Comments Thread For: Judge Rules Against Golden Boy in Its Lawsuit Against Al Haymon

[snoopymiller]

Kafkod -

Right, but what you're not understanding is that One Punch is claiming that Haymon is skimming from his fighters, but is offering absolutely no proof or evidence.



Boxingitis -

HBO continues to shrink their budget and since they have "more promoters on their side," that means each of those promoters are fighting over a shrinking pie. There's no way for those promoters to thrive because there just isn't enough money to go around.

Oscar just made a deal with ESPN*2* to air Oscar's fights for $0. It's ultimately meaningless.

Pretty much spot on.

Anybody with an IQ over 11 would agree.

[original zero]

18 pages. Still no evidence from One Punch that Haymon is violating the Ali act. Hmmmmm . . .

[OnePunch]

Kafkod -

Right, but what you're not understanding is that One Punch is claiming that Haymon is skimming from his fighters, but is offering absolutely no proof or evidence.



Boxingitis -

HBO continues to shrink their budget and since they have "more promoters on their side," that means each of those promoters are fighting over a shrinking pie. There's no way for those promoters to thrive because there just isn't enough money to go around.

Oscar just made a deal with ESPN*2* to air Oscar's fights for $0. It's ultimately meaningless.

This is an absolute LIE. I never said Haymon was skimming, and now you are just making **** up out of thin air.

Let me dumb this down for you, because you seem to be struggling with it. Haymon is a licensed manager, who has a financial interest in the promotional activities of the fighters he has under contract. How you can even debate that material fact is insane, unless you are alleging that Haymon Sports is actually a 501C3 non profit or some other scenario where Haymon doesnt make a dime.

The Ali Act is pretty clear. A manager is prohibited from having a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer. That statement is not ambiguous or vague. But yet you seem to have quite a bit of difficulty comprehending it. You keep pointing to the GBP lawsuit, but all the judge said was that GBP did not prove they were harmed by Haymons conduct. Period.

But since you brought up the issue of "not answering questions", I have asked you 4 or 5 times now to clarify your previous position that Haymon had to pledge all or part of his management commisssions to Waddell & Reed, yet as part of the Top Rank settlement he was able to waive those fees entirely. Care to explain how he can waive something that you asserted wasnt even his? Or are you going to ignore it for the 5th time?


Oh, and one last question. The judge indicated what most of us have known for some time, that Haymon pays a flat fee to the "promoter" for services rendered. That means that the promoter gets a set fee, regardless of the success or failure of the event. Which means that the "promoter" has no financial interest in the event. Now if the "promoter" does not have a financial interest in the event, and you claim that Haymon does not have a financial interest in the event, uhmmm who exactly DOES have a financial interest in the event?

[boxingitis]

That's a pretty dumb statement.

But that's to be expected lol

We will see. I guess PBC is as GREAT as you expect it, is going to the **** hole. Two years wasted with such a great roster. Now the Al haymon fighter have to fight in HBO. Wade, Khan, John Molina, Jacobs, Julio Cesar Chavez Jr and more to come.

[original zero]

One Punch -

You've been asked over and over for any proof or evidence you have that Haymon is violating the Ali act. You continue to duck and dodge this request.

Worse, you're falsely claiming that I'm ignoring your questions even though I'm clearly answering them. Like I already stated, W&R invested in Haymon's company. Haymon's company makes money from management commissions.

This is very very simple stuff man. I'm not sure if you're playing dumb or if you're just blinded by anti-Haymon bias, but all you're offering the community is silly conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Haymon's company has financed loss leader events for the purpose of increasing the marketability of the fighters his company manages. For those events, of which there is no profit, Haymon's company waived their management fee.

Just because Haymon negotiates a limit on how much a promoter can make on an event doesn't mean the promoter has no financial interest in the event. The promoter has to maximize the value of the event to increase the chances of hitting the maximum fee he can charge for promoting the event.

And by placing a ceiling on how much the promoter can make, there is more money left over for the fighters, which also increases the value of Haymon's management commission. Which is exactly how things are done in the music business.

So again, you offer no proof that Haymon's violating the Ali act. You're only offering your unsubstantiated ****amamie conspiracy theory, which was rebuked under oath by the promoters of the events in question.

[Kigali]

One Punch -

You've been asked over and over for any proof or evidence you have that Haymon is violating the Ali act. You continue to duck and dodge this request.

Worse, you're falsely claiming that I'm ignoring your questions even though I'm clearly answering them. Like I already stated, W&R invested in Haymon's company. Haymon's company makes money from management commissions.

This is very very simple stuff man. I'm not sure if you're playing dumb or if you're just blinded by anti-Haymon bias, but all you're offering the community is silly conspiracy theories with zero evidence.

Haymon's company has financed loss leader events for the purpose of increasing the marketability of the fighters his company manages. For those events, of which there is no profit, Haymon's company waived their management fee.

Just because Haymon negotiates a limit on how much a promoter can make on an event doesn't mean the promoter has no financial interest in the event. The promoter has to maximize the value of the event to increase the chances of hitting the maximum fee he can charge for promoting the event.

And by placing a ceiling on how much the promoter can make, there is more money left over for the fighters, which also increases the value of Haymon's management commission. Which is exactly how things are done in the music business.

So again, you offer no proof that Haymon's violating the Ali act. You're only offering your unsubstantiated ****amamie conspiracy theory, which was rebuked under oath by the promoters of the events in question.

[Scipio2009]

Pacquiao still fights on ppv while crawford already had his first ppv. By the time pacquiao retires crawford and loma will both be bona fide ppv stars

wanna bet?

[Scipio2009]

Promoters "normally" let managers control and keep all their ticket and ad revenue? Interesting concept. I cant recall Bob Arum ever turning over all his gate receipts to Cameron Dunkin or any other "managers". Does Golden boy routinely hand over the gate or broadcast rights fees to Frank Espinosa? Perhaps since you claim this is a common practice you could provide a few examples??

Didnt think so............

For the life of me I cannot understand how you can take the position that Haymon does NOT have a "financial interest" in the PBC events or Showtime events that he controls.


Oh, and you neglected to mention how you think Haymon was able to waive management commissions when your previous position was that part or all of those commissions were obligated to Waddell & Reed. Or do you have amnesia about that?

... Golden Boy hands over 85% of the net proceeds on Saul Alvarez's fight to Canelo Promotions, so... not sure what your point is.

If Frank Espinosa or Cameron Dunkin had the backing of his fighters, do you honestly think that they'd sign away their fighter's development years to a promoter, who can pull the plug the moment things go bad?

Haymon's model is simple; by controlling the TV, a fighter can go as far as their ability will take them.

No idea how viable the path is, but if Cameron Dunkin had a money bag, to put up and invest in bringing his clients along, he'd do it and sidestep Arum

[Scipio2009]

HBO will win. More promoters on their side. When haymon works with Top Rank and Golden Boy to telecast in Showtime, then Showtime will win. Plus Oscar just made a deal with ESPN to bring up new talent to the public.

HBO can have 20 promoters on their side; most of the marketable talent is on the other side of the fence.

Saul Alvarez is a very big star, but he'll never get to Floyd Mayweather status for the simple fact that he can't promo in English.

Deontay Wilder, on simply being a big-punching, American, heavyweight champion with a mega-personality, drawfs anything that Alvarez could ever dream of achieving if he finds a way to unify the heavyweight division, full stop.

[OnePunch]

on your knees again? What a shock......