The LSU circus

[houtiger]

Below is from AI. I don't know where they came up with the Nov. 19 date, I don't see it anywhere else.

"The November 19, 2025 hearing for the Brian Kelly lawsuit against LSU will be a crucial early step in the legal dispute over his approximately
$54
million buyout. At the hearing, the court will address Kelly's motions to get a court order for a show-cause hearing, a declaratory judgment that he was fired without cause, a writ of mandamus to compel LSU to provide specific records, and his legal costs. This is the latest development in the ongoing legal battle, which began after Kelly rejected two settlement offers from LSU.

• Background: The dispute centers on whether LSU fired Kelly "for cause," which would relieve the university of its obligation to pay the full
  $54million buyout
  Kelly's demands: Through his lawsuit, Kelly is seeking a court ruling that LSU owes him the full amount. The hearing will address his requests for a formal show-cause hearing, declaratory judgments that he was not terminated for cause, and a writ of mandamus to force LSU to provide certain records related to the firing. He is also seeking reimbursement for his legal costs.
  million buyout outlined in his contract.
• LSU's position: According to the lawsuit, LSU informed Kelly's representatives that it intends to fire him for cause, a claim Kelly's legal team disputes. LSU had previously offered settlement amounts of$25 million and $30 million, both of which Kelly rejected. "
  ----------------------------------------------

For LSU to produce certain records related to the firing, that may be the key. When an employee is terminated, you may or may not provide a letter to the employee, but you definitely have to fill out an internal document to give to HR that will stop payment for their health insurance, and provide information on COBRA coverage. They would be taken out of the regular payroll system so there would be no more contributions to 401K, cut off company credit cards, take the employee badge out of the building access, etc. There would be some check boxes on there, separation was a. voluntary or b. involuntary and if involuntary a. for cause or b. not for cause (performance reason).

 

[Nutriaitch]

I don't know where they came up with the Nov. 19 date, I don't see it anywhere else.

"The November 19, 2025 hearing for the Brian Kelly lawsuit against LSU will be a crucial early step in the legal dispute over his approximately
$54
million buyout. At the hearing, the court will address Kelly's motions to get a court order for a show-cause hearing, a declaratory judgment that he was fired without cause, a writ of mandamus to compel LSU to provide specific records, and his legal costs. This is the latest development in the ongoing legal battle, which began after Kelly rejected two settlement offers from LSU.

• Background: The dispute centers on whether LSU fired Kelly "for cause," which would relieve the university of its obligation to pay the full
  $54million buyout
  Kelly's demands: Through his lawsuit, Kelly is seeking a court ruling that LSU owes him the full amount. The hearing will address his requests for a formal show-cause hearing, declaratory judgments that he was not terminated for cause, and a writ of mandamus to force LSU to provide certain records related to the firing. He is also seeking reimbursement for his legal costs.
  million buyout outlined in his contract.
• LSU's position: According to the lawsuit, LSU informed Kelly's representatives that it intends to fire him for cause, a claim Kelly's legal team disputes. LSU had previously offered settlement amounts of$25 million and $30 million, both of which Kelly rejected. "
  ----------------------------------------------

For LSU to produce certain records related to the firing, that may be the key. When an employee is terminated, you may or may not provide a letter to the employee, but you definitely have to fill out an internal document to give to HR that will stop payment for their health insurance, and provide information on COBRA coverage. They would be taken out of the regular payroll system so there would be no more contributions to 401K, cut off company credit cards, take the employee badge out of the building access, etc. There would be some check boxes on there, separation was a. voluntary or b. involuntary and if involuntary a. for cause or b. not for cause (performance reason).

definitely will be interesting to monitor

 

[houtiger]

definitely will be interesting to monitor

Just to make this a little more interesting, the person who probably filled out the company internal termination form was Scott Woodward. LSU fired Woodward. I doubt if Woodward is looking to help the LSU cause. I doubt he would lie to hurt LSU. Most likely he would just tell the truth and if that hurt LSU's case, so be it. I have heard there were about 3 other LSU people in the room when they fired Kelly. There has to be some testimony from everyone in the room, what was said.

 

[Hatchertiger]

SW issued a written statement that boxes him in a bit as to what happened. From what I recall it doesn’t mesh with LSU’s claim that Kelly was fired for cause.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Just to make this a little more interesting, the person who probably filled out the company internal termination form was Scott Woodward. LSU fired Woodward. I doubt if Woodward is looking to help the LSU cause. I doubt he would lie to hurt LSU. Most likely he would just tell the truth and if that hurt LSU's case, so be it.

what's interesting to me is(and Hatch could likely confirm) is that the paper trail would be more important than what was said out loud, correct?
and you would think a lawyer would have been involved in some way on LSU's part to make sure this was all done properly from a legal standpoint.

I have heard there were about 3 other LSU people in the room when they fired Kelly. There has to be some testimony from everyone in the room, what was said.

I know in my small corporate world, there is always multiple in the room when a termination happens.
mainly just so there are witnesses.

again, I would assume an operation like LSU athletics would do the same and have all legal bases covered.

but then again, with the shitshow we've seen publicly, who the fuck knows.

 

[Hatchertiger]

but then again, with the shitshow we've seen publicly, who the fuck knows.

Bingo! And that’s my concern. Just because lawyers were involved doesn’t mean all is in line. And many times sound legal advice is ignored. My hope is that the situation is resolved quickly and the focus becomes the new coach.

 

[houtiger]

I found an LSU board of supervisors meeting agenda webpage. Today they met in executive session (closed door) to discuss the BK lawsuit.

Edit: The point is that some info might leak out about the decisions of the BoS.

 

[Nutriaitch]

I found an LSU board of supervisors meeting agenda webpage. Today they met in executive session (closed door) to discuss the BK lawsuit.

they also voted to finally "officially" fire Kelly by sending him the written notice of his termination (no detail on anything other than agreeing to send a letter)

 

[Hatchertiger]

Time to end this.

 

[houtiger]

"ESPN - Nov 21, 2025, 12:49 PM ET

The LSU board of supervisors authorized new university president Wade Rousse to send former Tigers football coach Brian Kelly a formal notice of termination during a meeting on Friday, according to The Advocate in Baton Rouge.

The move, which is the university's first action since Kelly sued the board of supervisors on Nov. 10, was discussed during a closed-door executive session.

According to The Advocate, LSU board member John Carmouche asked the board to authorize Rousse to "in consultation with general counsel to review and, if appropriate, send Brian Kelly written notice of termination under his employment agreement." The request was passed without objection."

Did they need a closed door meeting a month after Kelly was fired to decide to send him a letter, if appropriate, as formal notice of his termination. This sounds like mumbo jumbo to somehow cover up the fact that their entire effort to possibly try to fire BK for cause well after the fact that they stated in Woodward's press release the day he was fired that it was because of performance reason.

The rubber will hit the road at the end of November, when LSU owes BK his first $800K check. That should tell us LSU's intention, clearer than anything else. If BK gets a letter and a check, then he will probably give an interview.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Did they need a closed door meeting a month after Kelly was fired to decide to send him a letter, if appropriate, as formal notice of his termination. This sounds like mumbo jumbo

it's a political power move.

allegedly the bylaws state that this "formality" of a meeting and vote has to happen for any employee with a salary above $250K per year.
but until now that's bylaw is generally overlooked and ignored.

Hell, it was ignored for Sloan just this season.

This is the board (and by extension the governor) getting more involved than they have been in the past.

 

[houtiger]

it's a political power move.

It looks more like a political charade to cover up the fact that they look so stupid for saying they would try to fire BK for cause, weeks after they fired him for performance reason and stated so publicly.

Now if they ill-advisedly send him a letter and try to fire him for cause, they must know how bad it would look. The contract said they had to give him written notice of the cause and give him 7 days to fix the "cause". They did not follow the contract.

Sending BK a letter just gets LSU out of the idiocy of saying he was not "technically fired". OK, now he's technically fired.

Do they really want to make it "for cause"? I don't think so, but we'll see. BK has already sued and seeks to recover his legal expenses. I wonder if he could amend the suit and seek damages for breech of contract, or libel? It seems to me that LSU opens itself to new legal exposure if they continue down the for cause path.

Rather than a political power move, I see it as an attempt to save some face, and avoid other possible financial exposure.

Jeeze, they gonna send him a letter, "if appropriate". They just admitted that a letter is NOT a requirement to fire the head coach if the AD and 3 other people tell him he is fired for performance reasons. "Well sometimes you should send a letter, and sometimes you don't have to, just when it is appropriate"

 

[Nutriaitch]

the Governor himself removed the AD from the equation.
the Governor appointed his hand picked puppet as President.
The board is majority appointees by this governor.

this is all a power move to show who is in charge.

and it ain’t Verge

the governor is taking over LSU athletics.
and this was obvious before the law suit charade even popped up

 

[Hatchertiger]

Every governor to some extent has been involved with LSU and athletics. This one is dumb enough to open his big fat mouth at every turn to make sure everyone knows that he is.

 

[houtiger]

The gov. can insert himself as far into LSU athletics as he wants. That has no bearing on the validity of BK's suit against LSU. Either he was separated effective immediately for performance reasons after consultation with the BoS and he is owed all of his money, or LSU can decide that he was not fired on 10/26 the way Woodward said and some weeks later they can decide he should be fired for cause. The gov. has no bearing on that outcome. It is in the contract, and now it is up to a judge. So Friday the BoS decide they should send a letter "if appropriate". For cause, or without cause? I think the for cause route exposed LSU to greater risk.

 

[houtiger]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993827225117053197

 

[Nutriaitch]

guess it was to difficult to have done this a month ago

 

[Herb]

So now his lawsuit gets tossed, Kelly gets hired somewhere, and LSU might be able to get a settlement figure close to the one they already offered him.

 

[Herb]

Kelly will NOT get " the full $54 million from LSU" that is being reported in almost every news story today. Note that he still has the "duty to mitigate" clause in his contract. Here are the possibilities as I see them...feel free to correct me:

• Kelly still has to actively look for a high profile football related job. There is NOTHING LSU has done that has prevented him from doing just that. He also has to keep records of his job search and report those back to LSU.
• If Kelly does not give suitable effort in finding a football related job, LSU has grounds to bring this back in court as a failure to perform these duties as outlined by his contract and would likely win some level of relief.
• If Kelly is hired by another university, whatever his salary is there is subtracted from the "$54 million" LSU owes him.
• If Kelly is hired as an analyst on TV, similarly, his salary there would be deducted from what LSU owes him.
• I'm not fully certain on this point, but I think when the contract refers to a "football related job" it means that he has to look for and accept a similar level of job in the university ranks or a TV analyst job - he can't take a job as a high school coach at $45K and expect LSU to continue to pay the balance of his contract. That would not satisfy the 'duty to mitigate' language in his contract.
• Remember that LSU offered a settlement of nearly 3x the settlement that James Franklin and Penn State agreed to. My guess is that if and when Kelly is offered a job, any settlement would probably be way less than what LSU previously offered. Of course, Kelly will likely want the 'full difference' between his LSU contract and any new employment he agrees to (because Kelly is a dick).

News reports I saw indicate that Kelly's lawyers will withdraw his lawsuit on Monday.

Kelly claimed that in a phone conversation LSU tried to claim they were going to fire him for cause. Is that admissible in court? Was there a recording or would that have been considered hearsay?

Kelly then claimed (through his lawyers) publicly that LSU actions were preventing him from seeking employment. Did he mean the lawsuit he filed? The delay in the formal process of his termination (which might have been due in part because LSU was still in the process of naming a new University System President)?

At the end of the day, this was all Brian Kelly being a dick because he got fired when he thought he could not be fired. He stopped performing his job as LSU's head coach, was more interested in playing golf than fixing what was wrong with his football team that he was 'CEO' of, and gambled that LSU would not fire him because they'd owe him $54 million.

Everything he has done since he was fired to done to try to cause injury to LSU not because LSU was being unfair or unjust to him but because he thought he was untouchable and could not be fired.

He miscalculated and loss.

 

[Nutriaitch]

the only argument i see for hurting him at getting a new job is that is technically still employed by LSU, he would owe LSU a buyout if he left without being fired. And that buyout is typically picked up by the new school.

but that is a stretch at best.