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

[The Big Dunn]

yeah, that must be it. I guess I hate black people or something. Thats usually the "go-to" answer around here when people disagree.

Meanwhile the Haymon-love around here is approaching some kind of bizarre Jim Jones type ****. I would bet that given the opportunity, half this board would suck the mans ****.....

I didn't post or imply that. You are not just disagreeing.

You have made accusations without any proof. You are directly attacking the credibility of the Judge and the legal system simply because they do not agree with your opinion. Then you are attacking almost every poster that asks you for facts that support your opinion. Then you attack the justice dept. because they haven't filed any ali act violations.

Everyone is wrong but you. How is that possible?

As I said earlier perhaps since you are not a lawyer maybe you are misunderstanding the aspects of the law you are citing.

I had hoped you wouldn't do this but you are right it is what it is.

Just a shame to see this type of reaction.

edit: you are being ridiculous. Just because people are holding you accountable for your opinion doesn't mean Haymon is getting cult love,

even if he was, many of us are happy that the man is putting more and better boxing on TV since, as a member of this forum, it is assumed you love the sport.

You have some kind of axe to grind against Haymon. Ok. fine. Just don't get mad at the rest of us for not joinging you and instead watching the fights he helps put on TV.

[original zero]

You cant "prove" the sun will come up tomorrow, therefore it wont, according to your brilliant analysis.

You've been asked, repeatedly, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that Haymon is violating the Ali act. You refuse to answer because the answer is that you don't have any evidence.

Is there any evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow? Yes. The fact that the sun has come up every day for the entirety of humanity.

Further, you have the burden of proof since you are the one making the accusation. It's not my responsibility to prove a negative. You are claiming Haymon is violating the act even though you have absolutely nothing that supports your claim. It's just a deranged delusion you dreamed up.

Does Haymon have the potential to profit so much as 5 cents on an event that features fighters under his management?

YES or NO

or continue to dodge, whichever suits you........

Not only do you continue to refuse to answer questions, you continue to lie and claim others are refusing to answer questions, even though I've answered your questions repeatedly.

Haymon's only profit from his fighters' fights is the percentage of their purse they pay him as a management fee.

You've imagined a false scenario where Haymon is pocketing money from other revenue streams. It isn't true. There's no evidence to suggest it is true. You simply made it up.

[OnePunch]

I didn't post or imply that. You are not just disagreeing.

You have made accusations without any proof. You are directly attacking the credibility of the Judge and the legal system simply because they do not agree with your opinion. Then you are attacking almost every poster that asks you for facts that support your opinion. Then you attack the justice dept. because they haven't filed any ali act violations.

Everyone is wrong but you. How is that possible?

As I said earlier perhaps since you are not a lawyer maybe you are misunderstanding the aspects of the law you are citing.

I had hoped you wouldn't do this but you are right it is what it is.

Just a shame to see this type of reaction.

Now that is an entirely different matter. And YES, I do not believe the Justice Dept give a **** about the Ali Act, and that has nothing to do with Haymon. Think about it. In over 15 years, they have not brought a SINGLE CASE against anyone. Ever.

So does nobody ever break that law? Or was it an unnecessary law that wasnt needed because nobody ever does anything wrong?

Doesnt it bother you that they just dont care about it? Or are you like Zero in assuming that since they have never brought an action, nobody must have ever broken the law?


And I am not attacking the judge. Sure, his reading didnt really seem all that impartial, and he seemed annoyed with GBP for whatever reason, but he was correct in ruling that Golden Boy did not prove injury due to Haymons conduct. That fact is true. Golden Boy did NOT prove injury, and the case was about injury, not about conduct.

Thats what is so infuriating about trying to discuss this. There is a major difference between "injury" and "conduct". And all the judge said was that Golden Boy did not prove they were injured by Haymons "alleged" conduct.

You and I are simply interpreting this differently.

[The Big Dunn]

Now that is an entirely different matter. And YES, I do not believe the Justice Dept give a **** about the Ali Act, and that has nothing to do with Haymon. Think about it. In over 15 years, they have not brought a SINGLE CASE against anyone. Ever.

So does nobody ever break that law? Or was it an unnecessary law that wasnt needed because nobody ever does anything wrong?

Doesnt it bother you that they just dont care about it? Or are you like Zero in assuming that since they have never brought an action, nobody must have ever broken the law?


And I am not attacking the judge. Sure, his reading didnt really seem all that impartial, and he seemed annoyed with GBP for whatever reason, but he was correct in ruling that Golden Boy did not prove injury due to Haymons conduct. That fact is true. Golden Boy did NOT prove injury, and the case was about injury, not about conduct.

Thats what is so infuriating about trying to discuss this. There is a major difference between "injury" and "conduct". And all the judge said was that Golden Boy did not prove they were injured by Haymons "alleged" conduct.

You and I are simply interpreting this differently.

I think you are underestimating the burden of proof.

I think maybe things are going on. That said, as was the case here, perhaps the people you think are not doing anything illegal are, in fact, the ones committing the offenses.

While you haven't posted it directly, you imply that Haymon is getting away with something despite you not showing anyone why you thin this. If you were suggesting Justice investigate the whole sport, I think most posters would agree with you. Instead, you are using Justice inaction as proof that Haymon is guilty, which is invalid, unfair, and is why Original zero, motorcity and others are going at you so hard IMO.

[OnePunch]

You've been asked, repeatedly, if you have ANY EVIDENCE that Haymon is violating the Ali act. You refuse to answer because the answer is that you don't have any evidence.

Is there any evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow? Yes. The fact that the sun has come up every day for the entirety of humanity.

Further, you have the burden of proof since you are the one making the accusation. It's not my responsibility to prove a negative. You are claiming Haymon is violating the act even though you have absolutely nothing that supports your claim. It's just a deranged delusion you dreamed up.




Not only do you continue to refuse to answer questions, you continue to lie and claim others are refusing to answer questions, even though I've answered your questions repeatedly.

Haymon's only profit from his fighters' fights is the percentage of their purse they pay him as a management fee.

You've imagined a false scenario where Haymon is pocketing money from other revenue streams. It isn't true. There's no evidence to suggest it is true. You simply made it up.

Im glad you said that, because NOW we are actually getting somewhere, and it goes right to the heart of my argument. So I would appreciate a serious answer instead of your usual condescending replies.

So answer this. Lets assume for a second that after the smoke cleared, the Frampton-Santa Cruz rematch turned a profit. So after the promoter was paid his flat-fee, the fighters were paid, all the other expenses were paid, etc, there was some revenue left over. What happens to that revenue? If that revenue goes to Haymon Sports, then you have proven that he does indeed have a "financial interest" in the event, and a clear conflict of interest.

If you have evidence that any potential event surpluses are distributed to the fighters after the fact, please provide it.

[OnePunch]

I think you are underestimating the burden of proof.

I think maybe things are going on. That said, as was the case here, perhaps the people you think are not doing anything illegal are, in fact, the ones committing the offenses.

While you haven't posted it directly, you imply that Haymon is getting away with something despite you not showing anyone why you thin this. If you were suggesting Justice investigate the whole sport, I think most posters would agree with you. Instead, you are using Justice inaction as proof that Haymon is guilty, which is invalid, unfair, and is why Original zero, motorcity and others are going at you so hard IMO.

I would wholeheartedly welcome the Justice Dept evaluating the entire sport from top to bottom. But the problem is there are no obvious deep pockets they can extract a big "fine" from, so their intervention is unlikely. They're just not that into us lol

I have 2 major philosophical problems with how Haymon operates. #1 is the issue of managers profiting off events, and the clear conflict of interest that presents. The other is the clear conflict of interest Haymon has between his fighters and Waddell. He has fiduciary obligations to both, that are in direct conflict with each other.

Yes, its a complicated case to "prove" in court. It would be next to impossible for another promoter to prove "damages", and the conduct itself is something only the Justice Dept could do anything about.

[The Big Dunn]

Im glad you said that, because NOW we are actually getting somewhere, and it goes right to the heart of my argument. So I would appreciate a serious answer instead of your usual condescending replies.

So answer this. Lets assume for a second that after the smoke cleared, the Frampton-Santa Cruz rematch turned a profit. So after the promoter was paid his flat-fee, the fighters were paid, all the other expenses were paid, etc, there was some revenue left over. What happens to that revenue? If that revenue goes to Haymon Sports, then you have proven that he does indeed have a "financial interest" in the event, and a clear conflict of interest.

If you have evidence that any potential event surpluses are distributed to the fighters after the fact, please provide it.

See, this is where you are likely having a problem. This is YOUR definition of an Ali Act violation but may not be the legal definition.

http://www.*************.com/almanac...-reform-act-2/

Where does it say what you are suggesting in this post?

[original zero]

So answer this. Lets assume for a second that after the smoke cleared, the Frampton-Santa Cruz rematch turned a profit. So after the promoter was paid his flat-fee, the fighters were paid, all the other expenses were paid, etc, there was some revenue left over. What happens to that revenue? If that revenue goes to Haymon Sports, then you have proven that he does indeed have a "financial interest" in the event, and a clear conflict of interest.

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.

[The Big Dunn]

I would wholeheartedly welcome the Justice Dept evaluating the entire sport from top to bottom. But the problem is there are no obvious deep pockets they can extract a big "fine" from, so their intervention is unlikely. They're just not that into us lol

I have 2 major philosophical problems with how Haymon operates. #1 is the issue of managers profiting off events, and the clear conflict of interest that presents. The other is the clear conflict of interest Haymon has between his fighters and Waddell. He has fiduciary obligations to both, that are in direct conflict with each other.

Yes, its a complicated case to "prove" in court. It would be next to impossible for another promoter to prove "damages", and the conduct itself is something only the Justice Dept could do anything about.

If Haymon puts out all the money upfront, he is entitled to what is left once he takes care of his fiduciary responsibilities. His employing promotional companies is legal. His profit is legal. Again, the issue seems to be your understanding of the rule.

There is no conflict from where I sit between his fighters and wadell but I am not an attorney either. Has he lost money, yes. Is that ok? Should be seeing as how he isn't the 1st or the last hedge fund to go through a rough period of losing money.

If he tunrs a profit in the end and his fighters get paid fairly, It appears he has met his responsibility to both.

[original zero]

If Haymon puts out all the money upfront, he is entitled to what is left once he takes care of his fiduciary responsibilities. His employing promotional companies is legal. His profit is legal. Again, the issue seems to be your understanding of the rule.

There is no conflict from where I sit between his fighters and wadell but I am not an attorney either. Has he lost money, yes. Is that ok? Should be seeing as how he isn't the 1st or the last hedge fund to go through a rough period of losing money.

If he tunrs a profit in the end and his fighters get paid fairly, It appears he has met his responsibility to both.

Haymon can't be in a situation where paying his fighters less results in him making a profit. He is their business manager. Throw the ali act out the window and it wouldn't change a thing. He still has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the fighter. He can't create a situation where he profits from paying the fighter less.

But that isn't the situation he's created. He's created a situation where he has maximum leverage with promoters and can ensure that the lion's share of the revenue is paid to the fighters. But he's not making his money from the "profit" of the event. He's making his money from management commissions.