- 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
lsuatty1311
| Favorite team: | LSU |
| Location: | Houma |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | attorney |
| Number of Posts: | 73 |
| Registered on: | 10/24/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: .
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/28/25 at 2:36 pm to FriedEggBowL
Many multi millionaires would not want to use their own capital to buy a house especially if most of their capital is invested making more interest than the interest rate they could get on a mortgage.
re: Thank god we spent weeks looking like fools only to -pay the full 54 mill.
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/27/25 at 9:22 am to sidewalkside
quote:
What an embarrassment.
The LSU BOS did not do a damn thing to embarrass themselves or anyone else. 1) The AD "fired" Kelly because Kelly purportedly refused to make the necessary changes the AD wanted him to make. 2) The AD resigned after that for reasons unknown, but purportedly due to political pressure. 3) The AD's actions were not technically authorized by the BOS. 4) The BOS hired a new president and other administrator. 5) The BOS authorized the president to fire Kelly as he sees fit. 6) The president did so in a way that was in the best interest of LSU.
All of the other noise was caused by Kelly, his lawyers, the media and TD posters. The BOS members, to their credit, never publicly responded to any of the noise. They just went about the necessary business and will shortly hire a new coach.
re: LSU wins BIG in Oklahoma.
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/27/25 at 9:11 am to Big Farma
The only way we win is if we are +3 in turnovers, the turnovers are significant, and the defense/special teams scores at least one touchdown.
re: Friend in Houston sent me these shirts 'Don't overthink it"
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/26/25 at 10:37 am to Captain Crown
Upvote for the ostrich boots.
re: Your Biggest Melt Ever on TD
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/24/25 at 12:38 pm to VincentVega
The reports of LSU going to the Rose Bowl. A lot of non-refundable tickets were purchased.
re: OM 247's Mod Response to the "Statement"
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/21/25 at 4:49 pm to TH03
quote:
this was a public meeting, no? should be easily verifiable.
Personnel matters are usually handled in executive session. Discussions are generally not made public. Only actions are made public, like the board voting to send termination letter to Kelly.
re: Watch analogy
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/20/25 at 2:29 pm to DivotBreath
Upvote for calling Brian Kelly a fake Rolex.
re: Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money)
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/11/25 at 7:23 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
But if the court rules in Kelly's favor then LSU will be obligated to pay him under the terms of the contract for being fired without cause.
Once that happens, if LSU doesn't negotiate an alternative and fails to pay, it is a real easy case before the court to order payments.
I think there is less than 1% chance that this goes to trial. The purpose of this lawsuit was to force a settlement either with a 1) negotiated lump sum buyout, 2) an agreement for LSU to just pay liquidated damages but still have mitigation obligation in effect or 3) something in the middle.
re: Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money)
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/11/25 at 7:16 pm to OceanMan
quote:
He ended the negotiations with the lawsuit. Did I need to actually include that part?
The lawsuit actually intended to force LSU to come to the table with more money. A lawsuit doesn't end negotiations. It just changes the dynamic. Kelly really doesn't want a protracted lawsuit. He knows LSU can't afford one in the court of public opinion while conducting a new coaching search.
Lawsuit is NOT about a breach of contract and NOT for damages (money)
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/11/25 at 1:34 pm
The more I read the posts on the rant, I am convinced that most people have no idea what this lawsuit is about, both legally and practically. First, LSU is paying Kelly as per the contract. There is no allegation that LSU has not paid or has refused to pay. Legally, this lawsuit is for a "Declaratory Judgment" to determine the relationship status between Kelly and LSU. Practically, it is a bullshite move designed to move the needle via social media. It is unnecessary and preliminary. Both sides were in active negotiations and would have likely settled without all of the dirty laundry. And if they did not settle on a lump sum settlement, then LSU would have still continued paying. Kelly is essentially daring LSU to bring out the dirt. To its credit, LSU has not responded to the allegations yet. There is no real hurry either as a party has 15 days to respond and can easily get an extension.
re: Drop the hammer on Kelly
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/11/25 at 4:55 am to TigerGrad03
quote:
A smear campaign would not hurt Kelly. It would hurt LSU because it would prevent Kelly from getting another job that pays well and mitigates some of the buy out.
Some of y’all don’t think beyond today when you say stuff.
If the contract is terminated for cause due to morals clause, then there will be no buyout.
re: Most ironic line in the article about the lawsuit.
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/11/25 at 4:43 am to IrishDave
This is all just big boy games by both sides. Kelly knows he screwed up and had an affair that was potential grounds for termination of his contract, but LSU didn't enforce at the time. To LSU's point, it would be irresponsible not to seek a reduction in the buyout using whatever leverage they had. There does not seem to be any timeline on enforcing the morals clause, and LSU is still paying Kelly according to the contract. According to Kelly's lawyer's allegations, LSU is claiming that the contract is still in place as Wood did not have authority to fire him. This makes some sense as we know the BOS had to approve Kelly's hire, so why not also have to approve his firing.
Prior to LSU filing its response, I anticipate that there will be an agreement on a buyout settlement around $35m paid out entirely within a year or two and without the mitigation clause. It makes sense for both sides.
Prior to LSU filing its response, I anticipate that there will be an agreement on a buyout settlement around $35m paid out entirely within a year or two and without the mitigation clause. It makes sense for both sides.
re: Can someone explain what Bama did
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/10/25 at 4:48 am to Dan0eaux
You can only run bootleg plays so many times with an immobile quarterback. When you have a drop back passer, he has more options if he stays in the pocket, i.e., he can throw anywhere on the field. When you role him out on a bootleg (without blocking as you hope the defensive end follows the play fake) he only has one or two possibilities on one side of the field.
re: I cannot imagine the boosters being OK with Ausberry
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/6/25 at 8:49 am to White Tiger
quote:
So his decision to cover up the abuse makes him good people?
That is a very distorted view of what really happened. You choose to believe the worse in him based on biased reporting. If he had truly done anything egregious, he would have been terminated. The president at the time was Thomas Galligan who is extremely well respected. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Ausberry's "failure" to report the battery did not rise to the level to warrant anything more than a suspension. There was no indication that he acted with Malice or tried to do anything nefarious to the two athletes in question. There was also no indication that he committed any self-serving actions or acted with ill intent. He used his discretion that he thought was in the best interest of the two athletes. Now, the rules have been changed and clarified and there is no discretion allowed for non-reporting of alleged abuse no matter how slight or credible.
re: And it begins: USAToday Article on Verge and the sexual assault cover-up
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/5/25 at 5:18 pm to lsupride87
This is an Opinion piece by the same "reporter" who made an opinion about the handling of the complaints against Verge in 2021. He was suspended but reinstated. That was determined by the administration at the time to be sufficient due to the totality of the circumstances. Essentially, he failed to report an alleged domestic battery by Drake Davis who texted his admission to Verge as a self defense claim, but then later denied hitting her. The victim herself did not make the complaint as it was reported two weeks later due to her receiving treatment from the trainers (she was also an athlete).
My Opinion was that it was handled appropriately at the time. My Opinion is that this is a shitty hit piece by a "reporter" with an agenda. My Opinion is that Verge can adequately handle the AD job in the short term, and maybe longterm, with little to no learning curve as he has been involved in the Athletic administration in a very high position for a long time. He knows all the people involved and how the programs work. No one involved in Athletics has voiced any concerns about him taking over. In fact, Mulkey was happy for him.
My Opinion was that it was handled appropriately at the time. My Opinion is that this is a shitty hit piece by a "reporter" with an agenda. My Opinion is that Verge can adequately handle the AD job in the short term, and maybe longterm, with little to no learning curve as he has been involved in the Athletic administration in a very high position for a long time. He knows all the people involved and how the programs work. No one involved in Athletics has voiced any concerns about him taking over. In fact, Mulkey was happy for him.
re: So Verge has a “target” that Rousse likes, but…..
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/5/25 at 5:01 pm to Juan Betanzos
This means that there is no such job title with "Interim" on it. The job is listed as "Athletic Director." He is still an employee of the university and can be fired tomorrow without any consequence for no reason at all. At some point, they may execute an employment contract with Verge that outlines a term of employment (time) and sets a salary, or they may hire another person for the AD job and demote Verge back to Assistant.
re: Wilson Alexander article
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 11/2/25 at 2:11 pm to sinceitbegan
It is mostly a lot of gobblity asian and speculation about how Kelly was out of touch. Few specifics like not remembering recruits' names and overall being out of touch in recruiting, player relationships and gameplanning. He chalks it up to not accepting the "culture." Not a great journalism piece.
Few details about how firing played out. Woody met with him in morning about potential changes and somehow developed into Kelly being fired.
Few details about how firing played out. Woody met with him in morning about potential changes and somehow developed into Kelly being fired.
re: John Carmouche: "the taxpayer has never paid for a coach and never will"
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 10/31/25 at 10:54 am to Ingeniero
Both the Governor and Carmouche are correct. Their statements are not mutually exclusive. The State of Louisiana, through LSU, is a party to the contract is ultimately responsible for the obligations that arise when there is a breach or termination by LSU. However, the standard practice has been that in the negotiation and execution of these contracts, the private boosters would be expected to shoulder the burden. This was understood during the negotiation and execution of the contract. The BOS knew this, the President of LSU knew this and previous and current governor knew this.
Carmouche statement about the past is correct, but his statement about the future is only a prediction based on past history. There is nothing that legally requires any donor/booster to pay a buyout fee.
Carmouche statement about the past is correct, but his statement about the future is only a prediction based on past history. There is nothing that legally requires any donor/booster to pay a buyout fee.
re: Mulkey heartbroken and did not attend postgame press conference
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 10/31/25 at 6:18 am to tigerskin
She is not heartbroken. She knows how this works. She didn’t want to answer a bunch of stupid questions about Woodward.
re: Brad Davis needs to be next
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 10/27/25 at 9:04 am to Brobocop
Firing Davis at this point would be counterproductive. The line is what it is and little can change in a few weeks. The effect of an offensive line coach begins in the Spring and continues in the Summer. Fall camp is usually just to finalize plans and designate starters. On the other hand, the offensive coordinator has much more effect on week to week performance with the development of the game plan and coaching the quarterback. Getting rid of Davis now would hamper LSU's ability to keep players out of the transfer portal and keep recruits committed.
re: The problem starts with Woodward
Posted by lsuatty1311 on 10/26/25 at 11:02 am to fightntiger32
This is a silly and lazy argument. It is not fair to judge Woodward with hindsight which is always 20-20. Judge him by what he had in front of him at the time of the hire. We had to get rid of Coach O because the shite show he caused after the magic season. The big name everyone was saying was a "can't miss" was Lincoln Riley, who really had no interest in LSU and was given the kingdom at USC. The hire of Kelly looked to be a huge coup and a great hire. Notre Dame had never had a coach leave to coach another college program. The only issue people had at the time was the cost and duration of the hire, which by today's standards, is not an unreasonable amount for a top tier coach.
Popular
2












