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

[OnePunch]

The problem is you are equating the manager's total take with his payment which isn't right.

The payment as a manager and the profits are 2 separate things. The manager's pay is based solely on the % agreement with the fighter.

The money from revenue of the event comes from everything else-parking, concessions, etc.

There is no incentive to pay the fighter less because the manager's take will be less.

and profit isn't guaranteed. The manager assumed the risk so if there is profit there is nothing wrong IMO that they reap the benefit of that risk.

the law says othewise

[The Big Dunn]

Exactly. And having a deeper understanding of the distinct differences and subtleties in the "promoter" and "manager" roles certainly shaped my opinion. Promoters have no fiduciary duty to the fighter. The manager does. Which is EXACTLY why a manager should have nothing whatsoever to do with event revenue. The conflict for a manager is obvious. The promoter has no conflict because he has no fiduciary duty to the fighter.

I think alot of people dont know what that means.

I disagree with you. I think that since the promoter takes his money off the top, it is more likely that they will screw the fighter out of money they deserve.

This is what Don King did, This is what Arum did with Manny and Koncz.

The Ali Act prevents promoters, who have no fiduciary duty to the fighter, from hiring their clients manager, who would be forced to choose between his client and his boss. The Ali act doesn't prevent someone who manages the fighter from controlling the whole event.

As we saw the act has specific exceptions to the section you posted. Nothing you have shown indicates Haymon is violating this rule.

[OnePunch]

The problem is you are equating the manager's total take with his payment which isn't right.

The payment as a manager and the profits are 2 separate things. The manager's pay is based solely on the % agreement with the fighter.

The money from revenue of the event comes from everything else-parking, concessions, etc.

There is no incentive to pay the fighter less because the manager's take will be less.

and profit isn't guaranteed. The manager assumed the risk so if there is profit there is nothing wrong IMO that they reap the benefit of that risk.

not when the "manager" is also running the event.

[OnePunch]

I disagree with you. I think that since the promoter takes his money off the top, it is more likely that they will screw the fighter out of money they deserve.

This is what Don King did, This is what Arum did with Manny and Koncz.

The Ali Act prevents promoters, who have no fiduciary duty to the fighter, from hiring their clients manager, who would be forced to choose between his client and his boss. The Ali act doesn't prevent someone who manages the fighter from controlling the whole event.

As we saw the act has specific exceptions to the section you posted. Nothing you have shown indicates Haymon is violating this rule.

our interpretations on this issue obviously differ.....

[The Big Dunn]

the law says othewise

No Terry, the law has specific exceptions that allows ceratin arrangments. You keep ignoring that.

[The Big Dunn]

not when the "manager" is also running the event.

The manager isn't running the event. He has paid a promoter to do that. Nothing I saw in the law prevents Haymon from hiring a promoter.

[The Big Dunn]

our interpretations on this issue obviously differ.....

The difference is that isn't my interpretation. I posted the Act and I posted the Columbia Law Journal's article on the act. Nowhere in either did I read anything like what you keep posting.

As with any law the Act has created some gray area which Haymon seems to be operating in.

Now maybe down the road some more evidence comes to light that definitively shows that Haymon is violating the Act. If that happens I will fully accept being wrong.

You basically are saying no judge or no lawyer can get you to change your opinion. Being stubborn and defiant in the face of reality doesn't make you right.

[IMDAZED]

to the the first 2 points, I dont have the slightest idea. Golden Boy obviously did a poor job of convincing the judge that they have been harmed by Haymons actions as opposed to their own internal bumbling. Whether that was due to poor lawyering or simply no basis for damages, I simply dont know.

Point 3, I have to assume he controls any profits, absent any information to the contrary, such as revenue sharing deals, or what not. Everything that leaked out in the trial pointed to flat fee arrangements, and I've never heard anything to refute that. So once all the "flat fees" are paid, the remaining revenue doesnt simply vanish.......

Right but you're assuming it goes to his pockets.

You also have to assume that GBP & the courts either saw nothing or did nothing.

This is if you assume he is in fact in violation. You're assuming A LOT.

[OnePunch]

No Terry, the law has specific exceptions that allows ceratin arrangments. You keep ignoring that.

you keep saying that, but the 2 listed exceptions were for fighters who promote their own events and under-10 round fights.

So I dont see what your point is.


Look ,we've been going back and forth all day. I've lost interest. We both have our interpretations. Perhaps someday it will be resolved one way or the other.

[OnePunch]

Right but you're assuming it goes to his pockets.

You also have to assume that GBP & the courts either saw nothing or did nothing.

This is if you assume he is in fact in violation. You're assuming A LOT.

I dont think it is an assumption that he has a "financial interest" in his events. Even if by some miracle he donated all profits to charity or whatever, the simple fact of him contracting a promoter at a set fee automatically gives him a "financial interest" in the event. And a DIRECT interest at that. I just dont see how that can be refuted. And a manager having such a financial interest in a promotional event indeed violates that Act. The language is pretty clear.

Now whether or not the Justice Dept or a court somewhere ever actually DOES anything about it, well thats anyones guess my friend........