BK FIRED (Sloan too)

It looks like the morals clause only applies in the case of "termination for cause". If LSU wants to negotiate the buyout, that means they did NOT terminate him for cause, therefore the morals clause does not apply at all. At that point, the only negotiation for a lump sum payment up front at a reduced rate is due to "time value of money" and a simple discounted cash flow calculation that one can do on Excel on one line in 10 minutes if you are still facile on Excel. There is no public information of any sort so it has not reflected negatively on LSU anyway. The only way it would become public is if LSU put it out, and that might constitute blackmail in order to lower the buyout. I'm thinking we don't go there.


1761753344653.png
 
houtiger said:
But if the Uni knew about it and did not fire BK for it as soon as they knew, he could argue that they were OK with it. It only became an issue when he lost 3 of the last 4 games, the last game in a pathetic blowout. So, would the morals clause hold up in court in that case? Very doubtful to me. BK may concede some money, but I don't think he would concede down to 24 million, about half, which is what I see floating around on the internet.
Click to expand...
I say that is a poker chip they keep and ante up when needed.
 
houtiger said:
BK must make a good faith effort to obtain a job, per his contract, and his salary would be deducted from the amount LSU owes him.


View attachment 31
Click to expand...

correct, but like the buyout, I'm sure that's on the table for negotiating.

Maybe removing this clause and keeping the specific morality clause issue quiet is enough for Kelly to take half of the buyout.
$25 mil plus to never have to work again (he is at a normal retirement age) is good enough for him.
 
Nutriaitch said:
correct, but like the buyout, I'm sure that's on the table for negotiating.

Maybe removing this clause and keeping the specific morality clause issue quiet is enough for Kelly to take half of the buyout.
$25 mil plus to never have to work again (he is at a normal retirement age) is good enough for him.
Click to expand...

I agree. At 64 and with plenty of money from his previous coaching earnings, it might be attractive to not HAVE to do anything you don't really want to. Split the rag with LSU, take a lower number, and de-complicate your life, do what the heck you please without having to explain anything to LSU. I am sure there is a number that makes sense. The two sides just need to find it.
 
houtiger said:
I am sure there is a number that makes sense. The two sides just need to find it.
Click to expand...
yep, and all we'll ever know is the dollar amount (and only because LSU has to disclose their spending).
the rest of the details will be sealed with an NDA.
 
dachsie said:
That says WITHOUT cause but arent we seeing it was WITH cause - violation of morality clause?
Click to expand...
he wasn't fired "with cause"

you never fire a coach "with cause" unless you have a 100% guaranteed lock that you would win in court. in which case the coach just says "yeah, you're right. I'm out no need for court".
and apparently that's not the case here.

this sounds more like a situation where maybe LSU could win a court case, but maybe not.
LSU doesn't want to risk a messy court case, so they don't pursue the "with cause" firing.
Brian Kelly doesn't want whatever his transgression were to become public knowledge so LSU uses that leverage to negotiate his buyout down.

both sides come to a table and meet until they reach a settlement where both sides are comfortable with being enough to keep this quiet and go away.
 
houtiger said:
It looks like the morals clause only applies in the case of "termination for cause". If LSU wants to negotiate the buyout, that means they did NOT terminate him for cause, therefore the morals clause does not apply at all.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s also the idea of “if you want all your money, we will terminate you for cause and we can drag each other through the courts for seven years and see if you get it But if you’ll take half now, we can avoid all that.” Maybe the terms of the termination itself are negotiable too, not just the terms of the buyout.
 
dachsie said:
That says WITHOUT cause but arent we seeing it was WITH cause - violation of morality clause?
Click to expand...
No. Go to the top of this page, and there is one from me on the bottom of the previous page. We know the termination was NOT for cause because if it was for cause, LSU would not owe BK a thin dime. That is what the contract says. Since LSU is negotiating with BK for some settlement, we know it is not for cause, and the morality clause does not apply. The morality clause (I quoted it on the previous page and a link to the original 23 page contract) would be a reason to fire BK for cause, but that is not what is happening.
 
BobRodes said:
Well, there’s also the idea of “if you want all your money, we will terminate you for cause and we can drag each other through the courts for seven years and see if you get it But if you’ll take half now, we can avoid all that.” Maybe the terms of the termination itself are negotiable too, not just the terms of the buyout.
Click to expand...
LSU would have a lot of risk there, and there better be PROOF of the cause, or who the hell would want to take the LSU job if that is how they treated head coaches on the way out of the door. If they had proof of the causes cited in the contract, they could terminate him for cause and there would be no compensation due. Kelly would sue. They the question would be how much each party's reputation would be tarnished, and LSU would look very bad if they went that way without strong proof. Nothing ever came out in the press, so BK never reflected poorly on LSU's reputation (except for hiring a coach that could not win the SEC and had the program skidding down).
 
again, all of this is to avoid open court and airing dirty laundry.

LSU absolutely has SOMETHING on Kelly that can be viewed as a violation of at least one clause in his contract.

We know this because they want to negotiate. If they had nothing at all, there would be no negotiation and Kelly would tell them to pound sand and cut the check.

Kelly knows what LSU has and probably knows there is no chance he’s getting the full buyout. Not even if this goes to court.
abut he’s also confident that whatever it is LSU has is not nearly enough for them win and him get zero dollars.

so both sides know from the jump that the sum will be somewhere between $0 and $53 mil.

there is only one way to come to a number without all dirty laundry from both sides being plastered across every sports page in the country.
Negotiate.

so that’s where we are now.
when it’s done we’ll find out the financial detail through an FOIA but none of the sordid details of what/when/how.
 
houtiger said:
LSU would have a lot of risk there, and there better be PROOF of the cause, or who the hell would want to take the LSU job if that is how they treated head coaches on the way out of the door. If they had proof of the causes cited in the contract, they could terminate him for cause and there would be no compensation due. Kelly would sue. They the question would be how much each party's reputation would be tarnished, and LSU would look very bad if they went that way without strong proof. Nothing ever came out in the press, so BK never reflected poorly on LSU's reputation (except for hiring a coach that could not win the SEC and had the program skidding down).
Click to expand...

it’s not even about looking bad for trying to squeeze Kelly.
it’s that in a court case, Kelly will bring up anything and everything he can to paint LSU as the opposite of moral. basically a “look at all this stuff that they allow to happen unchecked all the time. it created an atmosphere where the rules don’t really apply” type argument.

meaning dirty laundry gets aired.

the kind that could land LSU in hot water with NCAA, etc.

LSU in turn would publicly cite anything Kelly ever did that goes against that clause. any drinking of alcohol when he was “working”, and gambling, any sexual affairs, any rules violations, etc. Paint Kelly out to be as immoral as possible to justify the lower buyout.
basically tarnish Kelly in every way possible.

Neither side wants that to happen.
 
Nutriaitch said:
LSU absolutely has SOMETHING on Kelly that can be viewed as a violation of at least one clause in his contract.

We know this because they want to negotiate. If they had nothing at all, there would be no negotiation and Kelly would tell them to pound sand and cut the check.
Click to expand...
I disagree. They may want to negotiate a lower buyout by paying a lump sum right now, if that is what a rich booster wants to do. You could take time value of money and arrive at a lower lump sum today that would be equal in value to the string of payments over the next 6 years. That is a negotiation that does not involve any wrong doing on BK's part. BK may want to be released from his obligation to seek employment, you mentioned that already.

Suppose BK wants to go to announcing. Laura Rutledge makes 400K a year at SECN. Jordan Rogers makes 2 mil. a year at SECN. Kirk Herbstreit makes over 10 mil a year at his network. The salaries are all over the place. I don't know what BK could make, let's say 4 mil a year announcing. He's due 9 mil a year from LSU, so offset by 4 mil for the announcing job, LSU owes him 5 mil a year, for 6 years, or 30 mil. If LSU paid him 6 mil a year for 6 years, so 36 mil (that's 14 mil less than the 54 or so they owe him now, BK could come out with 10 mil a year instead of 9 mil, and LSU could save 20 mil also. Depending on how they handle this, there is a deal where both can come out better and it has nothing to do with wrongdoing. As many folks as seem in the know about this deal, if there was wrong doing, I think we'd know about it by now.
 
Kelly isn’t just going to give up close $20mil (more than that actually if some of the reported rumors are true).
It’s been heavily rumored to be somewhere in the $27 mil range. Meaning he’d also be giving up $27 mil.
No way he does that unless LSU could dangle something over him.


and we wouldn’t necessarily know anything they didn’t want us to know.
we didn’t know anything about Les’ transgressions till he’d been gone a couple years.
 
Email from Brian Kelly to Woodward after he was fired (source is WAFB):

Scott and team,

Sending a quick note to confirm that following my termination during our meeting today, I will

return all LSU materials in my possession as required by my contract. Let me know if it’s

better for me to clean out my office, or if you would prefer to pack everything up and send it to

me. I assume HR will be in touch regarding any other housekeeping matters out there, but let me

know if you need anything else from me in the meantime.

As we discussed in our meeting, I’m open to your desire to reach a settlement of what’s owed

to me under the contract, although of course it would have to make sense financially.

Despite your decision to let me go today, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to lead this

program over the last four years and wish you all the best going forward.

Best,

Brian
Click to expand...

www.wafb.com

Brian Kelly thanks LSU, says he’s open to “settlement”

In an email to LSU confirming his termination, Coach Brian Kelly thanked then LSU Athletics Director Scott Woodward and other administrators for the opportunity to lead the team, stating he is open to reaching a settlement for the amount he is owed.
www.wafb.com www.wafb.com
 
Nutriaitch said:
Kelly isn’t just going to give up close $20mil (more than that actually if some of the reported rumors are true).
It’s been heavily rumored to be somewhere in the $27 mil range. Meaning he’d also be giving up $27 mil.
No way he does that unless LSU could dangle something over him.


and we wouldn’t necessarily know anything they didn’t want us to know.
we didn’t know anything about Les’ transgressions till he’d been gone a couple years.
Click to expand...
That is not necessarily true. First we don't know what figure a settlement could be reached at. Second, as I outlined above, if Kelly wants a job in a booth, depending on the settlement and the announcing job offer, Kelly could work it to make $10 mil a year total (LSU comp + announcing gig) instead of just the 9 mil a year from LSU.

There are potential reasons to negotiate a lower buyout like strictly financial reasons, that have nothing to do with LSU having something on Kelly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nutriaitch
  • Sticky
The LSU circus
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
233
Hatchertiger
Hatchertiger
H
LSU vs Open Date 1 Oct. 4, 2025
Replies
12
Views
65
Herb
Herb
Herb
  • Sticky
NCAA Coaching Carousel 2025 Edition
2 3
Replies
58
Views
261
Nutriaitch
Nutriaitch
F
Injuries
Replies
1
Views
21
Fishhead
F
H
LSU vs South Carolina - Sat. Oct. 11 6:45 PM CT (home)
2
Replies
26
Views
124
houtiger
H
Back
Top