Nerlens Noel's lawsuit v. Rich Paul

[Sixersftw]

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

[Arsenal]

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]

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.

[Sixersftw]

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.

[Arsenal]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sixersftw]

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.

[DCasey91]

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]

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]

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 $.

[76ciology]

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.

[Lou_23]

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]

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

Sent from my G3416 using RealGM mobile app

[spikeslovechild]

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.

[Sixersftw]

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.

[spikeslovechild]

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]

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]

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.