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

[joseph5620]

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

I've debated and made a fool out of you multiple times. Right now you're getting slapped around by mulitiple posters so there is no need for me to join in other than to point out why you truly don't like Haymon. You know it and I know it.



You look like a fool right now because your feelings are hurting because of the judges decsion. Just admit you're wrong and you lied. Your failure as a boxing promoter doesn't mean you have to be bitter about the success of others LOL. But Trump won. Use your lame political views to soothe your pain ..

[OnePunch]

Are you sure Haymon receives the profit?

obviously I dont have access to his internal financial statements, but if he doesnt receive it, then who does?

The promoter, fighters, and other en****** are all paid flat-fee amounts. Sure, the "promoter of record" acts as a pass through, but ultimately it is Haymon that controls everything. For example, lets say Haymon paid Dibella $750k to promote a particular event, and that event generated a gate of 800k and $1.7 million in advertising revenue. If after Dibella pays everyone and himself the $750k fee, if there is still money left after the event (profit), what would the logical conclusion be as to where it goes? Do you think Lou gets to keep it? Nothing came out in the lawsuit to indicate anything other than a "flat-fee" arrangement between Haymon and the promoters he contracts with. There was no evidence of any revenue sharing agreements.

And im not trying to be argumentative with you. We usually have cordial conversations.

[The Big Dunn]

The paragrpah below is from a Columbia Law Journal report on the Ali Act. I can't post a link. It requires downloading and is 36 pages.

This interdiction is meant to obviate the traditional practice in boxing under
which “many of the most powerful promoters force boxers to hire a particular
manager, usually an employee or family member of the promoter, whose loyalty is
to the promoter and not to the boxer, thus compromising the boxer’s interests
during negotiations with the promoter.”83 Don King was perhaps the most
notorious proponent of this unsavory tactic, often requiring boxers to hire his son,
Carl King, as their manager as a condition precedent to being promoted by the elder
King. Once installed, Carl King routinely took fifty percent or more from purses of
boxers that he managed and his father promoted.84 More troubling, the boxer
would then be represented by Carl King in negotiations against his own father, by
whom the younger King was also employed.85 Under such circumstances, it is
impossible for anyone, including the boxer, to believe that his best interests were
being pursued faithfully by his manager. Thus, the firewall provision of the Ali
Act represents a pragmatic and effective solution to one of the underlying reasons
why boxers are often subjected to coercive and inequitable contracts.86
Like the disclosure provisions of the Act discussed above, the firewall provision
is directed not at the substantive terms of contracts, but in how they are formed. By
ensuring that boxers are more vigorously and faithfully represented by their
managers during contract negotiations, the Ali Act assures that the fruits of those
negotiations are more substantively fair. Naturally, it may still be possible for
shifty promoters to set up shell companies and thereby force boxers to retain
conflicted management. Further, as will be discussed in greater detail below, the
recurring problems of educating boxers about this provision and facilitating their
exercise of the rights it guarantees persist here—as they do with respect to the
provision banning option contracts lasting more than a year.

One Punch, I don't think Haymon is doing this.

EHRLICHMANCORRECTIONSPDF.docx 5/13/2011 3:43 PM
421
In This Corner: An Analysis of Federal Boxing Legislation
Brad Ehrlichman*
INTRODUCTION

[OnePunch]

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.

here is the relevant paragraph.

H. R. 1832—6
(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘No member’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) REGULATORY PERSONNEL
.—No member’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN
PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS
.—
‘‘(1) I
N GENERAL
.—It 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.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS
.—Paragraph (1)—
‘‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and
‘‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing
match of 10 rounds or more.

You can read the entire Act here. The relevant passage is on page 6

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr1832enr/pdf/BILLS-106hr1832enr.pdf

[The Big Dunn]

here is the relevant paragraph.

H. R. 1832—6
(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘No member’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) REGULATORY PERSONNEL
.—No member’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN
PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS
.—
‘‘(1) I
N GENERAL
.—It 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.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS
.—Paragraph (1)—
‘‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and
‘‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing
match of 10 rounds or more.

You can read the entire Act here. The relevant passage is on page 6

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...6hr1832enr.pdf

Terry, I know the passage. My point is your interpretation is made, again respectfully, without you having any legal background. SO maybe you are interpreting what you are reading incorrectly and misapplying things.

I understand your points about the appearance of a conflict. However, there is a huge difference with King making his fighter hire his son as a manager and Haymon managing a fighter and then paying the promoter to promote the event.

[OnePunch]

The paragrpah below is from a Columbia Law Journal report on the Ali Act. I can't post a link. It requires downloading and is 36 pages.



One Punch, I don't think Haymon is doing this.

EHRLICHMANCORRECTIONSPDF.docx 5/13/2011 3:43 PM
421
In This Corner: An Analysis of Federal Boxing Legislation
Brad Ehrlichman*
INTRODUCTION

I dont know whether he is or isnt, and it doesnt matter either way. Lets take "Haymon" out of the equation for a minute, because it is really about the process, not the specific individual.

Are you ok with a manager controlling event revenue and negotiating fighter purses, knowing that the inherent conflict of interest would incentivize that "manager" to work against his clients interests, since he would retain 100% of event profits but only 10-15% of fighter purses? (and whether he does or doesnt actually do it is irrelevant, the conflict still exists nontheless)

I know that you are fine with Haymon doing it, but how about anyone else?

[OnePunch]

Terry, I know the passage. My point is your interpretation is made, again respectfully, without you having any legal background. SO maybe you are interpreting what you are reading incorrectly and misapplying things.

I understand your points about the appearance of a conflict. However, there is a huge difference with King making his fighter hire his son as a manager and Haymon managing a fighter and then paying the promoter to promote the event.

I wasnt aware a person needed to pass the Bar in order to comprehend what a "financial interest" is..........

[IMDAZED]

obviously I dont have access to his internal financial statements, but if he doesnt receive it, then who does?

The promoter, fighters, and other en****** are all paid flat-fee amounts. Sure, the "promoter of record" acts as a pass through, but ultimately it is Haymon that controls everything. For example, lets say Haymon paid Dibella $750k to promote a particular event, and that event generated a gate of 800k and $1.7 million in advertising revenue. If after Dibella pays everyone and himself the $750k fee, if there is still money left after the event (profit), what would the logical conclusion be as to where it goes? Do you think Lou gets to keep it? Nothing came out in the lawsuit to indicate anything other than a "flat-fee" arrangement between Haymon and the promoters he contracts with. There was no evidence of any revenue sharing agreements.

And im not trying to be argumentative with you. We usually have cordial conversations.

OK cool. Since you don't know,do you think it's fair to assume that the court does? They had access to the financials (some of which were leaked) and they also read the Ali act. Based on that, why assume that it goes back to Haymon?

[OnePunch]

OK cool. Since you don't know,do you think it's fair to assume that the court does? They had access to the financials (some of which were leaked) and they also read the Ali act. Based on that, why assume that it goes back to Haymon?

The court really didnt address that, because it didnt matter as it pertained to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was about damages, and the only thing the court addressed was that GBP had failed to prove that Haymons "alleged" conduct "injured" them.

it sounds like legal mumbo jumbo, but its an important distinction. It wasnt that Haymon didnt do it, it was that GBP didnt prove injury regardless of whether he did it or not.

I think if the judge thought Haymon was totally above board, he would have dismissed WITH prejiduce, instead of WITHOUT. I mean, if there really were no issues here, why would the judge give them the option to refile? But that part is just speculation......

[The Big Dunn]

I dont know whether he is or isnt, and it doesnt matter either way. Lets take "Haymon" out of the equation for a minute, because it is really about the process, not the specific individual.

Are you ok with a manager controlling event revenue and negotiating fighter purses, knowing that the inherent conflict of interest would incentivize that "manager" to work against his clients interests, since he would retain 100% of event profits but only 10-15% of fighter purses? (and whether he does or doesnt actually do it is irrelevant, the conflict still exists nontheless)

I know that you are fine with Haymon doing it, but how about anyone else?

I don't agree with your premise. Managers get paid a % of the fighter's purse. The manager pays the promoter to promote. The incentive is to pay the fighter a higher purse so that % is higher. I don't see an incentive to pay the fighter less, which is in part why the Ali act was created.

I also don't see a conflict of interest because the fighters are paid upfront. Yes, if the event succeeds they may end up with a smaller % of the take. However, if the event fails, they are not in a situation where the promoter gets their cut 1st and leaves them with what is left.

I see this as the manager protecting their client by making sure they get paid upfront, regardless of the success of the event.