Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Texzilla58 said:

How you ask?  Because the former AD was a complete moron at hiring and firing.  Think you might want to call the attorney before to review it.

LSU now claiming Kelly never actually worked there.  

"Brian who? We have never heard of this Brian Kelly person coaching our football program at Louisiana State University." 

Posted
14 hours ago, 'stache said:

"Kelly’s contract contains a “Duty to Mitigate” clause. This clause explicitly requires Kelly to “exercise due diligence and good faith in seeking qualifying employment so long as the liquidated damage obligation exists.” Or, in simple terms, Kelly has to look for another job, and any money that he gets paid from that job would then be used to reduce LSU’s payment."

https://huddleup.substack.com/p/inside-brian-kellys-54-million-lsu

Thus, he can't sit on his ass and demand full payment. And he can't just go to the local juco and take minimum wage as an "analyst" and collect the balance from LSU. He has to exercise "due diligence and good faith" and therefore he has to actually try to find a good high paying job. If he claims that he tried and struck or could only get a low paying job he needs proof. The fact is that someone would hire him as a HC and pay him well this cycle. He can either let that process play out and if he gets paid less than the buyout collect the balance from LSU, or if he does not want to pursue new employment at this time, take a settlement. The clause is designed to incentivize both sides to settle for a reasonable amount.

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

He seems like an impersonable asshole.  So I guess one of those networks will hire him.

  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

That's why God created kickbacks. 

33 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

How you ask?  Because the former AD was a complete moron at hiring and firing.  Think you might want to call the attorney before to review it.

LSU now claiming Kelly never actually worked there.  

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much contract law.  There's variations here and there, state by state, but duty to mitigate damages is pretty standard.  The most general statement:

Second Restatement of Contracts §350: Avoidability (1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), damages are not recoverable for loss that the injured party could have avoided without undue risk, burden or humiliation. (2) The injured party is not precluded from recovery by the rule stated in Subsection (1) to the extent that he has made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to avoid loss.

The best part is by now backtracking and saying it is a for cause termination, LSU has made it feasible for Kelly to argue that he was unable to find a similar job because of the damage they did to his reputation with this clearly false claim in the future. 

Of course I doubt he could successfully recover any damages in a defamation lawsuit beyond the buyout amount that they would therefore owe him. But that would be funny. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
50 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The guy was born to spar with Dave Portnoy on Big Noon Kickoff. 

Jesus Christ, I think i'd just throw my TV out the window and become Amish than watch that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

He can do that but LSU can legitimately sue and argue that 200k at ESPN is far less than he’d get if he pursued a coaching job diligently and in good faith. He can’t be forced into any particular job but he has to consider the possible reduction of the buyout if he takes a “break” at a significantly lower salary. Schools might not bother to pursue the claim especially if they think it’s temporary and that he’ll go back to coaching for a high salary within a year or two and also to avoid pr issues but it would be a legitimate claim under the contract. I’m not aware of any situation in which a buyout was paid over several years with legitimate mitigation calculations, they always settle, because that’s what the clauses are designed to accomplish. The for cause stuff is ridiculous though and makes them look really bad. It also appears to be diminishing the possibility of a settlement. I doubt it will affect the hiring process though, they’ll throw a ton of money at someone who will take it expecting to win and not have to worry about buyouts.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Jesus Christ, I think i'd just throw my TV out the window and become Amish than watch that.

I tried big noon the other day in the wake of the YTTV bullshit. I lasted maybe 2-3 min as is. 

Posted
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

Other than that, how is it going?

Posted

 

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He can do that but LSU can legitimately sue and argue that 200k at ESPN is far less than he’d get if he pursued a coaching job diligently and in good faith. He can’t be forced into any particular job but he has to consider the possible reduction of the buyout if he takes a “break” at a significantly lower salary. Schools might not bother to pursue the claim especially if they think it’s temporary and that he’ll go back to coaching for a high salary within a year or two and also to avoid pr issues but it would be a legitimate claim under the contract. I’m not aware of any situation in which a buyout was paid over several years with legitimate mitigation calculations, they always settle, because that’s what the clauses are designed to accomplish. The for cause stuff is ridiculous though and makes them look really bad. It also appears to be diminishing the possibility of a settlement. I doubt it will affect the hiring process though, they’ll throw a ton of money at someone who will take it expecting to win and not have to worry about buyouts.

No they can't. No one has ever sued, much less successfully sued, a coach for not going back into coaching in regards to their offset language. 

"Yeah, the stress of the LSU job, the smearing of my good name by LSU, and the legal battle were a lot. My doctor told me I should take a year out of coaching because of the stress I've been enduring."

It's not happening. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hozz said:

Never thought anyone could make me root for Brian Kelly.

Lmao, same. I am loving his downfall. But this shit being pulled by LSU is downright nefarious. And screams "we're poor and can't afford this".

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

How you ask?  Because the former AD was a complete moron at hiring and firing.  Think you might want to call the attorney before to review it.

LSU now claiming Kelly never actually worked there.  

You jest, but saying they never actually fired him is so bad that they might actually try Who is Brian Kelly? next.

  • Haha 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, kevwun said:

You jest, but saying they never actually fired him is so bad that they might actually try Who is Brian Kelly? next.

It's like those dumb fucking corndogs don't understand there is video of governor dingleberry gleefully discussing the firing of Brian Kelly. Do they think once the broadcast was over, it just disappeared into the ether? I'm pretty sure Kelly could hire me for a lawyer and we'd win in court while we shotgunned beers every 30 minutes and lit our farts every hour on the hour. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Blotto said:

It's like those dumb fucking  don't understand there is video of governor dingleberry gleefully discussing the firing of Brian Kelly. Do they think once the broadcast was over, it just disappeared into the ether? I'm pretty sure Kelly could hire me for a lawyer and we'd win in court while we shotgunned beers every 30 minutes and lit our farts every hour on the hour. 

I'm pretty sure that you are talking about a normal day in the LA court system. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 11/11/2025 at 8:48 AM, Litig8r said:

I would 100% take this case for Kelly on contingency.  If anyone has any connections, I pay referral legally allowable fees (think Massive Tailgate party free admission to Surly members)

 

OKmfjt.gif

On 11/11/2025 at 2:31 PM, 'stache said:

I think they can get a high level coordinator and is probably the best move imo.

CGhZKfRUAAEBlVH.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 11/11/2025 at 8:36 PM, APMP said:

The definition of Cause in the contract, the required procedure and cure period on a Termination for Cause, the statements and settlement offers from LSU after firing Kelly, the fact that someone else was in charge against Bama, etc etc etc all mean that LSU has zero chance of showing Kelly wasn't actually fired earlier and turning this into a termination for cause. The argument feels so weak that I'd be tempted to ask for sanctions if it wasn't my own DJ lawsuit.

Dont forget that LSU removed his access to the facilities. 

Posted
1 hour ago, lilMAC25 said:

Dont forget that LSU removed his access to the facilities. 

Exactly!  How dumb are these people?

Never mind, it's LSU - I just answered my own question...

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

The law nerd in me is curious if LSU has a sovereign immunity argument to duck this DJ action. Using it would absolutely destroy their chances with future top tier coaching candidates, but they might have already done that, and also, it's LSU.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, APMP said:

The law nerd in me is curious if LSU has a sovereign immunity argument to duck this DJ action. Using it would absolutely destroy their chances with future top tier coaching candidates, but they might have already done that, and also, it's LSU.

shawn spencer gus GIF

Posted
1 hour ago, APMP said:

The law nerd in me is curious if LSU has a sovereign immunity argument to duck this DJ action. Using it would absolutely destroy their chances with future top tier coaching candidates, but they might have already done that, and also, it's LSU.

Briefly, here is the law in Louisiana regarding sovereign immunity:

§10.  Suits Against the State

Section 10.(A)  No Immunity in Contract and Tort.  Neither the state, a state agency, nor a political subdivision shall be immune from suit and liability in contract or for injury to person or property.

(B)  Waiver in Other Suits.  The legislature may authorize other suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision.  A measure authorizing suit shall waive immunity from suit and liability.

(C)  Limitations; Procedure; Judgments.  Notwithstanding Paragraph (A) or (B) or any other provision of this constitution, the legislature by law may limit or provide for the extent of liability of the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision in all cases, including the circumstances giving rise to liability and the kinds and amounts of recoverable damages.  It shall provide a procedure for suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision and provide for the effect of a judgment, but no public property or public funds shall be subject to seizure.  The legislature may provide that such limitations, procedures, and effects of judgments shall be applicable  to existing as well as future claims.  No judgment against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision shall be exigible, payable, or paid except from funds appropriated therefor by the legislature or by the political subdivision against which the judgment is rendered.

So, let's suppose when Kelly prevails for the entire amount plus attorney's fees, how to collect it? He can't lien nor foreclose upon any property owned by the state or its agencies (Like LSU). Would his mouthpieces then be forced to lobby the state's legislature for an appropriation bill to fund the judgment?

Is LSU dumb enough to go that far?  Then again, Governor Kingfisher Jr. is involved so who knows?

Posted
Briefly, here is the law in Louisiana regarding sovereign immunity:

§10.  Suits Against the State

Section 10.(A)  No Immunity in Contract and Tort.  Neither the state, a state agency, nor a political subdivision shall be immune from suit and liability in contract or for injury to person or property.

(B)  Waiver in Other Suits.  The legislature may authorize other suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision.  A measure authorizing suit shall waive immunity from suit and liability.

©  Limitations; Procedure; Judgments.  Notwithstanding Paragraph (A) or (B) or any other provision of this constitution, the legislature by law may limit or provide for the extent of liability of the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision in all cases, including the circumstances giving rise to liability and the kinds and amounts of recoverable damages.  It shall provide a procedure for suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision and provide for the effect of a judgment, but no public property or public funds shall be subject to seizure.  The legislature may provide that such limitations, procedures, and effects of judgments shall be applicable  to existing as well as future claims.  No judgment against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision shall be exigible, payable, or paid except from funds appropriated therefor by the legislature or by the political subdivision against which the judgment is rendered.

So, let's suppose when Kelly prevails for the entire amount plus attorney's fees, how to collect it? He can't lien nor foreclose upon any property owned by the state or its agencies (Like LSU). Would his mouthpieces then be forced to lobby the state's legislature for an appropriation bill to fund the judgment?

Is LSU dumb enough to go that far?  Then again, Governor Kingfisher Jr. is involved so who knows?



Briefly, here is the law in Louisiana regarding sovereign immunity:

§10.  Suits Against the State

Section 10.(A)  No Immunity in Contract and Tort.  Neither the state, a state agency, nor a political subdivision shall be immune from suit and liability in contract or for injury to person or property.

(B)  Waiver in Other Suits.  The legislature may authorize other suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision.  A measure authorizing suit shall waive immunity from suit and liability.

©  Limitations; Procedure; Judgments.  Notwithstanding Paragraph (A) or (B) or any other provision of this constitution, the legislature by law may limit or provide for the extent of liability of the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision in all cases, including the circumstances giving rise to liability and the kinds and amounts of recoverable damages.  It shall provide a procedure for suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision and provide for the effect of a judgment, but no public property or public funds shall be subject to seizure.  The legislature may provide that such limitations, procedures, and effects of judgments shall be applicable  to existing as well as future claims.  No judgment against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision shall be exigible, payable, or paid except from funds appropriated therefor by the legislature or by the political subdivision against which the judgment is rendered.

So, let's suppose when Kelly prevails for the entire amount plus attorney's fees, how to collect it? He can't lien nor foreclose upon any property owned by the state or its agencies (Like LSU). Would his mouthpieces then be forced to lobby the state's legislature for an appropriation bill to fund the judgment?

Is LSU dumb enough to go that far?  Then again, Governor Kingfisher Jr. is involved so who knows?



Pretty standard "no waiver of sovereign immunity" provision in the Kelly contract as well. I can't imagine SI would allow state schools to duck a buyout like this while the contract simultaneously requires the coach to pay early termination penalties if they leave for another job. But who the hell knows. Screenshot_20251113_105639_Chrome.jpg
Posted
14 hours ago, Blotto said:

It's like those dumb fucking corndogs don't understand there is video of governor dingleberry gleefully discussing the firing of Brian Kelly. Do they think once the broadcast was over, it just disappeared into the ether? I'm pretty sure Kelly could hire me for a lawyer and we'd win in court while we shotgunned beers every 30 minutes and lit our farts every hour on the hour. 

You are talking about the same school/fan base that was blown away that it's possible to produce historical AC temperature settings. 

Posted
1 hour ago, APMP said:

 

 

 


Pretty standard "no waiver of sovereign immunity" provision in the Kelly contract as well. I can't imagine SI would allow state schools to duck a buyout like this while the contract simultaneously requires the coach to pay early termination penalties if they leave for another job. But who the hell knows. Screenshot_20251113_105639_Chrome.jpg

 

 

 

That’s the beauty of sovereign immunity my friend. 

Posted
1 hour ago, APMP said:

I can't imagine SI would allow state schools to duck a buyout like this while the contract simultaneously requires the coach to pay early termination penalties if they leave for another job. But who the hell knows.

https://uclawreview.org/2023/07/26/how-texas-tech-invoked-sovereign-immunity-to-avoid-paying-mike-leach/

Swinging Your Sword Against Sovereign Immunity and High-Sea Thievery: How Texas Tech Invoked Sovereign Immunity to Avoid Paying Mike Leach Millions of Dollars

Posted
6 minutes ago, APMP said:

Man I'm gonna laugh so hard if after all the appeals are done we find out that Aggy could have avoided the Jimbo payout fiasco.

They could have, but they would have cut their throats on future coach prospects. JMHO, that’s why they didn’t invoke. 

Posted
They could have, but they would have cut their throats on future coach prospects. JMHO, that’s why they didn’t invoke. 
Agree... Let's see how the geniuses at LSU handle it
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...