Started By
Message
re: Brian Kelly is not to blame and has a right to his money
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:21 pm to Smokeyone
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:21 pm to Smokeyone
BK was on a warm seat but the decision o fire him and Woodward the day after the Aggies smuggled a suitcase nuke into Tiger Stadium makes zero sense.
Everybody laughs at Aggies about firing Jimbo but it was pre-planned and Aggies already had all the money due Jimbo in an escrow account.
And Aggies didn't have to pay $6 million to run Bjork off. He was just told his contract would not be extended and he bailed.
That is how a professional organization does things. LSU has set themselves up for the ridicule since apparently the drunk boosters sobered up and don't want to pay.
Everybody laughs at Aggies about firing Jimbo but it was pre-planned and Aggies already had all the money due Jimbo in an escrow account.
And Aggies didn't have to pay $6 million to run Bjork off. He was just told his contract would not be extended and he bailed.
That is how a professional organization does things. LSU has set themselves up for the ridicule since apparently the drunk boosters sobered up and don't want to pay.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 3:24 pm
0
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:24 pm to Contra
These people robbed a children’s hospital. Do you really think they stand behind what they say?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:44 pm to p226
quote:
If he’s fired before then, he only gets paid by LSU until he finds another job. Then, what LSU pays him is offset by the amount his new employer pays him.
If he’s doesn’t look for a new job, LSU doesn’t pay him.
The reality is if he doesn't want to work it is very difficult to enforce the mitigation clause. Given the contract terms, it is very easy for him to meet the requirements without any intention to work.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 3:48 pm to Contra
LSU fan here and I agree. Pay him and be done.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:18 pm to New Money
quote:
The only incentives he might have for taking less are the removal of any mitigation requirement or a lump sum up front instead of installments.
Depending on Kelly's future plans, those could be powerful incentives. If he just wants to retire and no longer coach, it would make sense for him to take a lower amount in exchange for not having to look for another job (which he's apparently obligated to do by the terms of the contract).
Also, it's also not unreasonable for LSU to pay a lump sum that takes into account the time value of money (in other words, he should expect to be paid no more than the present value of the future income stream based on some reasonable discount rate, like the current rate of 10Y US Treasurys). Otherwise, LSU would be better off just paying the monthly salary amount while Kellly looks for a new job.
If LSU is trying to escape the buyout entirely by arguing he was fired for cause, though then that's an entirely different issue.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:27 pm to Contra
I present some ways to get Brian Kelley to accept less than the $54 million owed to from his LSU buyout.
What if they offered to name one of the main campus buildings after him as is often done when a megarich donor gives the college a 7 or 8-figure donation?
Perhaps he could be bought off with a bronze likeness located in front of the stadium.
Offer him a professorship to teach an upper division elective then look the other way when he bangs a coed or two who are flunking and need an easy A to raise their GPA.
What if they offered to name one of the main campus buildings after him as is often done when a megarich donor gives the college a 7 or 8-figure donation?
Perhaps he could be bought off with a bronze likeness located in front of the stadium.
Offer him a professorship to teach an upper division elective then look the other way when he bangs a coed or two who are flunking and need an easy A to raise their GPA.
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:38 pm to Contra
My man Brian Kelly know who to call 
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:42 pm to Smokeyone
Why would any half way good coach sign with LSU ?
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:55 pm to Obtuse1
quote:Well this tells me you've never been through any type of mitigation process.
The reality is if he doesn't want to work it is very difficult to enforce the mitigation clause. Given the contract terms, it is very easy for him to meet the requirements without any intention to work.
This post was edited on 11/23/25 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:55 pm to ipodking
The state is paying it lsu is broke they need the government hand outs
Posted on 11/23/25 at 4:56 pm to Jdillard343434
quote:TAF is being paid by the Louisiana Government?
The state is paying it lsu is broke they need the government hand outs
That's news to me...
Posted on 11/23/25 at 5:02 pm to Johnny Carson
J g Wentworth
Posted on 11/23/25 at 5:04 pm to That LSU Guy
You say some dumb shite cajun for ya first you are the k8ng of mitigation now you are in denial that the state is on the hook for these coaches ok dupy dupy doo
Posted on 11/23/25 at 5:07 pm to That LSU Guy
quote:
Well this tells me you've never been through any type of mitigation process.
Spot on. I have only done commercial litigation at an AmLaw 50 for 33 years.
The clause is very weak. If he doesn't want to coach or commentate on college or pro football, there are a million ways to avoid triggering the clause.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News