Comments Thread For: Andy Cruz Files Lawsuit Against New Champions Promotions, Cites Breach Of Contract, Violation Of Ali Act

[OnePunch]

Damn you did well in the first paragraph but just had to go off the deep end in the second one. It's funny how all you key lawyers are privy to more info than a United States District Court. Remember Bob and Oscar sued Al for violation of the Ali Act and not only did the case get thrown out of court it got laughed out of court as well. But whatever suits your narrative have at it loser. Hahahaha

You should go back and re-read the court decision and educate yourself. The judge SPECIFICALLY said he was NOT saying that Haymon did not violate the Ali Act. What he said was that even if Haymon was violating the Act, that Golden Boy could not prove specific damages, therefore the case was dismissed. Any action regarding Ali Act violations would need to be brought by a State Commission, or the Justice Dept, none of whom seem to give a %$^# about it.......

[OnePunch]

Didn't Arum take a cut from Lopez when he lost to kambosos on dazn?

And for the second paragraph didn't Kathy duva and Arum sue haymon for violating the Ali act yet all Kathy did was exposed his slave contracts and Arum forced him to work with him?

I dont know the specifics of that transaction, but the only time a promoter can take a percentage of a fighters purse is in a purse bid situation, where they made a good faith effort but did not win the bid. Most promotional contracts in that situation call for 20% or so to go to the promoter. THAT specific scenario is permissible under the Ali Act, because the promoter was not involved with the promotion. Provision of services agreements are another way a promoter can get paid when its not his show. For example, I co-promoted the Winky Wright vs Ike Quartey fight years ago. Golden Boy was the lead promoter and had the HBO date. Quartey was with Dibella, Golden Boy paid Dibella a "provision of services" fee (xxxx) for the services of Quartey, and then Dibella had his own contract with Quartey for say (xxxy), These are made up numbers because I cant disclose the actual numbers, but for example you could say Golden Boy paid Dibella $500k for Quartey, and then Dibella paid Quartey say $425k. Again, made up numbers, but you get the idea.

on the other matter, I didnt read the full decision in Kathy and Bob's case, but I did read it in the Golden boy case. And what the judge said in the Golden Boy case was that it didnt matter whether or not Haymon was violating the Act, and the judge did not rule on that. What he said was that even if Haymon WAS violating the Act, Golden Boy did not prove how they were damaged by that violation, therefore the case was dismissed. I thought the way the judge worded it pretty much proved that Haymon was violating the Act, but there was nothing that judge could do about it. Golden boy didnt prove damages, and enforcement of the Ali Act is for the Justice Dept or state commissions to pursue, and they are simply not interested

[Teetotaler69]

I dont know the specifics of that transaction, but the only time a promoter can take a percentage of a fighters purse is in a purse bid situation, where they made a good faith effort but did not win the bid. Most promotional contracts in that situation call for 20% or so to go to the promoter. THAT specific scenario is permissible under the Ali Act, because the promoter was not involved with the promotion. Provision of services agreements are another way a promoter can get paid when its not his show. For example, I co-promoted the Winky Wright vs Ike Quartey fight years ago. Golden Boy was the lead promoter and had the HBO date. Quartey was with Dibella, Golden Boy paid Dibella a "provision of services" fee (xxxx) for the services of Quartey, and then Dibella had his own contract with Quartey for say (xxxy), These are made up numbers because I cant disclose the actual numbers, but for example you could say Golden Boy paid Dibella $500k for Quartey, and then Dibella paid Quartey say $425k. Again, made up numbers, but you get the idea.

on the other matter, I didnt read the full decision in Kathy and Bob's case, but I did read it in the Golden boy case. And what the judge said in the Golden Boy case was that it didnt matter whether or not Haymon was violating the Act, and the judge did not rule on that. What he said was that even if Haymon WAS violating the Act, Golden Boy did not prove how they were damaged by that violation, therefore the case was dismissed. I thought the way the judge worded it pretty much proved that Haymon was violating the Act, but there was nothing that judge could do about it. Golden boy didnt prove damages, and enforcement of the Ali Act is for the Justice Dept or state commissions to pursue, and they are simply not interested

I see. Insightful as always

Thanks for breaking it down.

[DClefthook]

I dont know the specifics of that transaction, but the only time a promoter can take a percentage of a fighters purse is in a purse bid situation, where they made a good faith effort but did not win the bid. Most promotional contracts in that situation call for 20% or so to go to the promoter. THAT specific scenario is permissible under the Ali Act, because the promoter was not involved with the promotion. Provision of services agreements are another way a promoter can get paid when its not his show. For example, I co-promoted the Winky Wright vs Ike Quartey fight years ago. Golden Boy was the lead promoter and had the HBO date. Quartey was with Dibella, Golden Boy paid Dibella a "provision of services" fee (xxxx) for the services of Quartey, and then Dibella had his own contract with Quartey for say (xxxy), These are made up numbers because I cant disclose the actual numbers, but for example you could say Golden Boy paid Dibella $500k for Quartey, and then Dibella paid Quartey say $425k. Again, made up numbers, but you get the idea.

on the other matter, I didnt read the full decision in Kathy and Bob's case, but I did read it in the Golden boy case. And what the judge said in the Golden Boy case was that it didnt matter whether or not Haymon was violating the Act, and the judge did not rule on that. What he said was that even if Haymon WAS violating the Act, Golden Boy did not prove how they were damaged by that violation, therefore the case was dismissed. I thought the way the judge worded it pretty much proved that Haymon was violating the Act, but there was nothing that judge could do about it. Golden boy didnt prove damages, and enforcement of the Ali Act is for the Justice Dept or state commissions to pursue, and they are simply not interested

You wrote this beautifully written paragraph just to prove to me how dumb you are. Did you read what you wrote? "And what the judge said in the golden boy case was that it didn't matter whether or not Haymon was violating the act,and the judge did not rule on that. What he said was that even if Haymon WAS violatingthe Act, Golden boy did not prove how they were damaged by that violation, therefore the case was dismissed. In other words you fuqin idiot, the plaintiff (Oscar) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (Haymon) accusing him of wrongdoing. The judge reviewed the case and determined the plaintiff offered no evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant and subsequently threw (and laughed) the case out of his courtroom. What part don't you understand? And thd Justice dept and state commisions are simply not interested. Do you want to know why they are not interested? Because they do not want to get laughed out of court as well. Dummy!

[OnePunch]

You wrote this beautifully written paragraph just to prove to me how dumb you are. Did you read what you wrote? "And what the judge said in the golden boy case was that it didn't matter whether or not Haymon was violating the act,and the judge did not rule on that. What he said was that even if Haymon WAS violatingthe Act, Golden boy did not prove how they were damaged by that violation, therefore the case was dismissed. In other words you fuqin idiot, the plaintiff (Oscar) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (Haymon) accusing him of wrongdoing. The judge reviewed the case and determined the plaintiff offered no evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant and subsequently threw (and laughed) the case out of his courtroom. What part don't you understand? And thd Justice dept and state commisions are simply not interested. Do you want to know why they are not interested? Because they do not want to get laughed out of court as well. Dummy!

Wrong. The judge SPECIFICALLY stated that even if Haymon was violating the Act, Golden Boy couldnt prove how that damaged THEM. Its pretty simple. The judge wasnt there to decide whether or not Haymon broke the rules. He was there to determine if Golden Boy could prove damages. They couldnt, which was why he granted summary judgement.


But this is a pointless argument, because every single argument you ever make always gets dumbed down to black = right, and white = wrong

So no need to continue this.

[DClefthook]

Wrong. The judge SPECIFICALLY stated that even if Haymon was violating the Act, Golden Boy couldnt prove how that damaged THEM. Its pretty simple. The judge wasnt there to decide whether or not Haymon broke the rules. He was there to determine if Golden Boy could prove damages. They couldnt, which was why he granted summary judgement.


But this is a pointless argument, because every single argument you ever make always gets dumbed down to black = right, and white = wrong

So no need to continue this.

The judge absolutely was there to decide if Haymon broke the rules. And if he found that Haymon broke the rules he would have determined that Oscar was owed damages. Please forgive menfor being all old school and shyte but every argument eventually does boil down to someone being right and someone being wrong.

[DClefthook]

Wrong. The judge SPECIFICALLY stated that even if Haymon was violating the Act, Golden Boy couldnt prove how that damaged THEM. Its pretty simple. The judge wasnt there to decide whether or not Haymon broke the rules. He was there to determine if Golden Boy could prove damages. They couldnt, which was why he granted summary judgement.


But this is a pointless argument, because every single argument you ever make always gets dumbed down to black = right, and white = wrong

So no need to continue this.

And if you're saying that I want the black guy to be right and the white guy to be wrong..... who the hell is the white guy in this scenario?

[budfr]

Damn that was quick! Homie just got here and already getting scammed smh.

He scammed his home country.

[budfr]

Best case scenario in 2024: ESPN drops boxing and top rank follows Monster Inoye into an Amazon deal. Pbc and Tr are finally under the same banner. KingRy is released from Golden Girl and signs co promotional deal with Al. Devin finally realizes is only viable option for American stardom is on Prime. Dazn/MR is irrelevant and who cares what they do. Oscar gets dropped by Dazn and has noowhere to go. Oscar is then found slumped over in a dirty New Mexico hotel room with ******* and oxytocin, a lip filler starter kit, two 12 yr old run away immigrants and a room full of shytty spatulas.

F..you stop your hate, loser.

[budfr]

And if you're saying that I want the black guy to be right and the white guy to be wrong..... who the hell is the white guy in this scenario?

The non black. In this case, Oscar, who has Spanish blood, mestizo. You donīt have to look like a vking. Of course, people of Northhern European descent are considered white in the US but Paoeple who have Southern European, Arab, Turkish, etc blood is white. Even people from India who are very dark are of the white race. Canelo is not white according to US standards but he is white in Latin American countries.