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

[original zero]

1. Is Haymon a licensed manager?

Yes.

2. Does the Ali Act prohibit a manager from having a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer?

Yes.

3. Does Haymon retain any revenue from PBC events, such as ticket sales or advertising sales?

PBC is simply the name of a television show. The fights are promoted by promoters who perform the normal promotional duties. Haymon's revenue comes from his management commission. Limiting how much the promoter profits is not a violation of the Ali act. The revenue generated by limiting the profit of the promoter does not go into Haymon's pocket directly. It goes into his pocket via his management commissions due to his fighter's getting larger purses.

There is no evidence that Haymon is violating the Ali act. Only your su****ion. You are the one making the claim. The burden is on you to prove it. But you can't because there's no evidence or proof that supports your position.

[OnePunch]

Yes.




Yes.




PBC is simply the name of a television show. The fights are promoted by promoters who perform the normal promotional duties. Haymon's revenue comes from his management commission. Limiting how much the promoter profits is not a violation of the Ali act. The revenue generated by limiting the profit of the promoter does not go into Haymon's pocket directly. It goes into his pocket via his management commissions due to his fighter's getting larger purses.

There is no evidence that Haymon is violating the Ali act. Only your su****ion. You are the one making the claim. The burden is on you to prove it. But you can't because there's no evidence or proof that supports your position.

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?

[original zero]

One Punch -

You offer absolutely nothing to support your paranoid conspiracy theory and the PBC promoters testified under oath that you are wrong.

Here is what the judge wrote:

the promoters that work with the PBC vehemently disagree that they are “sham” promoters. They have testified that their duties are substantially the same as their duties for non-PBC events, which include, for example: maximizing event revenues and generating media attention for the event; coordinating with the pertinent state boxing commission regarding the promoter’s various safety, financial, and technical obligations, including by ensuring the presence of medical personnel and safety equipment; executing bout agreements with the boxer, negotiating and entering into the venue agreement and pertinent sponsorship agreements, selling tickets, assisting with television production elements, and collecting the proceeds from ticket sales, gate revenue, and local sponsorship sales.

In the cases where the television networks pay a license fee, the promoters collect those fees as well. The so-called “sham” promoters are also responsible for overseeing the creation of advertising for the event and purchasing targeted advertising in various forms of the media. In addition, the promoters for PBC events handle event logistics, including travel, accommodations, and on-site coordination with the fighters, their camps, the media, and all other stakeholders.

[OnePunch]

One Punch -

You offer absolutely nothing to support your paranoid conspiracy theory and the PBC promoters testified under oath that you are wrong.

Here is what the judge wrote:

the promoters that work with the PBC vehemently disagree that they are “sham” promoters. They have testified that their duties are substantially the same as their duties for non-PBC events, which include, for example: maximizing event revenues and generating media attention for the event; coordinating with the pertinent state boxing commission regarding the promoter’s various safety, financial, and technical obligations, including by ensuring the presence of medical personnel and safety equipment; executing bout agreements with the boxer, negotiating and entering into the venue agreement and pertinent sponsorship agreements, selling tickets, assisting with television production elements, and collecting the proceeds from ticket sales, gate revenue, and local sponsorship sales.

In the cases where the television networks pay a license fee, the promoters collect those fees as well. The so-called “sham” promoters are also responsible for overseeing the creation of advertising for the event and purchasing targeted advertising in various forms of the media. In addition, the promoters for PBC events handle event logistics, including travel, accommodations, and on-site coordination with the fighters, their camps, the media, and all other stakeholders.

Nice try at deflection, but the Ali Act doesnt say a single word about "tasks" or what entity performs specific ones. It only references "financial interest". The Ali Act specifically prohibits a manager having a "financial interest in the promotion of a boxer". It doesnt matter who books the plane tickets or assigns seats at the press conference. What matters is who has a "financial interest". And if you are trying to claim that Haymon does not have a "financial interest" in the PBC / Showtime events that he controls, then you are either ******, mistaken, or outright lying. And I dont think you're ******.

And what a shock, still no comment from you regarding your previous assertion that Haymon management commissions were pledged to Waddell & Reed as part of their deal.

[original zero]

One Punch -

You don't have any evidence that Haymon has a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer. It's just an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory you have.

The way Haymon operates with Showtime is the same way he operated with HBO. The promoter's profit is capped at a certain amount, in order to maximize revenue for the fighters. Which then maximizes the value of the management commission.

W&R invested in Haymon's management company and as partners in that business, they benefit from maximizing the value of the management commissions.

This is all very simple stuff. If you'd take off the tin foil hat, you'd see that everything is completely kosher as far as the Ali act is concerned.

You haven't been able to present any evidence that he's violating the act. It's just you personal paranoid hunch that you can't prove because it's not true.

[snoopymiller]

I didnt precidt one way or the other how it would end, because thats a fools errand. I did claim however though that I felt that Golden Boys Ali Act claims were solid, and I still do. The Sherman Act stuff I was less familiar with. You seem to want to assume that because they couldnt show how that conduct hurt them, that the conduct didnt happen. Its 2 different things. Haymon IS violating the Ali Act, but its probably only the Justice Dept who could do anything about it, and they have never filed a single case, ever.

But to the overall issue you keep avoiding, who exactly do you think would retain any profit from a PBC event? If your answer is Haymon, then you are acknowledging that he is indeed violating the Ali Act.

You don't get it and will never get it.

Unless those "facts" contribute to the detriment of fighter treatment/compensation ... no reasonable judge or jury would EVER consider them as wrong doings.

SMFH with these mental midgets

[Motorcity Cobra]

One Punch -

You don't have any evidence that Haymon has a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer. It's just an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory you have.

The way Haymon operates with Showtime is the same way he operated with HBO. The promoter's profit is capped at a certain amount, in order to maximize revenue for the fighters. Which then maximizes the value of the management commission.

W&R invested in Haymon's management company and as partners in that business, they benefit from maximizing the value of the management commissions.

This is all very simple stuff. If you'd take off the tin foil hat, you'd see that everything is completely kosher as far as the Ali act is concerned.

You haven't been able to present any evidence that he's violating the act. It's just you personal paranoid hunch that you can't prove because it's not true.

I told him he needs to contact Oscar's lawyers and give them this groundbreaking information he has because it sure didn't come to light in the discovery phase. Onepunch knows something no one else knows. He's smarter than all those high powered Ivy League educated lawyers Oscar hired.

[Sweet Jones]

Props to original zero for exposing the continued absolute paper thin and unsubstantiated claim that Haymon is violating the Ali Act.

It's sad that very public failure of two lawsuits that put the violation of the Ali Act at the heart of their claim against Haymon is not enough for these haters.

[sicko]

It is OVER...LET IT GO! LMFAO at the people who think they're smarter than Judges and Lawyers on this forum!

[OnePunch]

I told him he needs to contact Oscar's lawyers and give them this groundbreaking information he has because it sure didn't come to light in the discovery phase. Onepunch knows something no one else knows. He's smarter than all those high powered Ivy League educated lawyers Oscar hired.

It has nothing to do with Oscar, because obviously he couldnt prove that he was "injured" by Haymons conduct. Same scenario if I rob a bank and you sue me because of it. You will lose, because you cant prove my conduct injured you, but that doesnt mean I didnt rob the bank.