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

[OnePunch]

The promoter gets an agreed upon fee for expenses, but the promoter's profit isn't quite as simple. The promoter's profit is determined by how successful the event is, although there is a cap negotiated limiting just how much the promoter can make.

The fighters' listed purses are their guarantees, but if the event is a big success, their final take may exceed their guarantee, just like many other entertainment events. The increased purse then results in an increased management fee.

Haymon is not doing anything shady or illegal. He saw the balance of power shift in the music industry. The promoters used to have all the power and then suddenly the managers changed the paradigm. So he sold his promotional company and then took the management strategy he'd just witnessed being executed in the music industry and applied it to boxing.

do you have evidence of Haymon fighters getting post-event revenue checks, or having revenue-share deals? Because this would be contrary to the purse information that Rafael and others report on all the time.

[original zero]

My interpretation of the statement "A manager cannot have a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer" is that the framers of the Act did not want managers involved in any revenue streams other than the fighter commissions. And to me that makes sense.

Agreed.

If the manager controls event revenue, he is basically now a promoter, whose interests are best served by paying the fighters as little as possible, therefore keeping more for himself.

But that's not what he's doing. That's what you're imagining he's doing, because you're delusional. Page after page goes by and you offer zero evidence to support your silly conspiracy theory.

[OnePunch]

Good post. greenk coming.



I haven't seen anything to contradict your opinion here. Maybe something in the future but I think the judge was clear there wasn't a violation.

No, what the judge was "clear" on was that Golden Boy didnt prove they were "injured" by Haymons alleged conduct.

[OnePunch]

my statement is still correct because the model haymon co-opted is completely compatible with the ali act.

and it's interesting that you tried to cherry pick such an innocuous post while ignoring the other posts that completely destroy your position.

you have no evidence that haymon is violating the ali act because he isn't.

you imagined a business model, that would be a violation, that he isn't using, and are now using that delusion to claim he's violating. it's ridiculous.

And thats your opinion. People used to think the earth was flat too, and then they found out it wasnt. I obviously cannot help you understand the conflicts of interests that exist in this model. You are just fine with it because you love all things Haymon. I would bet a ribeye steak that if it were Samson, or Dunkin, or someone implementing this model, you would magically find fault with it.

But thats ok. We can agree to disagree.

[original zero]

do you have evidence of Haymon fighters getting post-event revenue checks, or having revenue-share deals? Because this would be contrary to the purse information that Rafael and others report on all the time.

Haymon Sports, like UFC, is a private company. What their main event fighters are paid is none of your business and that information is very closely guarded. Minimum guarantees are public information due to being filed with the athletic commission, but Haymon Sports, like UFC, is under no obligation to make public the details of their arrangements with fighters beyond the minimum guarantee.

You are making the very serious accusation that Haymon, who has been hired by fighters as their business manager, and has a fiduciary duty to those fighters, is secretly lining his pockets by defrauding his fighters and keeping revenue he isn't legally entitled to.

You offer absolutely no evidence or proof to back up your claim. The promoters involved have testified under oath that you are wrong. And yet you continue with your insane conspiracy theory, which is based on nothing other than you're own dreamed up delusions.

NOTHING SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION. Worse, Frank Warren has successfully sued people for far less than the libel you post about Haymon on a daily basis.

[The Big Dunn]

your link doesnt work, but I can explain where my interpretation comes from.

My interpretation of the statement "A manager cannot have a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer" is that the framers of the Act did not want managers involved in any revenue streams other than the fighter commissions. And to me that makes sense. If the manager controls event revenue, he is basically now a promoter, whose interests are best served by paying the fighters as little as possible, therefore keeping more for himself. This is not greed, its Business 101. Why not keep 100% of the profits instead of paying it to the fighters and getting only 10-15%?

Now sure, people like to think that Haymon is some kind of saint, and only pays so much because he's looking out for everyone. But you only need go back to Caldwell's statement about being the "irrational player" to see the strategy behind that. At some point there will be a correction.

How anyone can think its a good situation for a manager to have this sort of conflict of interest is beyond me. You basically have 3 different en****** (Haymon, Waddell, and the fighter) all wanting their share of the pie. And it is impossible to serve the best interests of all 3 at the same time, because there is only so much pie to be divided, and every slice 1 entity gets comes at the expense of the other 2.

go to b o x i n g i n s i d e r.

Is that what it says though? If it doesn't say that, then there is where your problem starts. Managers/advisors tend to get a % of the fighters purse. If the manager/adviser pays a promoter to run the event, the fighter likely gets more of the cut so the manager can get more. That isn't hurting the fighter in any way-it just creates 2 revenue streams, which to my knowledge, isn't illegal.

Nobody is suggesting Haymon is a saint. However, you are calling him a sinner without proof. That is problematic. Besides, most of what we see on NSB is posters complaining Haymon pays fighters too much. Frankly, I don't see how he can "overpay fighters" and you see it as "not pay them enough".

If you go with your interpretation (which is molded to fit your opinion) then yes. However, if you are wrong (and almost everything, including the haters opinions of how much Haymon pays fighters, points to this) then in fact this would be a good thing, right?

The problem you seem to be having is you do not know the complete information about wadell and reed and their deal with haymon. Again, they may have lost money short term, but this a long term hedge fund that has ups and downs. Them not making money on every show isn't a sign of something illegal or a conflict of interest.

[OnePunch]

Agreed.




But that's not what he's doing. That's what you're imagining he's doing, because you're delusional. Page after page goes by and you offer zero evidence to support your silly conspiracy theory.

The conflict still exists, whether he is still being the "irrational player" at the moment or not.

And page after page goes by with you being willfully blind to the obvious conflict, and the obvious potential for harm to be done when managers can control event revenue.

And obviously NEITHER of us have access to Haymons financials. He may very well have pocketed event profits. Or he may be acting as a non-profit charity as you allege, and all the money is given away. I have NEVER said Haymon cheated a fighter, or stole any money. I simply believe that in the role of a "manager", and the obligations that come with that title, he should not have any control whatsoever over event revenue. The conflict is too great.

[original zero]

And thats your opinion. People used to think the earth was flat too, and then they found out it wasnt.

And they found out it wasn't because of PROOF and EVIDENCE. Which you don't have. In your analogy, YOU are the one that thought the earth was flat. Now you're finding out that it's round and your kicking and screaming trying to cling on to the past like those that couldn't handle discovering the earth wasn't flat.

I obviously cannot help you understand the conflicts of interests that exist in this model.

Because you invented the conflicts in your head and they don't actually exist. You convinced yourself, for no reason whatsoever, that Haymon is secretly a promoter and keeping revenue for himself. That's not true. You made it up. Haymon gets paid via management commissions. Period. You have zero proof or evidence to the contrary.

You are just fine with it because you love all things Haymon. I would bet a ribeye steak that if it were Samson, or Dunkin, or someone implementing this model, you would magically find fault with it.

Nothing stopped Samson or Dunkin from undercutting the industry norm on the percentage a manager takes. Haymon chose to do that to make his services more appealing. Nothing stopped Samson or Dunkin from waving their commission on purses under 100k. Haymon chose to do that to make his services more appealing.

Nothing stopped Samson or Dunkin from buying time on major networks to raise the profile of their fighters. Haymon chose to do that to make his services more appealing.

Nothing stopped Samson or Dunkin from advising their fighters to stop signing long term promotional agreements. Nothing stopped them from hiring promoters to handle their fighters on a fight by fight basis. Haymon chose to do these things to make his services more appealing.

But what you're really asking me to defend is the made up looney tune model you created in your mind, which isn't the model Haymon is utilizing. I don't have to defend a negative. You have to see a shrink.

[OnePunch]

Haymon Sports, like UFC, is a private company. What their main event fighters are paid is none of your business and that information is very closely guarded. Minimum guarantees are public information due to being filed with the athletic commission, but Haymon Sports, like UFC, is under no obligation to make public the details of their arrangements with fighters beyond the minimum guarantee.

You are making the very serious accusation that Haymon, who has been hired by fighters as their business manager, and has a fiduciary duty to those fighters, is secretly lining his pockets by defrauding his fighters and keeping revenue he isn't legally entitled to.

You offer absolutely no evidence or proof to back up your claim. The promoters involved have testified under oath that you are wrong. And yet you continue with your insane conspiracy theory, which is based on nothing other than you're own dreamed up delusions.

NOTHING SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION. Worse, Frank Warren has successfully sued people for far less than the libel you post about Haymon on a daily basis.

Stop lying. I never said that. My position has been consistent from Day 1. I believe that Haymons business model runs afoul of the Ali Act, because he is a licensed manager who is controlling promotional event revenue. I believe its obvious that is a violation of the Ali Act. I have never said Haymon stole a dime from anyone. I have a big problem with the obvious conflict of interests, and what it means going forward. Imagine for a second it wasnt Haymon in the drivers seat, but someone else. What if it were King, or Gary Shaw, or someone you dont admire as much?

You are making it about the person. It isnt. Its the model that I object to.

And Im not a hard person to find. I am not so ashamed of my own viewpoints that I have to hide in anonymity on the internet. If Haymons people feel I have slandered them, there is ample remedies they can seek.......

[original zero]

The conflict still exists, whether he is still being the "irrational player" at the moment or not.

And page after page goes by with you being willfully blind to the obvious conflict, and the obvious potential for harm to be done when managers can control event revenue.

Now you're moving the goal posts. It's finally dawning on you that your fairy tale wasn't true, so now you're trying to shift the argument completely. Before you claimed the business model was that Haymon would profit from minimizing purses. Now you're trying to pull a fast one and shift your claim to it being too risky to trust Haymon not to do that. Which is a completely different argument.

And obviously NEITHER of us have access to Haymons financials. He may very well have pocketed event profits. Or he may be acting as a non-profit charity as you allege, and all the money is given away. I have NEVER said Haymon cheated a fighter, or stole any money. I simply believe that in the role of a "manager", and the obligations that come with that title, he should not have any control whatsoever over event revenue. The conflict is too great.

Speak for yourself dude. I've worked for Haymon promoters and unlike you I'm not just dreaming up delusional nonsense. Nobody is alleging Haymon is a non-profit charity. Haymon is a talent manager. He gets his talent the most money possible and takes a percentage of the money. This is very very simple stuff. You're the one conjuring these ludicrous conspiracy theories while offering zero proof and zero evidence.

The promoters testified under oath that they collect the revenue. Which has been brought to your attention over and over and over. But since you're allergic to facts, logic, reason, evidence and proof, you just keep spouting the same insane rantings.