ImageImageImage

Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul

Moderators: BullyKing, HartfordWhalers, Foshan, sixers hoops, Sixerscan

User avatar
Sixersftw
RealGM
Posts: 16,155
And1: 6,274
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Location: Shoot a 3 you coward
       

Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#1 » by Sixersftw » Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:01 pm

IDK if anyone else has been following this but the 76ers factor prominently in this.

Not to sound hyperbolic but this was somewhat franchise altering for us. I remember the 76ers signing Noel seemed like a done deal by all reports. Noel himself was dropping tons of hints that he was coming back on social media iirc. Next thing you know we are saddled with the decaying corpse of Al Horford.

I hope Nerlens absolutely wins. Paul is likely a fiduciary and his only damn job is to take and present offers to his clients. Unfortunately, Paul is a scumbag and doesn't seem to serve anyone under the superstar level. Also, I love that your friend and mine, Brett Brown, blew the whistle on this.


https://www.si.com/nba/76ers/news/former-sixers-coach-brett-brown-nerlens-noel-agent
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2947770-how-nerlens-noel-rich-paul-lawsuit-could-change-nba-agent-landscape
They say an analytics man doesn't have a heart, but I ran the numbers and nothing can be further from the truth - Sam Hinkie probably
User avatar
Arsenal
RealGM
Posts: 11,564
And1: 6,415
Joined: Jun 05, 2002
Location: Arlington, VA
 

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#2 » by Arsenal » Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:29 pm

Sixersftw wrote:IDK if anyone else has been following this but the 76ers factor prominently in this.

Not to sound hyperbolic but this was somewhat franchise altering for us. I remember the 76ers signing Noel seemed like a done deal by all reports. Noel himself was dropping tons of hints that he was coming back on social media iirc. Next thing you know we are saddled with the decaying corpse of Al Horford.

I hope Nerlens absolutely wins. Paul is likely a fiduciary and his only damn job is to take and present offers to his clients. Unfortunately, Paul is a scumbag and doesn't seem to serve anyone under the superstar level. Also, I love that your friend and mine, Brett Brown, blew the whistle on this.


https://www.si.com/nba/76ers/news/former-sixers-coach-brett-brown-nerlens-noel-agent
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2947770-how-nerlens-noel-rich-paul-lawsuit-could-change-nba-agent-landscape


It appears that Rich Paul and Klutch committed gross negligence in their fiduciary duties toward their client.

Players would be foolish to ignore this going forward.
SixthStreet
Pro Prospect
Posts: 877
And1: 533
Joined: May 31, 2018
       

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#3 » by SixthStreet » Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:16 pm

I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.
User avatar
Sixersftw
RealGM
Posts: 16,155
And1: 6,274
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Location: Shoot a 3 you coward
       

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#4 » by Sixersftw » Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:34 pm

SixthStreet wrote:I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.

There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.
They say an analytics man doesn't have a heart, but I ran the numbers and nothing can be further from the truth - Sam Hinkie probably
User avatar
Arsenal
RealGM
Posts: 11,564
And1: 6,415
Joined: Jun 05, 2002
Location: Arlington, VA
 

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#5 » by Arsenal » Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:39 pm

SixthStreet wrote:I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.


Not sure how you can excuse an agent not returning calls from teams who want to make an offer.
FlyingArrow
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,316
And1: 635
Joined: May 29, 2018
   

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#6 » by FlyingArrow » Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:28 pm

If Rich Paul and Noel thought they could get $100mil a year later then they took a gamble and lost. If Rich Paul didn't take calls or didn't take offers to Noel, that is inexcusable. Two completely different issues. Only the latter is worth a lawsuit.
HotelVitale
RealGM
Posts: 10,426
And1: 5,774
Joined: Sep 14, 2007
Location: West Philly, PA

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#7 » by HotelVitale » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:16 pm

Sixersftw wrote:
SixthStreet wrote:I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.

There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.
FlyingArrow
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,316
And1: 635
Joined: May 29, 2018
   

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#8 » by FlyingArrow » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:19 pm

HotelVitale wrote:
Sixersftw wrote:
SixthStreet wrote:I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.

There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.

Not taking calls or not forwarding offers to the player would be either intentional or gross negligence. I don't see a 3rd option. Proving those things happened might be difficult. Depends on what paper trail exists.
User avatar
Sixersftw
RealGM
Posts: 16,155
And1: 6,274
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Location: Shoot a 3 you coward
       

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#9 » by Sixersftw » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:35 pm

HotelVitale wrote:
Sixersftw wrote:
SixthStreet wrote:I hate Klutch as much as anyone but the articles linked don't indicate anything more than Paul being a bad agent. Noel is a guy that's always overvalued himself so in the absence of real evidence I'd more likely place the blame with Noel. As far as I understand it, he was presented with the 4/70 deal with the Mavericks and he chose not to sign it. Assessing damages based on that seems to have zero basis.

There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.

making poor financial judgements in of itself is not covered by law. However, Paul has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of Nerlens, even above his own financial interest. The issue really isn't a single piece of bad advice but its an additional piece of evidence that would point one towards the conclusion that Paul breached his duty. The real issue is not taking multiple calls from teams and not relaying offers to his client.

Not really hard to prove imo. the former coach of the Sixers has stated that Paul straight up wasn't answering the phone. Discover y for phone/text/email records would bear this out.
They say an analytics man doesn't have a heart, but I ran the numbers and nothing can be further from the truth - Sam Hinkie probably
DCasey91
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,731
And1: 2,394
Joined: Dec 15, 2020
   

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#10 » by DCasey91 » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:38 pm

I’m assuming Noel is suing for damages on the basis for gross negligence and malpractice on behalf as a client to a paid professional business relationship.

If it’s all above board and the evidence is there who knows.

The sticking factor though could be thin.

It’s funny but an out of court lump sum cover may seem like a lot less but sometimes you take it and go on with your life.

Just depends on how bad it really is.
DCasey91
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,731
And1: 2,394
Joined: Dec 15, 2020
   

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#11 » by DCasey91 » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:41 pm

Thing is cost vs time vs payout isn’t what what people thinks it is. It adds up fast more-so drawn out especially Paul himself wouldn’t be stupid enough not to get pricey lawyers/litigators.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Noel actually lost money out of this. One’s a businessman and one isn’t.
HotelVitale
RealGM
Posts: 10,426
And1: 5,774
Joined: Sep 14, 2007
Location: West Philly, PA

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#12 » by HotelVitale » Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:31 pm

Sixersftw wrote:
HotelVitale wrote:
Sixersftw wrote:There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.

making poor financial judgements in of itself is not covered by law. However, Paul has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of Nerlens, even above his own financial interest. The issue really isn't a single piece of bad advice but its an additional piece of evidence that would point one towards the conclusion that Paul breached his duty. The real issue is not taking multiple calls from teams and not relaying offers to his client. Not really hard to prove imo. the former coach of the Sixers has stated that Paul straight up wasn't answering the phone. Discover y for phone/text/email records would bear this out.

Just glanced through the article, the claim seems NOT to be that he screwed up the Mavs situation--the 4/70 contract--but rather that the next year he did very little. I.e. after Noel had lost all that money betting on himself (which I don't really fault him for) and was at a low point in value, Rich Paul wasn't out there hustling for his next deal. "Noel, a 27-year-old center, alleges Paul then proceeded to provide little assistance in securing contracts and roster spots the following three seasons." If true that's a pretty serious thing but it's not what we all seem to be talking about.

If the argument is that him doing that would make his previous advice for Noel not to take the Mavs offer look shady, I don't quite see the connection. The earlier thing was maybe overly greedy and risky--going for too much $--and the second would be not being greedy enough, letting money go out of laziness. Seems like he might be on the hook for the later lack of action but that's not going to reflect back on the Mavs offer where he lost all the $.
User avatar
76ciology
RealGM
Posts: 49,038
And1: 15,799
Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Contact:

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#13 » by 76ciology » Sat Aug 28, 2021 4:33 am

I’d like to say it’s nobody’s fault and it’s just bad luck. But it’s not. It was a poor decision to turn down that Mavs offer. My rule of thumb in decision making is.. if this decision would be simulated 10x, would you go out as a winner or a loser?

I think in 10 simulations, turning down the Mavs deal gets you a bad outcome almost everytime. What’s the data that tells him he could paid more? Were in an era where teams have been trying to underpay to acquire centers across the league. Not to mention that Noel has flaws that wouldnt allow him to be a starting center in the league.

Then whats worse was Noel doubled down and never moved on. He should have replaced Klutch when he wasnt provided good service. Hell.. he hasnt moved on until now.

You think Klutch is going to lose this battle between him and Noel? I dont think Klutch will go down easily. Because if they did, all their clients would go after them if they were responsible in these kind of events. And it would also have a bad image to their reputation.

..and im thinking not just court battles but possibly having an influence in Noel’s career.

**** happens. But not moving on would just make it harder for you to bounce back.
“If anyone can refute me—show me I'm making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I'll gladly change. It's the truth I'm after, and the truth never harmed anyone." Marcus Aurelius.
Lou_23
Rookie
Posts: 1,023
And1: 469
Joined: Feb 15, 2009
Location: Pontevedra, Spain
 

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#14 » by Lou_23 » Sat Aug 28, 2021 3:44 pm

Sixersftw wrote:IDK if anyone else has been following this but the 76ers factor prominently in this.

Not to sound hyperbolic but this was somewhat franchise altering for us. I remember the 76ers signing Noel seemed like a done deal by all reports. Noel himself was dropping tons of hints that he was coming back on social media iirc. Next thing you know we are saddled with the decaying corpse of Al Horford.

I hope Nerlens absolutely wins. Paul is likely a fiduciary and his only damn job is to take and present offers to his clients. Unfortunately, Paul is a scumbag and doesn't seem to serve anyone under the superstar level. Also, I love that your friend and mine, Brett Brown, blew the whistle on this.


https://www.si.com/nba/76ers/news/former-sixers-coach-brett-brown-nerlens-noel-agent
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2947770-how-nerlens-noel-rich-paul-lawsuit-could-change-nba-agent-landscape
The news and posts about Noel coming here was last year, when the team signed Howard.

Maybe the team wanted him two offseasons.
cool93
Veteran
Posts: 2,787
And1: 1,763
Joined: Jul 24, 2016
 

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#15 » by cool93 » Sun Aug 29, 2021 4:49 am

It's not about Mavs offer. Some of you clearly didn't read the source.

Sent from my G3416 using RealGM mobile app
spikeslovechild
General Manager
Posts: 9,521
And1: 4,663
Joined: Dec 16, 2013
Location: Right here waiting for you

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#16 » by spikeslovechild » Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:11 pm

FlyingArrow wrote:
HotelVitale wrote:
Sixersftw wrote:There are other articles that allege that Paul told him not to sign the mavericks deal and Paul breached his fiduciary duty. Pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.

Not taking calls or not forwarding offers to the player would be either intentional or gross negligence. I don't see a 3rd option. Proving those things happened might be difficult. Depends on what paper trail exists.


Or if these GM"s are willing to speak out in court against Paul.
User avatar
Sixersftw
RealGM
Posts: 16,155
And1: 6,274
Joined: Dec 23, 2006
Location: Shoot a 3 you coward
       

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#17 » by Sixersftw » Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:18 pm

spikeslovechild wrote:
FlyingArrow wrote:
HotelVitale wrote:Not gonna pretend I know the law around fiduciary duties well, but I’d be willing to bet quite a bit that making great financial judgments is not covered by law in any way shape or form. I believe the title just means you can’t mislead your client and are acting in its interest (and not just investing in what’s best for you), not that you won’t screw up or make a bad call or whatever. Seems like it’d be very difficult to prove that Paul was intentionally/knowingly working against his clients’ interests, which also doesn’t make a ton of sense on any level.

Not taking calls or not forwarding offers to the player would be either intentional or gross negligence. I don't see a 3rd option. Proving those things happened might be difficult. Depends on what paper trail exists.


Or if these GM"s are willing to speak out in court against Paul.

There is no planet where this actually gets to court.
They say an analytics man doesn't have a heart, but I ran the numbers and nothing can be further from the truth - Sam Hinkie probably
spikeslovechild
General Manager
Posts: 9,521
And1: 4,663
Joined: Dec 16, 2013
Location: Right here waiting for you

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#18 » by spikeslovechild » Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:30 pm

Sixersftw wrote:
spikeslovechild wrote:
FlyingArrow wrote:Not taking calls or not forwarding offers to the player would be either intentional or gross negligence. I don't see a 3rd option. Proving those things happened might be difficult. Depends on what paper trail exists.


Or if these GM"s are willing to speak out in court against Paul.

There is no planet where this actually gets to court.


Well I kind of hope it does
rzzzzz
Analyst
Posts: 3,639
And1: 1,155
Joined: Feb 21, 2015
 

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#19 » by rzzzzz » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:09 pm

Man, I hope that this doesn’t boomerang and end up costing Nerlens Paul’s (inflated) court costs. (I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.)
Eyeamok
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,834
And1: 1,996
Joined: Mar 02, 2006

Re: Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul 

Post#20 » by Eyeamok » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:27 pm

Arsenal wrote:
Sixersftw wrote:IDK if anyone else has been following this but the 76ers factor prominently in this.

Not to sound hyperbolic but this was somewhat franchise altering for us. I remember the 76ers signing Noel seemed like a done deal by all reports. Noel himself was dropping tons of hints that he was coming back on social media iirc. Next thing you know we are saddled with the decaying corpse of Al Horford.

I hope Nerlens absolutely wins. Paul is likely a fiduciary and his only damn job is to take and present offers to his clients. Unfortunately, Paul is a scumbag and doesn't seem to serve anyone under the superstar level. Also, I love that your friend and mine, Brett Brown, blew the whistle on this.


https://www.si.com/nba/76ers/news/former-sixers-coach-brett-brown-nerlens-noel-agent
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2947770-how-nerlens-noel-rich-paul-lawsuit-could-change-nba-agent-landscape


It appears that Rich Paul and Klutch committed gross negligence in their fiduciary duties toward their client.

Players would be foolish to ignore this going forward.


And now Zach LaVine seems to wants to sign with them. You can't make this stuff up.
Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste.

You want it to be one way....but it's the other way.

Marlo

Return to Philadelphia 76ers