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

[original zero]

he is a licensed manager who has a financial interest in the promotional activities of his clients.

Wrong.

And its great that Haymon is playing Santa Claus, and being the "irrational player" who overpays everyone and puts smiley faces on their checks, but at some point he will have to transition to being more "rational"

His management company was the "irrational player" because they chose to buy TV time to market their fighters. It was always going to be for a limited time. A marketing blitz to raise awareness of his stable. It's already worked in the sense that Showtime has increased their budget, Spike agreed to pay for shows and CBS has paid for one offs two years in a row.

Can Haymon get Fox or CBS to bite on a regular series? To be determined. But it had nothing to do with playing Santa Claus and everything to protect his business interests from a shrinking HBO pie. The only way to survive and thrive was to grow the pie and that wasn't going to happen with HBO.

[snoopymiller]

Wrong.




His management company was the "irrational player" because they chose to buy TV time to market their fighters. It was always going to be for a limited time. A marketing blitz to raise awareness of his stable. It's already worked in the sense that Showtime has increased their budget, Spike agreed to pay for shows and CBS has paid for one offs two years in a row.

Can Haymon get Fox or CBS to bite on a regular series? To be determined. But it had nothing to do with playing Santa Claus and everything to protect his business interests from a shrinking HBO pie. The only way to survive and thrive was to grow the pie and that wasn't going to happen with HBO.

If it was up to Terry, he would advise all promoters to do small club shows that build guys into HBO attractions LOL.

LOL.

lol

LOL

Like he can't see the writing on the wall

[original zero]

DiBella gets a flat fee.

Technically correct, but a little more complicated than that. The promoters get X for expenses and Y for their services. Which may or may not be a flat fee, but often a little more complicated than a flat fee.

The profits if any likely go to a holding Co.

Wrong.

[original zero]

yes we know you have an ugly kid but adults are trying to have a serious discussion right now.

[OnePunch]

No you don't have to assume that. You choose to assume that despite there not being any proof or evidence to support your delusion. Haymon is a manager. He negotiates with the promoter on behalf of the talent he represents and tries to get the talent the largest share of the revenue possible, which increases what his % is worth.

You have no proof and no evidence suggesting he is withholding revenue from fighters and directly lining his pockets. It's a conspiracy theory you dreamed up that is supported by absolutely nothing.

now im beginning to think that youre just trolling becuse this is insane even coming from you.

You are taking the position that every cent of profit from a Haymon controlled event is paid out to 3rd parties, and not a single dime finds its way to Haymon Sports. That has to be the single most ****** thing I have read in this entire thread, and believe me thats saying something.

You havent a single shred of evidence to back up your claim. The promoter is paid a flat fee. Even the judge alluded to that.

[snoopymiller]

Technically correct, but a little more complicated than that. The promoters get X for expenses and Y for their services. Which may or may not be a flat fee, but often a little more complicated than a flat fee.




Wrong.

Well the promoters definitely don't get paid based on the profits of a show. They are getting their $$$ upfront.

[original zero]

Well the promoters definitely don't get paid based on the profits of a show. They are getting their $$$ upfront.

they get the money for their expenses up front.

[OnePunch]

Technically correct, but a little more complicated than that. The promoters get X for expenses and Y for their services. Which may or may not be a flat fee, but often a little more complicated than a flat fee.




Wrong.

well the judge said its a flat fee. So I guess he's wrong or ******.

Oh, wait......

[snoopymiller]

they get the money for their expenses up front.

And if a show is profitable or not they receive administrative fees.

[original zero]

now im beginning to think that youre just trolling becuse this is insane even coming from you.

Not trolling. We've already established that you're nuts. Very understandable that it would cause you to assume that others are the problem.

You are taking the position that every cent of profit from a Haymon controlled event is paid out to 3rd parties, and not a single dime finds its way to Haymon Sports. That has to be the single most ****** thing I have read in this entire thread, and believe me thats saying something.

Depends on your definition of control. If a huge rock band has the leverage to negotiate a sweetheart deal with Live Nation where the band's manager makes most of the decisions and negotiates a 90/10 split in favor of the performer, who really is in control? But it's still a Live Nation event. And the manager isn't making a cent beyong their management commission. That is literally their job. Generate as much revenue as possible for the performer and then take a commission on that revenue.

You havent a single shred of evidence to back up your claim. The promoter is paid a flat fee. Even the judge alluded to that.

I don't have to prove a negative. You are the one making allegations of massive fraud without a shred of evidence or proof.