thisiskoz wrote:moocow007 wrote:thisiskoz wrote:
What a terrible analogy.
I'm going out on a limb (doubt it) that you failed to grasp the point.
If I became aware colleges were reaching out to my parents about opportunities and they weren't relaying it, I'd file for emancipation. Regardless of whether or not they convinced me to stupidly turn down a near full ride to a good school and I listened.
So you agree with me that you should NOT be unconditionally listening and trusting your parents? That's what you are basically saying and what I implied folks should not be doing. The point, which you have clearly missed, is that if you should not be trusting your parents unconditionally why on earth would you be trusting your agent?
Do you have a reason you're shilling for Rich Paul so hard?
You have failed to understand my point. Congratulations. My comments have nothing to do with Rich Paul nor have I "shilled" him. Go try and read what I wrote objectively instead of with your panties on fire. The guy I'm "shilling" is Nerlens Noel. Rich Paul did what I'd expect agents to do.
Have you actually read what this is about and understood that the Dallas contact is only the initial part of the issue here?
Have you actually read what I wrote and understood what I wrote? This is called a rhetorical question cause you obviously did not.
If you actually believe that the underlying reason for Noel ditching Paul on that commission on the Knicks contract that Paul did NOT actually get for Noel (that's what the suit and countersuit is about) has anything other than him being bitter about that lost Dallas contract (his fault, not Pauls for turning it down) then I don't know what to tell you.
Still dominating the thread will defenses of Rich Paul I see. Apparently it makes it tough to follow what's going on here.
Still not understanding my point I see. Apparently not understanding someone's point makes it tough to follow what's going on here.
But let's try this again. I am not defending Rich Paul. I have no idea where you get the notion that I'm defending Rich Paul from. We have no idea (unless you're Rich Paul or one of the GM's that called Rich Paul and didn't get a response?) what Paul did or didn't do. I have no proof (nor do you) what he did or didn't do. So why would I condemn him (like what some of you guys are doing cause...well...cause you hate him for: a) coming off as an arrogant ass?, b) association with Lebron?, c) some other silly little petty reason that you've now entwined with what should be common sense and clear thought.
My point was and has always been, Nerlens Noel is ultimately responsible for his own decisions and should be making sure that whatever he does do has the best chance of working out for him. Why? Cause there's no one else that will have his best interests in mind but him. To blindly assume that an agent will always have your best interests in mind is just silly. To assume that you can just work with someone else to get a contract done cause you feel the one you are legally bound to work with did you dirty (what appears to be the justification for Paul's lawsuit against Noel...which CLEARLY CLEARLY resulted in Noel's counter suit) is a bad move.
But ok, I can make the same kind of assumptions you did...I'm not sure why you are defending Nerlens Noel? Because he's a Knick? Because you were wronged by an agent once? Cause you hate Lebron James? If so, those are just silly reasons.
This isn't about taking bad advice re the Dallas contact, it's about withholding information. Section 3b12 of the NBPA Regulations Governing Player Agents specifically cites concealing material facts from any player whom the agent is representing which relate to the subject of the individuals contact negotiation as prohibited conduct. Not telling Noel teams were reaching out nor returning their calls clearly falls into that bucket. I mean, I guess your fine if your representation didn't inform you interested parties were reaching out. Me? I'd probably be pissed.
1. Noel said Paul did. Paul said he didn't. This is a he said, he said debate. You are so quick to jump on what Noel saying being true because? You don't like Paul? You like Noel? What is the basis of believing what Noel saying is right? The rumor that other players have said (without revealing themselves) have said the in an article written for clicks? Slow down and think about it.
2. That section 3b12 relating to concealing material facts has nothing to do with not answering calls or getting a contract that a player feels he's worth. It has to do with concealing material facts about the player during contract negotiations. If what Noel is saying is true then nothing ever got to the point of contract negotiations. "Material facts" relates to anything that would "significantly and notably" impact the value (in this case) of the player if he were to be offered said contract. These are non trivial things (like drug use, hidden injury, involvement in a criminal enterprise, etc.) that if the agent knew would have to be provided to the team that is offering the player the contract. Trivial would be "he eats a lot of ice cream". Non trivial (i.e. material fact) would be "he has ownership in a online betting business". What is going on right now has nothing to do with this section of the regulations.
Having been around the league and likely having talked to guys like Marcus Morris (who fired Paul at the same time Noel did) and Mitchell Robinson (who fired Paul shortly after Noel joined the Knicks) about their experiences with Paul's negligence. Not to mention the wealth of information Leon Rose likely has on Paul's shadiness going back to 2006, nor the teams and player names Noel already dropped.
Likely? It's also likely that no one called about a one dimensional center that has been underperforming and injury prone since passing up that Dallas offer (which actually is quite true). I'm really not sure how to point this out. You guys are operating on emotions based on who you like and don't like (tell me I'm wrong?) resulting in "maybe" becoming "must be". This is the standard fan behavior.
And Robinson has fired 4 other agents already so his trustworthiness when it comes to sound decisions as it relates to agents is questionable at best.
Suing for commission on a contract he likely played no role in getting was likely the final straw for Noel, thus the countersuit. Paul's greed will be the reason this didn't just just fade into the background. Now Noel will use this as an opportunity for some payback.
If he is under contract with Paul where the contract said "any contract the player signs while under said agreement with agent, agent gets x%" then it doesn't matter what straw was final or not or how angry Noel was or not. Paul would be absolutely justified under law to get that commission. Again, it doesn't mean that I think that Rich Paul is anything other than a snake in the grass. But that just goes all the more into my statements that Noel should have known better than trusting Paul. Do you see where I'm coming from or still no?
Now of course Paul could just be randomly suing Noel even though there is no legal binding agreement between the two that would say that any contract Noel signs within the period where Paul is his agent requires that x% goes to Paul. But: 1) that is pretty standard verbiage in any contract (otherwise why bother with contracts?), 2) I would expect that Paul being the manipulating snake in the grass to make sure that said wording is absolutely and unequivocably in any contract he signs with any player. In fact that may be part and parcel of the reasons that some players have fired Paul...cause they didn't read the fine print and only realized that Paul had legally screwed them in some manner after it happened.
Legally, sure there might be merit to the klutch suit. So it costs Noel a couple hundred grand. Noel is likely to go home with a nice settlement in the tens of millions once more rocks start getting overturned and Paul's post LeBron NBA future starts to be in doubt. A sad days for Paul fans like yourself I'm sure. Why else would you continue to downplay this aspect and instead focus on the irrelevant decision to turn down the Mavs contact that only serves as a measuring stick for lost earnings due to negligence?
Noel isn't going to go home with anything down the road and later on, his time is now. His lawsuit like all lawsuits have an expiration. That expiration is at the point a judge or panel makes their decision. Unless you are going to get front office executives to come out under oath and admit that one of the most powerful and high profile agents did intentionally not return calls with malicious intent...the term "good luck with that" is grossly understated here...AND also then provide proof that there were calls made that Paul intentionally did not pick up even though he could of (I have a needle, you have a haystack?)? I don't see it happening at all. But hey, if it does then great for Nerlens.
And once again, I'm not sure where you get the notion that I'm a Rich Paul fan. Just because I don't emotionally side with Nerlens Noel on the notion that he was wronged by a snake in the grass? If I was a player of Noel's level I would in no way hire Rich Paul in particular or trust any agent without being heavily involved in all goings on when my own career, livelihood and need to feed my family is concerned. Which, quite again, is my point. So how am I siding with Rich Paul? Just because I don't agree with Nerlens Noel and believe that he failed to protect himself doesn't mean I'm a fan of Rich Paul. One has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying any judge or jury that decides in a defendants favor is a fan of the defendant and hates the prosecution/plaintiff (and/or vice versa).
This is a bit of advice that I would like to provide you that goes beyond this discussion and can help you elsewhere in life. Don't let your emotions get in the way of common sense and clear thought. See, read, think about, things objectively. You have not done so in this thread.
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * 
