Why do people falsely claim that Haymon refuses to work with other promoters when...

You dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Google is your friend. Haymon is an adviser. and the reason everybody's confused is that they no longer know what haymon really is. adviser, manager, or promoter. hence the lawsuit.

I don't know, you tell me. you connect philpins and tranny and you are saying you don't know and i have to tell you? i bet you are a tranny that's logical and it's a fact.

Now they're losing over $400 million yet they're staying in business with him? :lol1: Logic, doe. well the latest Waddell & Reed quarterly filing shows the fund down like $310 million, but they committed $425 million to the project and I dont think they can retract it, so when the smoke clears the losses will be over $400 million......

Call me when Lara fights one of the Charlo brothers. Then we can discuss about Haymon working with other promoters. Bottom line is Haymon is averse to pitting top fighters against each other even in his own camp let alone pit them outside of the camp. He does it in very rare cases. Pointless thread.

uihmmmmm, thats easy dumbass. Because I dont have a hedge fund willing to let me lose over $400 million bucks. Now they're losing over $400 million yet they're staying in business with him? :lol1: Logic, doe.

Why weren't you able to replicate what Haymon did if you're so smart? :lol1: Nate Campbell, doe. uihmmmmm, thats easy dumbass. Because I dont have a hedge fund willing to let me lose over $400 million bucks.

Promoters by proxy

You dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Google is your friend. Why weren't you able to replicate what Haymon did if you're so smart? :lol1: Nate Campbell, doe.

why philpins? is this racist comment or what? what's philpins and trannies got to do with each other? I don't know, you tell me.

al haymon is nat a manager i think he is called adviser You dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Google is your friend.

No what I was saying is that the fight could of been made, that is all. In the end though any split of zero, is zero. Both guys would of made career high paydays so from a business perspective, 50/50 of a fight that actually happens versus zero from a fight that does'nt happen does'nt make much sense. Not to mention the fight is for all the marbles at LHW. All that said though, I just don't care. As a fan I want to see mother****ers fight, its getting old having to talk about the politics more often than not because of all the BS. **** HBO, PBC, Arum, Haymon, GB or any other clown that gets in the way of giving fans what they want and deserve. Ok I get what you saying. I 100% agree especially the bold.

So what you are saying is that Stevenson should possibly take less money to fight Kovalev because he is tied to HBO? How does that make sense? If Showtime or some other entity was willing to bid or pay more for the fight than HBO why should Stevenson just fight for less money? No what I was saying is that the fight could of been made, that is all. In the end though any split of zero, is zero. Both guys would of made career high paydays so from a business perspective, 50/50 of a fight that actually happens versus zero from a fight that does'nt happen does'nt make much sense. Not to mention the fight is for all the marbles at LHW. All that said though, I just don't care. As a fan I want to see mother****ers fight, its getting old having to talk about the politics more often than not because of all the BS. **** HBO, PBC, Arum, Haymon, GB or any other clown that gets in the way of giving fans what they want and deserve.

What you should be asking is why is Kovalev satisfied with whatever he will be getting from this fight? Any comment on that? That should tell you who really wants the fight. Is Stevenson your boyfriend or something? Why are you so concerned about his finances? OHH a internet tough guy questioning my manhood. I'm so offended. :buttkick:to you while I do this to that hoe you call your mother :bukkake:

So what you are saying is that Stevenson should possibly take less money to fight Kovalev because he is tied to HBO? How does that make sense? If Showtime or some other entity was willing to bid or pay more for the fight than HBO why should Stevenson just fight for less money? What you should be asking is why is Kovalev satisfied with whatever he will be getting from this fight? Any comment on that? That should tell you who really wants the fight. Is Stevenson your boyfriend or something? Why are you so concerned about his finances?

Umm the fight could of been made, yes it would of been HBO, but that is'nt banned. Yes I get the business aspect, but again that is a two way street. Why would HBO do something to help Haymon? Round and round we go. Anyways my larger point is I don't get why people want to defend any of these asshats when they all get in the way of fights getting made. Picking sides just seems silly to me when no one has any kind of concrete proof about anything. Everyone just bases their opinion on the serious of events that have unfolded over the last few years. The bold is absolutely correct.

Its a two way street though. An example often used here and was actually used in this thread is Stevenson vs Kovalev. Main Events were willing to do 50/50 on HBO to avoid the purse bid, and for whatever reason Stevenson and his team just wanted it to go to a purse bid. Not condoning it because it is one of the things that irks me with boxing and the bigger fighters, but everyone knew that Kovalev could'nt fight off HBO when Stevenson has no such contract. That fight could of been made if Stevenson really wanted it and it had nothing to do with HBO being unwilling to work with Haymon. There is plenty of blame to go around and trying to lay the blame in one spot is just crazy imo. So what you are saying is that Stevenson should possibly take less money to fight Kovalev because he is tied to HBO? How does that make sense? If Showtime or some other entity was willing to bid or pay more for the fight than HBO why should Stevenson just fight for less money?

every promotional outfit protects their fighters. Top Ranks doing it up to most recently but why is it haymon the public is focusing on right now?

You really should READ the Ali Act before you try and tell anyone else whats in it. The Ali Act specifically PROHIBITS a "manager" from having a financial interest in the promotion of a fighter. Al Haymon is a licensed manager. If you are trying to claim he does NOT have a financial interest in PBC events, then you either are a liar, or just stupid. Your choice. al haymon is nat a manager i think he is called adviser

Haymon would have a field day in the Philippines if it were true. why philpins? is this racist comment or what? what's philpins and trannies got to do with each other? why not thailand? or murica? or yusaf mack higher yearning hates racism.

Put in simple terms, if Cotto and Canelo were Haymon fighters, would you have seen them fight each other at the earliest possible time or ten years later? Exactly. The example may be extreme, but you get the point. That's why this talk about working with other promoters is utterly useless until Haymon gets rid of this business model of showcasing his top fighters, instead of fighting each other.