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

[original zero]

reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I said the conflict of interest COULD incentivize a "manager" to pay the fighters less, because 100% is more than 10-15%. That is a conflict of interest, whether you can grasp it or not.

he's only getting paid from his management commission. if the fighters are paid less, he makes less. there is no conflict of interest. you simply dreamed it up. in your head, you're imagining a business model that would violate the ali act. you already explained the model several times.

but the model you explained is not what is actually taking place in reality. so the only ali act violations are the fictional ones in the fictional scenario you invented in your mind.

[The Big Dunn]

(b) Firewall between promoters and managers
(1) In generalIt is unlawful for—
(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or
(B) a manager—
(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or
(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.

Go down and read the section on exceptions. See dude, with all due respect, it appears as if you are reading a legal document like its a story, separating the paragraphs and not understanding how the punctuation marks affect what you are reading.

You really need to read it all together and not parse it into pieces. Perhaps this is why what you see isn't what the judge saw.

If a boxer acts as his own promoter its ok. If a manager gets his payment from the purse, then its ok. The manager can't get anything from the promoter but it doesn't forbid the manager/advisor from paying the promoter up front.

Can you see how your interpretation could be wrong?

[OnePunch]

Go down and read the section on exceptions. See dude, with all due respect, it appears as if you are reading a legal document like its a story, separating the paragraphs and not understanding how the punctuation marks affect what you are reading.

You really need to read it all together and not parse it into pieces. Perhaps this is why what you see isn't what the judge saw.

If a boxer acts as his own promoter its ok. If a manager gets his payment from the purse, then its ok. The manager can't get anything from the promoter but it doesn't forbid the manager/advisor from paying the promoter up front.

Can you see how your interpretation could be wrong?

lol this has nothing to do with fighters who own their own promotional companies. You guys are trying to complicate something that is actually quite simple

A manager controlling event revenue incentivizes him to keep 100% of every dime he can as opposed to keeping 10-15%. It doesnt matter if Haymon is a nice guy, or has everyones best interests at heart. The model creates the conflict, and the framers of the Act did not want managers being involved in event revenue, because its obvious where that could lead if the wrong people were involved.

Remove Haymon from this equation and put King in his place. Still dont see a problem?

but but but Haymon overpays doe so its ok


but you win. I give up.

[original zero]

there is no proof or evidence to support your position terry. you've imagined a model, which would be a violation, and you're pretending it's the model being used even though it isn't.

[OnePunch]

there is no proof or evidence to support your position terry. you've imagined a model, which would be a violation, and you're pretending it's the model being used even though it isn't.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. I cant prove its ever going to rain again, but I'm pretty sure it will at some point.

Maybe I'm just not articulating ot properly, I dont know. Or maybe Im nuts and just dont know it. But you are claiming that there is never so much as $.01 in profit left over from a Haymon controlled event, but then thats where your logic stops. You have no evidence, direct or indirect, that he fully disburses any and all profit after the fact, yet you just blindly assume that he does so.

Can we at least agree that in the generic sense, the possibility of a manager (any manager, not just Haymon) retaining promotional event profits is an obvious conflict, and likely an Ali Act violation? Can we at least agree on that basic premise? Because if we cant, then there really is no point in this discussion going any further

[joseph5620]

But I wouldn't be suing you for robbing the bank. I would be suing you for stealing my money out of the bank. But my money is insured by the bank so you didn't harm me therefore there would be no need to sue you. Just like Haymon didn't harm Oscar so there was no need for Oscar to sue Haymon.

Now if you assaulted me while I was at the bank I could sue you and you'd be ordered to pay victim restitution.

Stop with the horrible analogies and just let it go. You aren't smarter than his lawyers. You don't have some super secret information. You hate Haymon. Just admit it.

He'll never admit that or the reason for it. But it's obvious.

[OnePunch]

He'll never admit that or the reason for it. But it's obvious.

"but its obvious" = codeword for "im too ****** to debate the actual issues involved so I'll just make an accusation that someone is racist"

[snoopymiller]

he's only getting paid from his management commission. if the fighters are paid less, he makes less. there is no conflict of interest. you simply dreamed it up. in your head, you're imagining a business model that would violate the ali act. you already explained the model several times.

but the model you explained is not what is actually taking place in reality. so the only ali act violations are the fictional ones in the fictional scenario you invented in your mind.

You're ******... the Act would never be enforced unless it harmed the fighters.

[IMDAZED]

You keep saying the same thing over and over. I cant prove its ever going to rain again, but I'm pretty sure it will at some point.

Maybe I'm just not articulating ot properly, I dont know. Or maybe Im nuts and just dont know it. But you are claiming that there is never so much as $.01 in profit left over from a Haymon controlled event, but then thats where your logic stops. You have no evidence, direct or indirect, that he fully disburses any and all profit after the fact, yet you just blindly assume that he does so.

Can we at least agree that in the generic sense, the possibility of a manager (any manager, not just Haymon) retaining promotional event profits is an obvious conflict, and likely an Ali Act violation? Can we at least agree on that basic premise? Because if we cant, then there really is no point in this discussion going any further

Are you sure Haymon receives the profit?

[The Big Dunn]

lol this has nothing to do with fighters who own their own promotional companies. You guys are trying to complicate something that is actually quite simple

A manager controlling event revenue incentivizes him to keep 100% of every dime he can as opposed to keeping 10-15%. It doesnt matter if Haymon is a nice guy, or has everyones best interests at heart. The model creates the conflict, and the framers of the Act did not want managers being involved in event revenue, because its obvious where that could lead if the wrong people were involved.

Remove Haymon from this equation and put King in his place. Still dont see a problem?

but but but Haymon overpays doe so its ok


but you win. I give up.

It's not about winning or you giving up. You clearly only read a portion of the act and didn't understand the exceptions portion. I am not complicating anything, just posting the wording.

From my reading there are clear exceptions and it appears Haymon is within those exceptions.

No where does it say specifically what you post. Hdre are the purposes of the act.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices;

(2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and

(3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.