Copyright American Press
Grab some popcorn. You just thought it was high entertainment when Verge Ausberry kept bouncing back and forth at LSU, ping-ponging from interim athletic director to full-time A.D. and back and forth again and again. Well, how about this one? Now LSU is saying that Brian Kelly never was really fired as head coach. Well, that sure was a heckuva misunderstanding, wasn’t it, and so now …. Wait. OK. Apparently, no misunderstanding is involved. It’s a just great big bunch of fancy legalese, is what it is. I’m not an attorney — and I’m dadgum proud of it if you must know — but this is going to be two tons of fun. Gentlemen, start your billable hours! We should point out that this whole boondoggle right now is all tied up in what’s known as “litigation,” which means that by design it’s too confusing for most of us to understand and — not to worry — it will likely be bogged down in where-ins and there-fors and what-nots for thousands of years (all billable) anyway. Probably a few ad valorems and sine dies too. Anyway, according to Wilson Alexander’s reporting in The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Kelly has filed suit against LSU seeking not money — not this time anyway — but “confirmation” that the school did fire him and will make good on his contract’s buy-out clause. This isn’t small claims court — the buy-out they’re talking about here is a shade under $54 million. Apparently the $54 million question here is whether LSU fired Kelly “for cause” or “without cause.” It matters, and it matters in a way that on the surface seems too simple to be billable. If LSU fired him for cause, the school is off the hook for the $54 million. If it was without cause, then Kelly is soon sitting on that big pile of American dollars. It appears LSU doesn’t want to pay and took great pains to that end. After all, it was clearly stated in the press release that fired Kelly that “We wish Coach Kelly and his family the very best in their future endeavors.” Maybe LSU was figuring those heartfelt well wishes were more than enough of a payoff to tide Kelly over, including any legal pain and suffering. Kelly, it turns out, still wants his money, the whole shebang. But here’s the good part. While sorting this out Monday, Kelly’s attorneys revealed in a petition that “LSU took the position that Coach Kelly had not been formally terminated …” Who hadn’t been what? If not, the school wasted a perfectly good press release on Oct. 26 saying that he had — and it’s worth noting, I guess, that he hasn’t coached since. Upon further review, however, LSU now claims that Scott Woodward, even though at the time he had not been fired as athletic director, even then did not have “the authority to terminate Coach Kelly and/or make settlement offers to him.” It was the next day before Governor Jeff Landry clarified that Woodward would not be allowed to pick the next coach (on the odd chance they might be needing one?) and yet another day before Woodward was fired to make it a moot point. Also Monday, LSU informed Kelly’s attorneys “for the very first time, that LSU believed that grounds for cause existed.” Assuming LSU isn’t just trying to bluff Kelly into a lighter settlement, that could only mean that the school has some “with cause” dirt on Kelly or is trying to dig some up or (hopefully not) make some up. Basically, “without cause” means all you did wrong was lose too many games. It happens. “With cause” means you did something morally shady, probably not related to football. If the wonderful words, “moral turpitude,” get mentioned and confirmed, it’s bingo for people trying to get out of paying you. Maybe the school can find some loopholes in Louisiana law that, being related to the Napoleonic Code, makes the Bayou State — and not for the first time — different than all of the other 49 states. Napoleon reportedly got involved in Louisiana law books because French was easier to learn than Latin. I’m guessing LSU wishes there was third legal option, something like “Just because” being grounds for firing without remorse or a buy-out due. Or perhaps Napoleonic code will define “running two consecutive draw plays on third-and-long” as “play-calling turpitude” and grounds for dismissal. With cause. Whatever the cause, we’re just getting started. And Monday’s filing alone took 48 pages. All billable, of course. *
