03-21-2022, 07:15 AM
(03-19-2022, 07:54 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/...3094848514
When DP gets a new 4 year 52 Million dollar contract.
(03-19-2022, 07:54 AM)Kammrath Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/...3094848514
(03-21-2022, 07:15 AM)Hypermav Wrote: [ -> ]When DP gets a new 4 year 52 Million dollar contract.But it’s declining so it’s all good!
(03-21-2022, 05:13 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Can I point one thing out about the "10 year extension!" response.
Donnie already had a lifetime contract in place, the 10 year extension thing was Donnie's way of negotiating for a raise (he was set at 5 mil a year indefinitely). So it's not like Cuban was like "lock this guy up because he's killing it!".
(03-18-2022, 08:56 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]"Yeah, I can’t believe the 52mm. Just no way."
The $52M offer doc was attached and filed as part of the lawsuit itself. You can read it. It's written as a "please sign here" doc, from MC/his companies. The cover email, when it was sent to Donnie's lawyer, is also attached and part of the filing.
I seriously doubt that they would be including bogus docs which were not real (or even a counterfeit doc) in that context. Do you think otherwise?
(03-23-2022, 12:10 AM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I’ve read it all now. Here’s what I’d add re the 52M:
1. The draft settlement agreement attached as an exhibit to the petition is real. It came from the Mavs’ lawyers at Winston and the answer they filed refers to it without denying that it is real.
2. Most of the draft seems typical, other than the obscenely large payout of course. But one thing really stuck out. I’ve never before seen a settlement agreement that contains an out if the payee is found guilty of an illegal act related to the settlement (para 19, page 5 of the draft). Why would they feel the need to write that unusual provision into this agreement?
3. The Mavs’ answer gives us a clue. “Nelson repeatedly refused to engage in any resolution that asked him to represent that he had not engaged in any criminal conduct related to his allegations . . . “ (section I.D, page 8 of the answer). That seems to say Nelson wouldn’t agree to any settlement that would require him to pay the settlement money back if he was found to have committed a related crime, and the context suggests the Mavs wouldn’t do a deal without that requirement.
I’m reluctant to draw any conclusions from this. We haven’t seen the evidence that the parties say they have, and they can’t even agree on when various things happened. But I just can’t make myself believe the Mavs would pay that kind of money to cover this story up, or that Donnie would have rejected it if genuinely offered. And that leaves me wondering if maybe the Mavs, when they drafted the $52M deal, expected to get out of paying by tagging Donnie with an extortion charge. And it leaves me wondering if Donnie turned it down because he thought he might indeed get tagged.
(03-23-2022, 12:10 AM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]But I just can’t make myself believe the Mavs would pay that kind of money to cover this story up, or that Donnie would have rejected it if genuinely offered. And that leaves me wondering if maybe the Mavs, when they drafted the $52M deal, expected to get out of paying by tagging Donnie with an extortion charge. And it leaves me wondering if Donnie turned it down because he thought he might indeed get tagged.
(03-23-2022, 12:10 AM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I’ve read it all now. Here’s what I’d add re the 52M:
(03-22-2022, 11:46 PM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]Your reasoning is solid, but you are putting too much faith in the literal words of the petition.
In reality, Donnie had an at-will contract that Cuban called “lifetime” once in public as a metaphor for how happy he was with Donnie’s work. Donnie didn’t really have a lifetime contract, and stray comments like that don’t result in legally enforceable rights. There is no serious argument that Donnie had a lifetime contract.
(03-23-2022, 12:22 PM)StrandedOnBeauboisHill Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for clearing that up and I'm seeing now that Donnie was actually the one calling it a lifetime contract and the Mavs actually dispute that saying he was "an employee at will".
Wouldn't that still speak to the idea that this was more about getting a raise and not the Mavs doing everything they could for another decade of Donnie?
(03-23-2022, 03:15 PM)Jommybone Wrote: [ -> ]I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question. I assume (but don’t know) that Donnie was like pretty much everybody else in the world, looking for long-term, guaranteed money if/when it was available. As a Notre Dame fan who just watched his coach jump ship for that very thing in Baton Rouge, I would call it unsurprising that Donnie seems to have wanted more per year and a guaranteed number of years.
(01-12-2024, 09:42 PM)The Jom Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody know what ever came of this? Google doesn’t seem to have anything for me.
(01-12-2024, 10:06 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]Just a guess, but that might mean that a financial settlement was reached with a significant amount of money changing hands and an NDA being signed. Or maybe it's still ongoing, not sure.