Kelly he hasn’t been formally terminated and that a for-cause firing was still on the table. If you’re Kelly, you can’t allow that position to stand. Think about it - he’s no longer going to work. If you allow LSU to act like he wasn’t actually terminated, you’re giving them cause. They’re nipping that argument in the bud.
It’s not about wanting the buyout as a lump sum or wanting the mitigation clause removed, or whatever else. It’s about keeping LSU from using any sort of backdoor to avoid paying him. Maybe Kelly would prefer a lump sum, but if so he wants the starting position to be the buyout he’s actually owed under the contract rather than the threat of a retroactive for-cause firing.
I don’t think it’s premature at all if the allegations about LSU’s comments (saying Kelly hadn’t been formally terminated and Woodward didn’t have authority) are true.
quote:
In the end, it is a mess, but Kelly is trying to force a higher settlement and removal of any contractual obligations. LSU does not have to do either.
Where are y’all getting this?
From what I can tell, Kelly wants LSU to formally acknowledge that he was not fired with cause. Saying he’s entitled to the “full” buyout is not the same as saying he’s entitled to the full buyout as a lump sum with no preconditions.
All indications are that LSU is the side pushing for a lump sum settlement.
It appears that LSU is trying to use the threat of retroactively firing him with cause as leverage to negotiate a lower settlement. Kelly’s attorneys are saying that LSU missed their opportunity to fire him with cause, and that they need to acknowledge that the full buyout is due (in equal installments as required per the contract). That’s not a crazy position to take if LSU is posturing as if he wasn’t actually fired by Woodward.
re: Like it or not we really NEED Nuss to keep playing.
Posted by lostinbr on 11/10/25 at 8:58 pm to Red Stick Tigress
quote:
Was taking about Nuss quitting on his team again.
Right.. the point was that even if that happened, MVB could still play in a bowl without it counting against his RS.
Popular
75
