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

[Eff Pandas]

Just listened to the Sunday Puncher podcast which had one of the best talks about this lawsuit I've heard & they talked like they've read some of the testimony with some of the exchanges that went on during their show. Anyone know of a transcript that exists of these exchanges (in particular Oscar's, Haymon's & the fighters) or a reporter that was going that in depth with their discussions of what they witnessed? Would love to read this.

[original zero]

its actually scary that someone who claims to have the credentials that you do is as woefully ignorant as you are.

Dude, there is a LEGAL difference in the way a "promoter" and the way a "manager" can operate. You cant seem to wrap your feeble mind around that concept. This is SOOOOO simple.

Having worked as both a promoter and a manager at different times, I'm well aware of the legalities Terry. Haymon is not operating the way you think he's operating. You have no proof or evidence that he's operating the way you think he's operating. The honorable thing to do would be for you to admit it is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that you've created and choose to believe without any proof or evidence.

The fact that Haymon can limit the "promoters" salary, means that it is Haymon, and NOT the "promoter", that is in control of the event revenue. That is against the law. Plain and simple, and the debate really can end right there. Has nothing to do with if he's "stealing" it. I never accused him of that, and dont know and dont care if he is or isnt. It has nothing to do with my position. He could be giving every penny of the "profit" to the fighters for all I know. But LEGALLY it doesnt matter. If he wants to control event revenue, then he should go get a promoters license, instead of just renting someone elses.

You're just wrong dude and nothing supports your position. The potential for unlimited profit is not what determines if someone is a promoter or not. When Andre Ward signed with Roc Nation, if Ward's manager had negotiated terms that capped Roc Nation's profit at $1 million per event, with remaining revenue paid to Ward, would that be illegal? No. Would that mean James Prince is a promoter? No. So when you say it's illegal to negotiate a limit on the promoter's profit, you're wrong. And it further illustrates how delusional you are.

[OnePunch]

Having worked as both a promoter and a manager at different times, I'm well aware of the legalities Terry. Haymon is not operating the way you think he's operating. You have no proof or evidence that he's operating the way you think he's operating. The honorable thing to do would be for you to admit it is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that you've created and choose to believe without any proof or evidence.




You're just wrong dude and nothing supports your position. The potential for unlimited profit is not what determines if someone is a promoter or not. When Andre Ward signed with Roc Nation, if Ward's manager had negotiated terms that capped Roc Nation's profit at $1 million per event, with remaining revenue paid to Ward, would that be illegal? No. Would that mean James Prince is a promoter? No. So when you say it's illegal to negotiate a limit on the promoter's profit, you're wrong. And it further illustrates how delusional you are.

and you have no proof that he isnt. But that hasnt stopped you from babbling on and on page after page like a butthurt female defending her man...........

[DeadLikeMe]

The amount of tinfoil in this thread is overwhelming.

[lizard_man]

and you have no proof that he isnt. But that hasnt stopped you from babbling on and on page after page like a butthurt female defending her man...........

Judge ruled against golden boy. That's my proof. It also should be your proof since you like to throw out the word "LEGALITY" out and you hold the LAW to such high standards. To paraphrase what you said earlier "even if haymon gives every penny of profit to the fighters, he's still acting as a promoter, plain and simple. It's the law"

Well guess what buddy, the LAW says he isnt. So should i believe a judge or a guy on the Internet message board to know more about the LAW?!?

[original zero]

and you have no proof that he isnt.

I have no obligation to prove a negative. The onus is on the party making the claim.

In your own words, the party without proof should shut the **** up. If your position is that neither party has proof, then by your own words, both parties should shut the **** up. I'll be happy to follow your example.

[Motorcity Cobra]

Just listened to the Sunday Puncher podcast which had one of the best talks about this lawsuit I've heard & they talked like they've read some of the testimony with some of the exchanges that went on during their show. Anyone know of a transcript that exists of these exchanges (in particular Oscar's, Haymon's & the fighters) or a reporter that was going that in depth with their discussions of what they witnessed? Would love to read this.

Tweet them they'll tell you

https://twitter.com/sunday_puncher

[Eff Pandas]

Tweet them they'll tell you
https://twitter.com/sunday_puncher

I found it already.

[Motorcity Cobra]

I found it already.

what's the link? I want to read them

[OnePunch]

Judge ruled against golden boy. That's my proof. It also should be your proof since you like to throw out the word "LEGALITY" out and you hold the LAW to such high standards. To paraphrase what you said earlier "even if haymon gives every penny of profit to the fighters, he's still acting as a promoter, plain and simple. It's the law"

Well guess what buddy, the LAW says he isnt. So should i believe a judge or a guy on the Internet message board to know more about the LAW?!?

wrong genius. All the judge said was that Golden Boy couldnt prove THEY were "damaged" by Haymons conduct.

Big difference. At least to people with an education past the 7th grade.