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

[original zero]

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.

There is LOTS OF EVIDENCE and LOTS OF PROOF that it will rain again. There is NO evidence and NO proof that Haymon is doing what you're suggesting he's doing. It is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. A delusion. Fiction. Created by you. Supported by nothing.

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.

I vote for nuts and don't know it. Haymon's set up with the Showtime events is exactly the same as what his set up was with the HBO events. All that changed is that when he went across the street, the HBO propaganda machine went into overdrive trying to smear him.

I don't have to prove a negative. You are making a false accusation with no proof or evidence. Haymon is a manager. He makes his money from management commissions. He negotiates purses that leave the promoter with very little room for profit. His fighters aren't signed to a promoter, so if the promoter isn't willing to work for the small profit, he'll use another promoter. You've imagined a scenario where Haymon receives the profit from the event. That is not what happens. You made that up in your head.

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

Yes. I agree 100%. But that isn't what he's doing.

[snoopymiller]

he is a licensed manager who has a financial interest in the promotional activities of his clients. The law states that is a no-no.

And its great that Haymon is playing Santa Claus, and being the "irrational player" who overpays everyone and puts smiley faces on their checks, but at some point he will have to transition to being more "rational"

Lets see if the love fest continues at that point......

Hey... as long as he can pay more than what GBP and Top Rank get for their little club shows paying fighters $6k per fight... Haymon will stay up.

Fighters won't run to GBP and TR since they have no ability to pay more dummy.

[lizard_man]

If I'm not mistaken wasnt Haymon's family member a boxer. He saw what he went through and has vowed to not let any of his boxers get shafted. I would say 95 % haymon fighters are content.

[original zero]

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

A combination of the promoters and the performers. Just like in the concert industry. Haymon then gets his % from the performers.

The promoter, fighters, and other en****** are all paid flat-fee amounts.

Wrong.

Sure, the "promoter of record" acts as a pass through, but ultimately it is Haymon that controls everything.

Wrong.

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?

Not how it works. Lou would be paid a flat fee for expenses as well as a share of profits, capped at a certain level.

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.

The lawsuits were frivolous and filed in hopes of finding out as much information as possible about Haymon operates. So Haymon revealed as little information as possible.

[original zero]

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)

That isn't what he's doing. He's negotiating the highest license fee possible so he can negotiate the highest purses possible, and then finding a promoter willing to accept the deal terms that Haymon prefers. Haymon's company then pockets a % of the purses.

Exactly how Haymon was doing business at HBO.

[snoopymiller]

A combination of the promoters and the performers. Just like in the concert industry. Haymon then gets his % from the performers.




Wrong.




Wrong.




Not how it works. Lou would be paid a flat fee for expenses as well as a share of profits, capped at a certain level.




The lawsuits were frivolous and filed in hopes of finding out as much information as possible about Haymon operates. So Haymon revealed as little information as possible.

DiBella gets a flat fee.

The profits if any likely go to a holding Co.

The brand building is what Haymon is looking for anyhow

[original zero]

Look at it this way: (for comparison purposes we will assume 10% management fee, and overall revenue for all 3 scenarios is identical)

Scenario 1: Typical promoter / manager roles are observed. Fighter purse is $700,000. Manager is paid $70,000

Scenario 2: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $700,000. After all expenses event profit is $200,000. In this case manager is paid $270,000

Scenario 3: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $500,000. After all expenses event profit is now $400,000. In this case manager is paid $470,000.


in scenarios 2 and 3 the "manager" is negotiating purses against his own self interests. THIS is why I believe the writers of the Act did not want managers involved in event revenue. And the fact that no fighters have yet complained about the "irrational player" doesnt mean the conflict doesnt exist. What will happen when he becomes more "rational"?

Scenario 2 and 3 aren't what's taking place in reality. These are scenarios you dreamed up in your head that have nothing to do with how Haymon operates. Haymon operates under scenario 1. But he uses his leverage to negotiate the highest purses possible and to minimize the promoter's share.

[original zero]

yes, I read that too. It says they "collect" it. The same way a Walmart cashier "collects" your money at the register. But they dont get to keep it. Think about it for a second. Since the promoter is being paid a flat-fee, who ultimately gets the revenue? If I tell you Im going to pay you $500k to run an event, and you collected $2.4 million in ticket sales and rights fees / commercials, after the expenses get paid do you think the "promoter" gets to keep the difference even though he already got his 500k?

No different than a concert where the promoter's profit is capped. The performers are paid what is left and the manager takes his percentage.

[original zero]

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.......

No you don't have to assume that. You choose to assume that despite there not being any proof or evidence to support your delusion. Haymon is a manager. He negotiates with the promoter on behalf of the talent he represents and tries to get the talent the largest share of the revenue possible, which increases what his % is worth.

You have no proof and no evidence suggesting he is withholding revenue from fighters and directly lining his pockets. It's a conspiracy theory you dreamed up that is supported by absolutely nothing.

[OnePunch]

No different than a concert where the promoter's profit is capped. The performers are paid what is left and the manager takes his percentage.