Comments Thread For: Peter Nelson Named Executive Vice President, HBO Sports

[OnePunch]

One Punch -

If you want to make things more complicated than they have to be, yes, technically W&R bought a stake in the company that holds a stake in Haymon's management interests. For all intents and purposes, Haymon's management interests are co-owned by Haymon and W&R, the split of which, we don't know. But no matter how you slice it, the commissions belong to the company, not Haymon personally and not W&R directly.

But the point is that W&R has an ownership interest in Haymon's management business (via MGH) and that's what they were investing in. PBC, from a legal perspective, is simply the name of a television series. If W&R owns a portion of Haymon's management interests, the commissions would not be going directly to W&R, nor would they be going directly to Haymon. Haymon's companies are privately held and the size of W&R's stake & Haymon's stake are unknown and likely to remain that way for a long time.

Although we can look at Haymon's past dealings and speculate that the split is close to 50/50, with Haymon retaining control.

and thats really the crux of it. The other posters were claiming that Haymons share of his own management fees was zero, which I thought was an absurd premise. Nobody as smart as Haymon gives away 100% of the revenue of an existing, profitable, multi-million dollar entity, in exchange for funding for a speculative venture that isnt likely to turn a profit for at least 3-5 years, if ever.

[IMDAZED]

and thats really the crux of it. The other posters were claiming that Haymons share of his own management fees was zero, which I thought was an absurd premise. Nobody as smart as Haymon gives away 100% of the revenue of an existing, profitable, multi-million dollar entity, in exchange for funding for a speculative venture that isnt likely to turn a profit for at least 3-5 years, if ever.

Stop embarrassing yourself. I never said his management fees were zero but you didn't read that part. By the time you realized it all you could say was..."well yeah you said it six posts ago!" Well...yeah, I did. Maybe you should read I actually said it in multiple quotes. No one knows the split. It wasn't some new language that was hard to figure out, it was common sense. Now you're here talking about "and that's really the crux of it." Boy this keeps getting better and better, chum!

[OnePunch]

Stop embarrassing yourself. I never said his management fees were zero but you didn't read that part. By the time you realized it all you could say was..."well yeah you said it six posts ago!" Well...yeah, I did. Maybe you should read I actually said it in multiple quotes. No one knows the split. It wasn't some new language that was hard to figure out, it was common sense. Now you're here talking about "and that's really the crux of it." Boy this keeps getting better and better, chum!

whatever dude. You jumped in the thread with a link to try and back up a poster who claimed Haymon surrenders 100% of the managerial fees. You claimed the article was quite clear about who got the money (you inferred Waddell), and only a moron wouldnt know. So then answer ONE simple question genius:

Where do Haymon's managerial fees go? (since the article was so clear, that should be quite easy for you)


but you cant answer it, and you wont answer it, because despite all your babbling, you havent the slightest idea where Haymons managerial fees go. But post on, player........

[IMDAZED]

whatever dude. You jumped in the thread with a link to try and back up a poster who claimed Haymon surrenders 100% of the managerial fees. You claimed the article was quite clear about who got the money (you inferred Waddell), and only a moron wouldnt know. So then answer ONE simple question genius:

Where do Haymon's managerial fees go? (since the article was so clear, that should be quite easy for you)


but you cant answer it, because despite all your babbling, you havent the slightest idea where Haymons managerial fees go. But post on, player........

Obviously you still haven't read any of those posts you keep responding to since I answered that multiple times.

One, I posted the link to show that W&R netted something and it wasn't Haymon pocketing everything. In fact, if you had read my posts...I said that almost verbatim

Two, I underscored this position more than once. Don't let me get started on how you tried to pretend you didn't understand the quote because it's in Greek apparently.

At this point, you've got nothing. I'm up late doing some work and browsing this thread as I do. Been fun kicking you around. Let's keep it going.

[OnePunch]

Obviously you still haven't read any of those posts you keep responding to since I answered that multiple times.

One, I posted the link to show that W&R netted something and it wasn't Haymon pocketing everything. In fact, if you had read my posts...I said that almost verbatim

Two, I underscored this position more than once. Don't let me get started on how you tried to pretend you didn't understand the quote because it's in Greek apparently.

At this point, you've got nothing. I'm up late doing some work and browsing this thread as I do. Been fun kicking you around. Let's keep it going.

ohhhh, I get it now. This is one of those "evolving" positions. First, YOU provide a source to defend a claim of "haymon gives 100% to Waddell". When that source is questioned as to its clarity, you throw insults and claim the source material is perfectly clear to anyone but an idiot. Yet you have no idea where the money goes, and who gets what. (does that make you an idiot?) And now "Waddell gets 100%" has suddenly morphed into "Waddell netted something", yet you STILL cant even prove THAT.

Or did you provide proof of Waddell "netting something" in one of your self-congratulatory posts, and I missed it?

Please, keep "kicking me around". Its rather amusing...........

[IMDAZED]

ohhhh, I get it now. This is one of those "evolving" positions. First, YOU provide a source to defend a claim of "haymon gives 100% to Waddell". When that source is questioned as to its clarity, you throw insults and claim the source material is perfectly clear to anyone but an idiot. Yet you have no idea where the money goes, and who gets what. (does that make you an idiot?) And now "Waddell gets 100%" has suddenly morphed into "Waddell netted something", yet you STILL cant even prove THAT.

Or did you provide proof of Waddell "netting something" in one of your self-congratulatory posts, and I missed it?

Please, keep "kicking me around". Its rather amusing...........

Not evolving, you're just slowly starting to get it. I think. I'm going to try to make this easy for you because, look man, you don't know what you're talking about.

The poster saint laurent is speaking on the private side, which isn't obligated to report anything.

My posts were in reference to the public side, W&R. Publicly traded companies are required to disclose certain information but not every thing involved in every deal. At times, in an effort to make themselves more transparent to the public, they might (with the permission of their partner/borrower/lender) disclose certain facts about a deal. Usually if it puts them in a good light.

Got it? Ok, let's bring it to this subject.

The poster mentioned that all of Haymon's fee goes to the W&R. I (understanding that few realize that W&R get anything at all from these fights) posted a link to support that. Not that they get all.

Two posts later, I explained it fully. I also explained that I had looked at their earnings release to see if they had disclosed anything but alas none. That said, it's clear they get something. I reiterated this in at least one more post after.

Was that too difficult to understand? I hope this time you manage to absorb everything. I'd hate for you to come back 10 posts from now and say, "You didn't mean that, you said that 10 posts ago so it doesn't count."

[OnePunch]

Not evolving, you're just slowly starting to get it. I think. I'm going to try to make this easy for you because, look man, you don't know what you're talking about.

The poster saint laurent is speaking on the private side, which isn't obligated to report anything.

My posts were in reference to the public side, W&R. Publicly traded companies are required to disclose certain information but not every thing involved in every deal. At times, in an effort to make themselves more transparent to the public, they might (with the permission of their partner/borrower/lender) disclose certain facts about a deal. Usually if it puts them in a good light.

Got it? Ok, let's bring it to this subject.

The poster mentioned that all of Haymon's fee goes to the publicly traded company. I (understanding that few realize that W&R get anything at all from these fights) posted a link to support that. Not that they get all.

Two posts later, I explained it fully. I also explained that I had looked at their earnings release to see if they had disclosed anything but alas none. That said, it's clear they get something. I reiterated this in at least one more post after.

Was that too difficult to understand? I hope this time you manage to absorb everything. I'd hate for you to come back 10 posts from now and say, "You didn't mean that, you said that 10 posts ago so it doesn't count."

Yet you cannot provide a single shred of proof to back that statement up.

Can you prove they are getting something? Im guessing you CANT. So despite all your grandiose pontificating, we are right back where this all started, with me asking for a source that proves Haymon gives management revenue to Waddell. You obviously dont have one. So why you ever inserted yourself into this thread in the first place is a mystery to me. You have no source material to back up your claims, and nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Why exactly are you in this conversation?

[IMDAZED]

Yet you cannot provide a single shred of proof to back that statement up.

Can you prove they are getting something? Im guessing you CANT. So despite all your grandiose pontificating, we are right back where this all started, with me asking for a source that proves Haymon gives management revenue to Waddell. You obviously dont have one. So why you ever inserted yourself into this thread in the first place is a mystery to me. You have no source material to back up your claims, and nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Why exactly are you in this conversation?

Apparently you didn't read St. Laurent's posts either.

[OnePunch]

Apparently you didn't read St. Laurent's posts either.

neither you, nor St Laurent, are insiders or "sources" privvy to the Waddell/Haymon deal. Your opinions are not facts. Just because you "think" something is a certain way, that doesnt make it so. Bottom line is you cannot provide a source to back up your claim that Haymon kicks management fees to Waddell. Period, End of story. You have no source. Nothing you say changes that fact.

I know, I know, you're a big time hedge fund guy, expert in everything, and need no sources. Probably can pass a Series 7 with no studying on only an hours sleep.

Us "common folk" though, well we like to have sources......

[IMDAZED]

neither you, nor St Laurent, are insiders or "sources" privvy to the Waddell/Haymon deal. Your opinions are not facts. Just because you "think" something is a certain way, that doesnt make it so. Bottom line is you cannot provide a source to back up your claim that Haymon kicks management fees to Waddell. Period, End of story. You have no source. Nothing you say changes that fact.

I know, I know, you're a big time hedge fund guy, expert in everything, and need no sources. Probably can pass a Series 7 with no studying on only an hours sleep.

Us "common folk" though, well we like to have sources......

The link I posted is the most comprehensive article on PBC to date, one sourced from Ryan Caldwell, who facilitated the deal. As far as I know, it's still the only interview granted by any major player on the Haymon/W&R side. So unless you think they did the interview and then allowed him to post a blatant lie (after going through great lengths to keep interviews at a minimum), the answer is right in front of your face. Yeah, that's my source. What's yours?