The LSU circus

[houtiger]

but like I said, nowhere in his contract does it say how fast LSU has to provide the termination "in writing"
the 7 day period starts from that moment, not from October 26.

I don't remember when the written termination letter has to come, but that is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is, if LSU wanted to terminate him for cause, they had to write down the cause, send it to him and give him 7 days to respond, and review his response, and LSU did not do that. All public statements have been to the effect that he was separated from LSU for poor performance. If LSU wanted to terminate him for cause, they did not follow their own contract. You can't decide weeks after the termination, and I posted that Woodward said he had consulted with the BofS prior to releasing BK, and it was for lack of winning.

Go look at post #9 above on this page.

 

[Nutriaitch]

I don't remember when the written termination letter has to come, but that is NOT THE ISSUE.

yeah, it kind of is an issue

The issue is, if LSU wanted to terminate him for cause, they had to write down the cause, send it to him

so if they haven’t sent the termination letter yet, they can still do this.
see where the timing of the written notice matters?

and give him 7 days to respond, and review his response, and LSU did not do that.

yet

All public statements have been to the effect that he was separated from LSU for poor performance.

contract doesn’t say the written letter and public statements have to agree with each other.

If LSU wanted to terminate him for cause, they did not follow their own contract.

contract doesn’t say WHEN they have to send him the letter. just that they have to send him one.
i’ve received them a month after leaving a job before.

which if that timeframe is legal, then LSU is still within their legal rights to terminate with cause (pending having actual cause, of course), send the letter and start the 7 day clock.

You can't decide weeks after the termination, and I posted that Woodward said he had consulted with the BofS prior to releasing BK, and it was for lack of winning.

again, what you say out loud to a reporter does not have to be the same thing that’s in the written termination letter.
the written notice is the legally binding document, not the transcripts of a press conference.

sure they can bring it up in court and LSU can defend themselves by saying something along the lines of “we didn’t want to slander his name public while we were still discussing the matter internally”.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Go look at post #9 above on this page.

like the part of that post that says

Terms of the separation are still being negotiated.

sounds like LSU publicly stated that the exact detail of the separation (which could easily include whether or not it was “for cause”) were not final at time of press conference.

 

[houtiger]

sounds like LSU publicly stated that the exact detail of the separation (which could easily include whether or not it was “for cause”) were not final at time of press conference.

The term that were being negotiated was the nature of the amount owed because of the termination for performance. If terminated for cause, BK would not be owed a dime. So if LSU was negotiating the buyout dollar amount and when paid, clearly they knew BK was not terminated for cause. BK said he was open to negotiating the $ of the buyout, which makes sense. If he got somewhere between 44 and 47 mil today, I have shown that makes sense according to a quick Net Present Value calculation. $44 mil today is equal in value to 800K per month over the next 6 years, assuming BK can earn 8% per year on the money. That is why most lotto winners take a reduced amount as a lump sum payment (and there may be some life reasons). BK might want to buy his way out of his duty to mitigate under the contract. That makes business sense, and BK said about his willingness to negotiate that "it had to make financial sense". He was not willing to accept the 25 mil or the 30 mil. offers from LSU because clearly they did not make financial sense to anyone with an Excel spreadsheet and knows how to use the NPV function.

 

[houtiger]

Again, this is what Woodward posted on 10/26:

"BATON ROUGE, La. — LSU Athletics has made the decision to separate with football head coach Brian Kelly effective immediately, Director of Athletics Scott Woodward announced Sunday.

Terms of the separation are still being negotiated.

“When Coach Kelly arrived at LSU four years ago, we had high hopes that he would lead us to multiple SEC and national championships during his time in Baton Rouge,” Woodward said. “Ultimately, the success at the level that LSU demands simply did not materialize, and I made the decision to make a change after last night’s game. I am grateful for the ongoing consultations and support of the LSU Board of Supervisors and Interim President Matt Lee in this decision. We wish Coach Kelly and his family the very best in their future endeavors. We will continue to negotiate his separation and will work toward a path that is better for both parties.”

In employment situations, the word "separate" means the employee has been terminated. In this case with BK, he did not want to resign, so his termination was involuntary. In common parlance, he got fired.

Woodward consulted with the Board and interim president Matt Lee. That appears to follow the LSU process for such a termination.

 

[Nutriaitch]

i get all of that.

but if the “written notice” has not been presented to Kelly, then it doesn’t matter what anyone says in a press conference.

he hasn’t been legally fired yet.
because as the contract states, it has to be in writing.

not verbally.
not told to the press.

in writing to Kelly.
until that happens, he is still technically employed by LSU.

 

[houtiger]

I disagree. The following is from AI and is a general case, but since neither of us are lawyers, it sounds right to me. If the employer unreasonably withholds the letter, that is not the employees fault.

"A termination made via a press release, without a formal, direct written letter provided to the employee as required by the employment contract, is likely a breach of contract, and its validity would depend on the specific circumstances and applicable law, potentially giving rise to a claim for damages. The termination is still generally considered effective, but the employer's failure to follow the contract's procedures creates legal issues.

Contractual Requirements

• "In Writing" Requirement: While a press release is technically a "written" document, contract law generally implies that formal, legal notices must be properly communicated to the other party as specified in the agreement's notice provisions. A press release is a public announcement, not a direct, formal notice to the employee, and likely does not satisfy the intent of such a clause, which is to ensure the employee is unequivocally and privately informed of their termination.
• Breach of Contract: The employer's failure to provide a written letter to the employee directly, as stipulated in the contract, is a breach of the agreed-upon terms. This could be considered a material breach depending on the exact wording of the contract and the jurisdiction's laws. "

Because LSU has not provided a letter to BK, he has sued for a judge to force LSU to inform him in writing the nature of his termination, for cause or not for cause.

 

[Nutriaitch]

I disagree. The following is from AI and is a general case, but since neither of us are lawyers, it sounds right to me. If the employer unreasonably withholds the letter, that is not the employees fault.

"A termination made via a press release, without a formal, direct written letter provided to the employee as required by the employment contract, is likely a breach of contract, and its validity would depend on the specific circumstances and applicable law, potentially giving rise to a claim for damages. The termination is still generally considered effective, but the employer's failure to follow the contract's procedures creates legal issues.

you bolded all the wrong key words.
likely
potentially
dependent upon specific circumstances
applicable law


in the Press conference, it was even stated "still being negotiated" (meaning not finalized yet).

Contractual Requirements

• "In Writing" Requirement: While a press release is technically a "written" document, contract law generally implies that formal, legal notices must be properly communicated to the other party as specified in the agreement's notice provisions. A press release is a public announcement, not a direct, formal notice to the employee, and likely does not satisfy the intent of such a clause, which is to ensure the employee is unequivocally and privately informed of their termination.

and since the contract does not spell out a specific timeline on when this notice needs to be give, LSU can still do that.

• Breach of Contract: The employer's failure to provide a written letter to the employee directly, as stipulated in the contract, is a breach of the agreed-upon terms. This could be considered a material breach depending on the exact wording of the contract and the jurisdiction's laws. "

again, no timeline is given for WHEN this notice needs to be given (I'm sure some state laws covers a timeframe, but the contract itself does not), so the contract has not been breached.

Because LSU has not provided a letter to BK,

yet

he has sued for a judge to force LSU to inform him in writing the nature of his termination, for cause or not for cause.

and he WILL get that letter.

 

[Hatchertiger]

It’s been said Woody didn’t have authority to fire Kelly yet his written statement says otherwise. Maybe he got canned because he didn’t have BOS approval? It’s a PR nightmare for LSU no matter how you slice it.

 

[Nutriaitch]

It’s been said Woody didn’t have authority to fire Kelly yet his written statement says otherwise. Maybe he got canned because he didn’t have BOS approval? It’s a PR nightmare for LSU no matter how you slice it.

it's also been said that Woody wasn't even at the super secret board meeting where the decision was made.

 

[houtiger]

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

This is clear. Ask any HR person what that means, it mean BK is fired, effective immediately. Ask any person on the street what it mean, and they will tell you that Kelly was fired, effective immediately.

“Ultimately, the success at the level that LSU demands simply did not materialize,

The termination was due to performance reasons.

I am grateful for the ongoing consultations and support of the LSU Board of Supervisors and Interim President Matt Lee in this decision.

Woodward had lined up his ducks and complied with the LSU process for firing the coach.

It is all in Woodwards press release that I copied off of LSUsports.net, from Oct. 26.

You don't get a chance to fire him again a few weeks later and try to say it was for cause, when you never notified BK in writing before his termination, what the "cause" was, and give him a chance to respond. That is in the contract. That is why the entire nation thinks LSU athletic leadership is bush league right now.

The patent absurdity of LSU trying to writhe its way out of paying Brian Kelly what it owes him

LSU had no problem with Brian Kelly's contract when they signed it. The Tigers' administrators (and the Louisiana governor) shouldn't try to weasel out of it now that things didn't go their way on the field.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Nutriaitch]

This is clear. Ask any HR person what that means, it mean BK is fired, effective immediately.

the terms of which are still under negotiations


that is also very clear.

 

[houtiger]

the terms of which are still under negotiations

The only terms under negotiation are whether Kelly would accept a lower number up front, and the two numbers that LSU offered were rejected by Kelly. Kelly's team offered 43 mil which is close in time value of money, and LSU rejected it.

As I have said, if they fired Kelly for cause, he gets zero buyout money. In Kelly's suit against LSU, they say the first time LSU ever mentioned "for cause" was on Monday Nov. 10, a little over two weeks after Woodward said he was separated effective immediately for poor performance, after consultation with the board and acting LSU president.

LSU looks stupid and I don't think their most recent line of non-reason will prevail.

The first 10 min. of the video below gives a good recap of what has happened and I agree with what Mascona said.

 

[Nutriaitch]

The only terms under negotiation

we don't know what is or isn't under negotiations.

As I have said, if they fired Kelly for cause, he gets zero buyout money. In Kelly's suit against LSU, they say the first time LSU ever mentioned "for cause" was on Monday Nov. 10, a little over two weeks after Woodward said he was separated effective immediately for poor performance, after consultation with the board and acting LSU president.

LSU first stared leaking that the negotiations were centered around the "morality clause" which is under the for cause section of his contract on October 28th.

we even discussed it on here back then.
it was public knowledge that this was part of the negotiations.

I said this back on October 29th in the BK Fired thread

"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."

Negotiating Terms.
Including whether or not this firing will be "for cause" due to the morality clause violation or not.


Negotiations have broken down, so now we go to court.

LSU looks stupid

I agree completely
even started a thread calling this shitshow a circus

and I don't think their most recent line of non-reason will prevail.

all we know is what is leaked.
we have absolutely ZERO clue what is actually being said behind closed doors in meetings with lawyers, etc.

so it's impossible to predict.

 

[houtiger]

Negotiating Terms.
Including whether or not this firing will be "for cause" due to the morality clause violation or not.

We are starting to go in circles. We disagree. You think LSU has something on Kelly and are negotiating for a significantly reduced buyout.

I think LSU does not have anything on Kelly, and Kelly would accept a lower number only if it makes financial sense on a "time value of money" basis, and if LSU lets him buy out the "duty to mitigate" clause in the "not for cause" termination provisions.

Matt Mascona's description echos mine, and Mascona is talking to sources much closer to the situation than anyone on this board; his video is on post 33 just above this one.

We'll wait until something from the court comes down or significant new information.

 

[Nutriaitch]

We are starting to go in circles. We disagree. You think LSU has something on Kelly and are negotiating for a significantly reduced buyout.

LSU thinks they have something on Kelly. And I have used that exact phrasing multiple times now to show that I don't know what (or even if) LSU has anything. But they sure as hell think they do.
they thought it when the "morality clause" story first came out.
and they still think it now that they are reportedly trying to fire him "with cause".

I think LSU does not have anything on Kelly,

because nobody has released what LSU does/doesn't have.
so you're literally heard only one side of the story so far and have locked in your opinion based on only that side.

I have no clue what the hell LSU thinks they have.
and will wait until I find that extremely crucial piece of information before forming an opinion one way or another.

and Kelly would accept a lower number only if it makes financial sense on a "time value of money" basis, and if LSU lets him buy out the "duty to mitigate" clause in the "not for cause" termination provisions.

Kelly may very well be willing to fight this tooth and nail.
Or maybe the specifics of why LSU wants to pursue "for cause" start to leak and he backs down.

Matt Mascona's description echos mine,

I'm extremely grateful that his opinion is different than mine.
Gives me a lot more confidence I'm on the right trail.

and Mascona is talking to sources much closer to the situation than anyone on this board; his video is on post 33 just above this one.

Mascona's main source has been TigerDroppings for year now.

We'll wait until something from the court comes down or significant new information.

which is EXACTLY what the hell I've been saying all this time.

until we know the LSU side of the story, we can't actually judge any of this.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Here's an example

and this is JUST AN EXAMPLE.
I have to inside info, I've heard no rumors. And I am in no way, shape, or form saying that this is the issue at hand.

but this one of the fireable offenses listed under "for cause" in Brian Kelly's contract



There's two types of people that would cause two different reactions from from the employer..

Think Sark at USC where it was readily available public knowledge that he had a serious problem. Was even drinking on job, was drunk in public, etc. So they fired with "with cause". Sark filed a lawsuit and lost. (We haven't seen that from Kelly, so we're all pretty confident this isn't the case.)

Then you could have a guy where insiders see a pattern and some issues. But the public knows nothing about.
Now you have to be able to actually PROVE that your guy is drinking too much and the drinking is impairing his job. Not nearly as easy to do if the issues aren't immediately obvious and you need to be inside to see.

so you have something on him. but it's a crap shoot if you'll win or not.
so you don't immediately jump to firing "with cause". you instead attempt negotiations behind closed doors to get this thing settles outside of a court room.

Negotiations break down. Coach files a lawsuit saying "ok, prove it"
and here we are.




again, not saying this is what is happening.
just an example that could easily fit into what we currently know.

Gambling would be another similar type of issue that's in his contract.

another example that we would never hear about would be



meaning if he didn't


he's breaking contract.
but it's arguable what constitutes "reasonable interaction".

that's 3 right off the top of my head that could trigger a "with cause" firing, but would not be a guaranteed win in court for LSU.
so LSU (or any school for that matter) would not immediately fire "with cause" and instead would attempt back room negotiations to get it settled and move on.

It's also 3 that we the public would likely know absolutely nothing about.
Unless negotiations break down and it ends up being a public court battle.


so until I hear/read what LSU is calling "for cause", I'm not just going to sit back and assume Kelly is 100% squeaky clean and LSU has absolutely nothing on him at all.

 

[dachsie]

Hatcher- aren’t you a lawyer? Can you referee these two?

 

[Hatchertiger]

Hatcher- aren’t you a lawyer? Can you referee these two?

Yes and I feel like I’m in court reading the back and forth! Seriously until we know some actual facts about the alleged “cause” of the termination and some of the other issues, it’s all speculation. Can’t trust what the media puts out there.

 

[Hatchertiger]

But in the court of public opinion, we sure look bad to put it mildly.