Ugly said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

kyledr04 said:

---

"It also details that LSU attempted to settle with Kelly multiple times, including an e-mail that details offers from LSU to settle with Kelly for $25 million and then later $30 million. The e-mail, which is part of the filing, says the $30 million offer would have come in two installments and included the elimination of mitigation and offset provisions. Kelly did not agree to either."

He may wish he'd taken the $30mil after this is over.

---

I think LSU is doing all of this to get him to take the $30 million and walk away. Neither of them want this to actually go to court.

---

If I am BK I have no problem taking this to court. It's worth millions to me to do so, and I don't really have anything better to do at the moment.

---

That's what I'm hoping too, make this long and painful for LSU

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BlackGold said:

---

This is bush league by LSU, but really just par for the course with them.

Obviously I haven't read the contract, but there is no way LSU has a leg to stand on here. I assume all mediations and judgements would be under LA jurisdiction, spelled out in the contract, but I am not sure. LSU is definitely going to need to find a judge who is an alum, hates Brian Kelly and doesn't care about contract law - might be relatively easy.

---

All of this is just to get BK to settle for less, they don't actually want to go to court

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

BlackGold said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

BlackGold said:

---

This is bush league by LSU, but really just par for the course with them.

Obviously I haven't read the contract, but there is no way LSU has a leg to stand on here. I assume all mediations and judgements would be under LA jurisdiction, spelled out in the contract, but I am not sure. LSU is definitely going to need to find a judge who is an alum, hates Brian Kelly and doesn't care about contract law - might be relatively easy.

---

All of this is just to get BK to settle for less, they don't actually want to go to court

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Apparently BK offered to settle at $43 million and LSU declined and countered at $30 million. I bet they end up settling around $35-$38 million to avoid going to court.

And yes, this is very bush league of LSU and will probably hinder them from hiring any coach that has options on the table.

Good luck finding the best candidate to replace him.

"Hey, come coach our sh!+ show. We will can you ass in a couple of years and screw you on your contract."

He is Ass My Dude said:

---

Good luck finding the best candidate to replace him.

"Hey, come coach our sh!+ show. We will can you ass in a couple of years and screw you on your contract."

---

They are going to end up with a coach that doesn't have a lot of options

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

agracer said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

For those who want to get caught up without reading.

---

Doesn't the fact that LSU offered a settlement is an admission that LSU fired him?

---

No. Settlement agreements don't generally admit/deny guilt. Just removes that potential liability out there.

Jimbo!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

I'm not aware of any university that was able to wiggle out of paying besides Tennessee who turned themselves in to the NCAA for violations and Texas Tech who fired Leach for cause because of the ridiculous allegations with the "shed".

I'd say BK's lawyers are already telling him they have two birds in the hand.

Quote:

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

---

They mean nothing with state schools in Texas, too. See Leach, Mike and Texas Tech.

Quote:

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

---

when it comes to suing the state, they mean more in louisana than the do in texas. ask mike leach


Kelly isn't going to settle for $30mm. But he will settle for something. there is no reason not to. it allows him to control when he gets the money vs. each month for five years and also allows him to go get another job and not worry about an offset on what LSU owes him.

Quote:

---

They mean nothing with state schools in Texas, too. See Leach, Mike and Texas Tech.

---

great minds....

jimboo is burning up their phone lines.....he is probably willing to pay off Kelly with his A&Mm money to take the job !.......and it's a perfect fit !

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

---

They mean nothing with state schools in Texas, too. See Leach, Mike and Texas Tech.

---

There are far more that were paid out than were voided for cause.

rootube said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

---

They mean nothing with state schools in Texas, too. See Leach, Mike and Texas Tech.

---

There are far more that were paid out than were voided for cause.

---

the 'for cause" is not the reason tech did not have to pay leach.

sovereign immunity is why the case was dismissed.

it does not apply in the kelly case because the louisiana constitution waives sovereign immunity in contract and tort cases

If I were BK, I would have sued for the $54mm, and also for legal expenses/costs. (maybe this isn't possible, and maybe he did).

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

He is Ass My Dude said:

---

Good luck finding the best candidate to replace him.

"Hey, come coach our sh!+ show. We will can you ass in a couple of years and screw you on your contract."

---

They are going to end up with a coach that doesn't have a lot of options

---

rootube said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

I'm not aware of any university that was able to wiggle out of paying besides Tennessee who turned themselves in to the NCAA for violations and Texas Tech who fired Leach for cause because of the ridiculous allegations with the "shed".

I'd say BK's lawyers are already telling him they have two birds in the hand.

---

The point is he could win the case in court and still not get paid by the state if they opt not to approve the payment. As stated before on here, there are currently over $300 million worth of cases that have been awarded in court that the state has to pay the person and yet they are not paying them. Welcome to Louisiana....take what you can get.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

rootube said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

I'm not aware of any university that was able to wiggle out of paying besides Tennessee who turned themselves in to the NCAA for violations and Texas Tech who fired Leach for cause because of the ridiculous allegations with the "shed".

I'd say BK's lawyers are already telling him they have two birds in the hand.

---

The point is he could win the case in court and still not get paid by the state if they opt not to approve the payment. As stated before on here, there are currently over $300 million worth of cases that have been awarded in court that the state has to pay the person and yet they are not paying them. Welcome to Louisiana....take what you can get.

---

Ah, the Louisiana legal defense, "Yes, we are at fault and yes we do owe you money. However, we are completely dysfunctional, so good luck getting your money."

BMX Bandit said:

---

rootube said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So contracts mean nothing in Louisiana?

---

They mean nothing with state schools in Texas, too. See Leach, Mike and Texas Tech.

---

There are far more that were paid out than were voided for cause.

---

the 'for cause" is not the reason tech did not have to pay leach.

sovereign immunity is why the case was dismissed.

it does not apply in the kelly case because the louisiana constitution waives sovereign immunity in contract and tort cases

---

Tech Fired Leach for cause. The Leach counter suit was thrown out because of sovereign immunity. The amount in question for leach was $2-3M. Seems quaint now. This kind of stuff will get tested because of the amount of money we are talking about. I have no doubt LSU is going to fight BK it just seems like they are starting from a bad place.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

So then what the heck is the point of signing a guaranteed contract if it can be negated for any reason? Contracts are legally binding. I know you're a lawyer, but I just don't think that is right and what you're saying is even if he did settle for some lesser amount, the state could still just not pay him. Why settle at all then? No reasonable court would find removing the line item on the state expenditure, to not pay someone that it is contractually obligated to pay, appropriate, in my opinion. In Louisiana, I'm sure it is pretty easy to find a judge to protect LSU though.

The crux of this situation is if he is/was fired "for cause". Every college football fan saw BK get fired for performance a little over a week ago. Now LoserU is trying to walk that back and claim something totally different. Bush league.

Hope this sets LSU back a decade.

I know what tech says that sued him for. the point is that is irrelevant in why they didn't have to pay him. they could have admitted they fired him because they didn't like his haircut. he couldn't even sue tech because of sovereign immunity.

Quote:

---

This kind of stuff will get tested because of the amount of money we are talking about.

---

it won't be tested with kelly because sovereign immunity is waived by lousiana.

Ugly said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

rootube said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

I'm not aware of any university that was able to wiggle out of paying besides Tennessee who turned themselves in to the NCAA for violations and Texas Tech who fired Leach for cause because of the ridiculous allegations with the "shed".

I'd say BK's lawyers are already telling him they have two birds in the hand.

---

The point is he could win the case in court and still not get paid by the state if they opt not to approve the payment. As stated before on here, there are currently over $300 million worth of cases that have been awarded in court that the state has to pay the person and yet they are not paying them. Welcome to Louisiana....take what you can get.

---

Ah, the Louisiana legal defense, "Yes, we are at fault and yes we do owe you money. However, we are completely dysfunctional, so good luck getting your money."

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I know what tech says that sued him for. the point is that is irrelevant in why they didn't have to pay him. they could have admitted they fired him because they didn't like his haircut. he couldn't even sue tech because of sovereign immunity.

Quote:

---

This kind of stuff will get tested because of the amount of money we are talking about.

---

it won't be tested with kelly because sovereign immunity is waived by lousiana.

---

You know it's BS and I know it's BS but the two cases I'm aware of were fired for cause and they both listed reasons that were specifically spelled out in the contract. NCAA violations and mistreatment of players. Not haircuts or when or who did the firing like LSU is now claiming because they don't like how the buyout negotiations are going.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I know what tech says that sued him for. the point is that is irrelevant in why they didn't have to pay him. they could have admitted they fired him because they didn't like his haircut. he couldn't even sue tech because of sovereign immunity.

Quote:

---

This kind of stuff will get tested because of the amount of money we are talking about.

---

it won't be tested with kelly because sovereign immunity is waived by lousiana.

---

Might as well wave it if you're not gonna pay people anyway!

BMX Bandit said:

---

I know what tech says that sued him for. the point is that is irrelevant in why they didn't have to pay him. they could have admitted they fired him because they didn't like his haircut. he couldn't even sue tech because of sovereign immunity.

Quote:

---

This kind of stuff will get tested because of the amount of money we are talking about.

---

it won't be tested with kelly because sovereign immunity is waived by lousiana.

---

Did the state legislature vote to approve that waiver? (Note the winky face.)

cool. no one is claiming the situation is the same as tech or tennessee. kelly is in a much better spot than either of those coaches.

but at this point we don't even know what the (alleged) for cause is. It is just some lawyer saying "Someone" at LSU told them that.

I would have never paid Jimbo, he made more than he deserved and lied to A&M when he said it wasn't going to be the same, I would have sued for the $40 million we paid him.

Nowhere else in the real world can these clowns make that kind of make money. Outside of selling illegal drugs, $10 million a year for x years…LMAO, sure coach, anything you say as long as u win.

5Amp said:

---

I would have never paid Jimbo, he made more than he deserved and lied to A&M when he said it wasn't going to be the same, I would have sued for the $40 million we paid him.

---

then we'd be stuck hiring Tommy Tuberville as the coach.

Quote:

---

Nowhere else in the real world can these clowns make that kind of make money. Outside of selling illegal drugs, $10 million a year for x years…LMAO, sure coach, anything you say as long as u win.

---

in the real world, you'd have no basis to not pay them. you signed a contract, you have to honor it. (unless you are the government of course and decide you do not have to)

5Amp said:

---

I would have never paid Jimbo, he made more than he deserved and lied to A&M when he said it wasn't going to be the same, I would have sued for the $40 million we paid him.

Nowhere else in the real world can these clowns make that kind of make money. Outside of selling illegal drugs, $10 million a year for x years…LMAO, sure coach, anything you say as long as u win.

---

Contracts and the wording contained in them, have to matter. Period. You would become a pariah in whatever industry you were in, if it was known you were a sleazeball that didn't follow through on your contractual obligations.

BMX Bandit said:

---

cool. no one is claiming the situation is the same as tech or tennessee. kelly is in a much better spot than either of those coaches.

but at this point we don't even know what the (alleged) for cause is. It is just some lawyer saying "Someone" at LSU told them that.

---

Moscano said that BK and his wife filed for divorce shortly after he came on board. They later "reconciled" and withdrew the petition, and I think the pleadings were sealed at that time. So maybe it could be related to that? Granted that was a few years ago but if the records were sealed and LSU was not told by BK what was truly going on? That's still weak sauce but not as week as the poor treatment of a player with cancer that was public knowledge over two years ago.

Pure speculation at this point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess you can equate this to a negotiation tactic. But to say he wasn't fired until yesterday and just now claiming a "for cause" firing, for events that allegedly happened years ago (is there a statute of limitations on this?), all after BK opted not to settle at LSU's price the first go round, is bush league. It is crystal clear LSU doesn't want to pay BK the money he is owed in his contract and they are trying to weasel their way out of all, or some of the monies owed. If you're BK why would you settle for $20-30MM? Everyone agrees that by the plain language of the contract, he is owed over $50MM.

---

Because even he does obtain a verdict after trial of the full amount (minus what his counsel takes) he still has to collect from the state legislature. And they can always opt not to approve the payment of ANY amount and he can't force them to approve the expenditure. A bird in one hand versus two in the bush scenario.

---

So I've always been under the impression that with big programs, the athletic department IS NOT part of the university. Shouldn't the payout come from LSU's Athletic Department? Why should the state have to approve payment? Also, why I was confused that the governor said it would cost the LA tax payers. The Athletic Department should be flush with cash from the SEC/Media contracts and donors.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

cool. no one is claiming the situation is the same as tech or tennessee. kelly is in a much better spot than either of those coaches.

but at this point we don't even know what the (alleged) for cause is. It is just some lawyer saying "Someone" at LSU told them that.

---

Moscano said that BK and his wife filed for divorce shortly after he came on board. They later "reconciled" and withdrew the petition, and I think the pleadings were sealed at that time. So maybe it could be related to that? Granted that was a few years ago but if the records were sealed and LSU was not told by BK what was truly going on? That's still weak sauce but not as week as the poor treatment of a player with cancer that was public knowledge over two years ago.

Pure speculation at this point.

---

Moscona also said that it could be tied to his handling of a player named Greg Brooks who was diagnosed with cancer in 2023