Tweet
Ward just keeps shooting himself in the foot. Just finish your damn contract
http://www.fightopinion.com/2013/12/...t+Industry.%29
http://www.fightopinion.com/2013/12/...t+Industry.%29
Rader cites the 2001 case between Oscar De La Hoya vs. Top Rank in which DLH got his contract voided due to it being over seven years in length.
However, he has a major problem with his legal argument.
The DLH case argued that one contract lasted over 7 years in length and therefore should be voided. De La Hoya’s case was an unpublished Federal case that wasn’t binding on the California court system.
In the case of Andre Ward & GTP, Ward signed several different agreements. Those agreements were approved by him, his manager, his lawyer, Dan Goossen, Goossen’s lawyer, and the California State Athletic Commission. They were separate deals. It was not one continuous deal that lasted over 7 years in length.
If you were to believe Rader’s argument on its face, then athletes in other sports who are under contract could not sign extensions (like Kobe Bryant with the Lakers) because such extensions would be viewed as one ongoing contract rather than different contracts agreed to by all parties involved. Rader’s argument is that it would violate California labor law.
Furthermore, the argument made in the complaint refers to contractual addendums. Those addendums are for binding arbitration, not court action.
If Ward’s camp was able to prevail on such a flimsy legal argument, it would cause havoc in California in terms of sports law. Goossen has promoted for a long time in California and organized most of Andre Ward’s fights in California. If Rader was able to convince a court to set a precedent that athletes signing new extensions amounts to one long agreement over 7 years in length that could be voided on a whim via a court order for declaratory relief, imagine what kind of scenario that would present to MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL players who stay with their respected organizations by signing contract extensions only to have a new & unprecedented way to weasel out of contracts by claiming the original contract plus extension(s) amounts to one giant contract rather than separate deals.
However, he has a major problem with his legal argument.
The DLH case argued that one contract lasted over 7 years in length and therefore should be voided. De La Hoya’s case was an unpublished Federal case that wasn’t binding on the California court system.
In the case of Andre Ward & GTP, Ward signed several different agreements. Those agreements were approved by him, his manager, his lawyer, Dan Goossen, Goossen’s lawyer, and the California State Athletic Commission. They were separate deals. It was not one continuous deal that lasted over 7 years in length.
If you were to believe Rader’s argument on its face, then athletes in other sports who are under contract could not sign extensions (like Kobe Bryant with the Lakers) because such extensions would be viewed as one ongoing contract rather than different contracts agreed to by all parties involved. Rader’s argument is that it would violate California labor law.
Furthermore, the argument made in the complaint refers to contractual addendums. Those addendums are for binding arbitration, not court action.
If Ward’s camp was able to prevail on such a flimsy legal argument, it would cause havoc in California in terms of sports law. Goossen has promoted for a long time in California and organized most of Andre Ward’s fights in California. If Rader was able to convince a court to set a precedent that athletes signing new extensions amounts to one long agreement over 7 years in length that could be voided on a whim via a court order for declaratory relief, imagine what kind of scenario that would present to MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL players who stay with their respected organizations by signing contract extensions only to have a new & unprecedented way to weasel out of contracts by claiming the original contract plus extension(s) amounts to one giant contract rather than separate deals.
Comment