Former LSU coach Brian Kelly has taken his fake Louisiana accent into a very real Louisiana courthouse.
Via Dan Wetzel of ESPN.com, Kelly filed a lawsuit late Monday night over alleged efforts by the school to short-circuit his $54 million buyout by firing him “for cause.”
As more and more schools rack up more and more millions in ongoing obligations to former coaches, the “for cause” option becomes a tempting strategy for saving money. If nothing else, taking the position that the coach should get nothing sets the stage for a negotiation that would result in him getting less than what he otherwise would be owed.
And that’s clearly what LSU has been doing — trying to get Kelly to take less than $54 million. Absent a viable legal argument that he should get nothing, however, the school has no real leverage to get him to take a penny less than his contract promises.
From the civil complaint filed by Kelly: “LSU’s representatives had a call with Coach Kelly’s representatives, where LSU took the position that Coach Kelly had not been formally terminated and informed Coach Kelly’s representatives, for the very first time, that LSU believed grounds for termination for cause existed.”
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that LSU has no grounds for firing Kelly “for cause.”
Most coaching contracts outline two paths for ending the arrangement. The school can fire the coach “without cause” at any time, typically owing him the remaining value of his contract. The school also can fire him “for cause,” owing him nothing. The contracts usually contain a list of the specific things that would justify a “for cause” termination.
Here, Kelly’s lawyers wisely seem to be forcing the issue to a head. They’re basically telling them to drop a beignet or get off the bidet. And they’re confident that LSU has nothing that would constitute “cause” for firing Kelly, other than not winning enough games to their liking.
Say what you will about Kelly (and few have good things to say about him), he seems to be in the right on this one. LSU is trying to reduce its obligation to Kelly, hopeful he’ll take a much lower amount. But why should he? Absent hard evidence to support a “for cause” firing, any effort to fire him for “cause” would simply be a pretext for not paying Kelly what he’s owed.
Looming over the dispute is the reality that the next LSU coach (whoever he may be) is paying attention. He may be less willing to be the next Brian Kelly. The next coach may (and should) insist on contract language that gives him extra protection against such shenanigans — perhaps with very real penalties added to the document, in the event that LSU tries to play this game again.
That’s why the best move for LSU would be to be honest with itself and everyone else. Kelly wasn’t fired “for cause.” He was fired because LSU believed he hadn’t won enough games. LSU had the absolute right to fire him for that reason. But trying to skirt the financial obligations by doing so makes LSU look lazy, sketchy, and cheap.
