NEWS: Donnie Nelson sues Dallas Mavericks

[Hypermav]

https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/...3094848514

When DP gets a new 4 year 52 Million dollar contract.

[ItsGoTime]

When DP gets a new 4 year 52 Million dollar contract.

But it’s declining so it’s all good!

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

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!".

[Jommybone]

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!".

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.

[Jommybone]

"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?

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.

[Kammrath]

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.

Great stuff @"Jommybone", thanks for sleuthing this!

[Kammrath]

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.

I am 100% with you on this thinking. At least for now the only thing that makes sense of this whole mess.

[SleepingHero]

Ok, I’ve read it all now. Here’s what I’d add re the 52M:

 Love the breakdown on what's "normal" and what's unusual in both filings. 

I was listening to The Mismatch podcast with Kevin O'Connor and Chris Vernon, and they both were saying "I was speaking to people as soon as Donnie got fired last year tell me that if it ever got bad relationship wise between them, that they both know all the skeletons in each other's closet." 

And they weren't surprised this happened. They're expecting it to get worse as well if what their source was saying is true. 

In any case this is just the beginning. Looking at it through the lens that both of them want to take each other down, I wouldn't be surprised Cuban's lawyers put a clause in there to intentionally try and nail Donnie with an extortion charge.

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

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.

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?

[Jommybone]

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?

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. 

Is that what this whole thing was about? Clearly no. Perhaps it is what motivated the conversation in the beginning. But the 52M settlement offer didn’t involve Donnie working for the Mavs, so that’s certainly not what I think of as a raise. 

But you seem to be asking something different than this—and I’m not sure I am following.

And by the way, you all are very welcome for whatever insight I can add. But please keep in mind (for down the road when it turns out way different than whatever you and I are thinking right now) that I’m just guessing like the rest of you.

[StrandedOnBeauboisHill]

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. 

I think that's all I'm trying to say honestly. I feel like there's a lot of folks upset that Cuban was willing to give Nelson 10 more years but this was more about Donnie simply asking for more money and renegotiating terms as opposed to the Mavs fighting to keep Donnie around.

[The Jom]

Anybody know what ever came of this? Google doesn’t seem to have anything for me.

[KillerLeft]

Anybody know what ever came of this? Google doesn’t seem to have anything for me.

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.

[The Jom]

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.

Unlikely there’d be no news if it were ongoing. There would be court filings. It must’ve settled. Interesting that they’ve been able to keep it so quiet.