Golden Divorce just got real! GBP files arbitration for $50 Mil in damages

[PlasterWraps]

Here's a question nobody has asked .....

Was Schaefer as CEO obligated to contractually bind fighter's under the GBP banner. Because this blows the whole thing out of the water.

As CEO, Schaefer had the leverage to execute contracts as he saw fit. And there is nothing dubious about fighters being managed by Haymon and promoted by GBP.

Therein lies the problem, none of those guys have promotional contracts with GBP. It's not like Oscar is suing him just for the fun of it.

[arraamis]

Therein lies the problem, none of those guys have promotional contracts with GBP. It's not like Oscar is suing him just for the fun of it.

Did you read or react only?

"Was Schaefer as CEO obligated to contractually bind fighter's under the GBP banner. Because this blows the whole thing out of the water."

"As CEO, Schaefer had the leverage to execute contracts as he saw fit."

[-PBP-]

Here's a question nobody has asked .....

Was Schaefer as CEO obligated to contractually bind fighter's under the GBP banner. Because this blows the whole thing out of the water.

As CEO, Schaefer had the leverage to execute contracts as he saw fit. And there is nothing dubious about fighters being managed by Haymon and promoted by GBP.

It's tricky. Although the fighters weren't signed to GBP, Haymon didn't work with any other promoters. So if they let Schaefer finish out his contract through 2018 can you argue that it wouldn't matter if the fighters had contracts or not because GBP was still getting the fights?

How has the business been harmed, when they are still promoting all of the fights for the Haymon fighters? The damage wouldn't occur until Haymon takes them elsewhere.

[arraamis]

It's tricky. Although the fighters weren't signed to GBP, Haymon didn't work with any other promoters. So if they let Schaefer finish out his contract through 2018 can you argue that it wouldn't matter if the fighters had contracts or not because GBP was still getting the fights?

How has the business been harmed, when they are still promoting all of the fights for the Haymon fighters? The damage wouldn't occur until Haymon takes them elsewhere.

Exactly!!!!!!

[US Dirk Killer]

Did you read or react only?

"Was Schaefer as CEO obligated to contractually bind fighter's under the GBP banner. Because this blows the whole thing out of the water."

"As CEO, Schaefer had the leverage to execute contracts as he saw fit."

So he saw fit to sign all of them to short term contracts, or to any contracts at all with GBP, and now have a large amount of their stable potentially gone?

I guess as long as a CEO says he saw time for the company, nobody could ever get sued ever.

[PlasterWraps]

Did you read or react only?

"Was Schaefer as CEO obligated to contractually bind fighter's under the GBP banner. Because this blows the whole thing out of the water."

"As CEO, Schaefer had the leverage to execute contracts as he saw fit."

Um, as a CEO, you have a duty to sign a contract as he saw fit to benefit the company of which you are an employee of. Ie. Fudiciary duty; which translates to "the trustee is bound by equity to suppress his own interests and administer the property only for the benefit of the beneficiary" the beneficiary being GBP, not RS.

[arraamis]

So he saw fit to sign all of them to short term contracts, or to any contracts at all with GBP, and now have a large amount of their stable potentially gone?

I guess as long as a CEO says he saw time for the company, nobody could ever get sued ever.

Not necessarily .... As recently revealed, Haymon will continue a working relationship with GBP.

[arraamis]

Um, as a CEO, you have a duty to sign a contract as he saw fit to benefit the company of which you are an employee of. Ie. Fudiciary duty; which translates to "the trustee is bound by equity to suppress his own interests and administer the property only for the benefit of the beneficiary" the beneficiary being GBP, not RS.

You're discounting the liability of having fighters under contract that are duds\bums.

Once a promotional co. invests in a fighter, it is expected that there is a future return. But if the fighter turns out to be a bum .... then the Promotional co. has a loss on their books and a valid contract with someone who at best is a gate-keeper.

By not binding fighters, the Promotional co. can cut the strings without any contractual considerations especially if the fighter turns out to be a bum\loser.

[-PBP-]

Ask yourself this question. As a result of Schaefer's actions, what revenues has Golden Boy Promotions lost? They are still getting revenue from EVERY Haymon fighter that they had signed.

And if you argue that they lost future revenue, there is no guarantee that every Haymon fighter will maintain the same earning power. Fighters lose, get injured, age, etc. etc.

This might be harder to prove than I initially thought.

[deanrw]

I think what much of this Arbitration will be about is GPB becoming vulnerable while under the helm of Schaefer.

Was GBP's getting promotional fees from the non signed fighters? Were they only an acting promoter via proxy? Did Richard allow GBP contracts with fighters also signed to Haymon expire? If Schaefer allowed any of those to happen, he was knowingly allowing GBP's to lose assets and value.