HarthorneWingo wrote:UPDATE:
https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2021/09/atlantic-notes-celtics-lineup-clark-noel-sixers.htmlKnicks center Nerlens Noel has filed an amended complaint against super-agent Rich Paul, which includes an October 2017 letter from the legal counsel for Noel’s prior agent, Happy Walters, stating that the decision to reject the Mavericks’ $70MM offer “placed Noel at serious professional and financial risk,” Darren Heitner of SportsAgentBlog tweets. Noel sued Paul and Klutch Sports last month, claiming that he fired Walters in favor of Paul because Paul told him he could get a max contract. Paul also allegedly told Noel to turn down Dallas’ extension offer.
Again, I would not doubt that Rich Paul is a disorganized shill of an agent and that he's only "high profile" cause he managed to get Lebron under his umbrella. Nor do I doubt that Paul likely had little infrastructure at Klutch sports to manage all the so-so hanger own players that jumped to them cause they though "hey anyone representing Lebron can represent me". Problem is, you can't sue someone for not being good at his job or based on opinion. And again, the ultimate onus is on the player to perform his due diligence which does not appear Noel did until after the fact.
So then there's "gross negligence". Yes theoretically if he can approve that Paul intentionally "screwed" Noel or that his company was just so so incompetent then yeah he may have a leg to stand on. But, it's real hard to prove. And Paul will have his current "happy clients" to say he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
That letter from Happy Walters legal counsel stating that the decision to reject the Mavs $70mm offer "placed Noel at serious professional and financial risk"? It's an opinion. An opinion coming from a party that would have their own personal interest to make this statement regardless of whether it's factual or not. Happy Walters lost Noel (and the potential of millions if commission) to Paul. So him saying that Paul is a fraud really doesn't have as much bite. Nor is there proof that Noel wasn't the one that rejected it and that it was all Paul's idea. If Noel can show that he was mentally handicapped or otherwise incapacitated at that time then maybe (being serious here) but one would assume that Noel was of "sound mind". At which point, the honest argument is that Noel ultimately is the one that decided to turn it down as that contract offer was made to him not Rich Paul.
He can try to use this but I don't see it as concrete proof by any means. Regardless of whether it came from Happy's "legal counsel" or not.
An example of the type of evidence that would give Noel a leg to stand on? Recorded (good luck with getting that admitted as evidence) or written correspondence showing that there was a binding contract offer (pending signature from Noel) that Rich Paul actually received and then absolutely did not pass to Noel (how do you prove that Paul didn't show it to Noel) or that Noel wasnt the one that said "no thanks" or the one that didn't get back to Paul? Because Noel said so now (how come he didn't say so back then?) or some other players had similar bad experiences? And how about the players that had great experiences? Even the best companies in the world will have customers that feel that they are the worst company. That's the types of things that Rich Paul's side will likely argue. You cannot win a case based on opinion...especially if your new evidence is the opinion of someone that would have personal interest in the defendant being found liable.
