Do the boxer pay Al Haymon or Al Haymon pay the boxer?

[Gentblue]

In the end Al Haymon kinda tried to save boxing in a way with PBC but since none of the big time promoters with their fighters went along ( TR with Pac and Bradley,GB with Nelo,ME with Krusher, K2 with GGG etc) it kind of messed it up.

If you look back at the early days of PBC he was trying to make a Boxing UFC... he didn’t let Thurman walk out with the title at the time.

He was trying bring clarity to the sport.

[KTFOKING]

Try and find a cheque signed by Al Haymon that breaks the law.

Even Eddie Hearn said when asked in an interview if he had ever had a bad cheque from Haymon.. hearns answer was " I've never had a cheque from haymon..why would I?"

You tell me if Hearn has never had money come from Haymon ..... ( Hint .. he has ) but you'll never know about it and you'd never be able to prove it

http://mmapayout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screenshot-2015-10-31-09.41.21.png

I don't know how to embed this, but this is the "second" Haymon cheque to Chavez Jr.

But the purse reported to the commission? That one is never a Haymon cheque.

[OnePunch]

Uh no.

There is no rule that says a manager can't do more stuff to line up fights. He just can't literally promote the fights. Thats where the trouble is.

Look at SRL's career for a smaller scale version of what Haymon does. I don't think SRL was ever signed to a promoter for more than a 1 off situation (if I'm incorrect on SRL's promotion affiliation anyone please correct me).

The Ali Act states that a manager cannot have "a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer". Obviously since all the event revenue is controlled by Haymon Sports, he does have a financial interest in the promotion. He is clearly violating the Ali Act.

But thats not what the lawsuits were about. The lawsuits were about monopolies and unfair trade practices. As for Ali Act violations, the bottom line is that in the history of the Ali Act, there has never been a single case brought against anyone by the Justice Dept. Not against King. Not against Arum. Not against anyone. Nobody cares. So even though Haymon is technically breaking the law, nobody cares, and nobody is going to do anything about it.

[Marchegiano]

http://mmapayout.com/wp-content/uplo...1-09.41.21.png

I don't know how to embed this, but this is the "second" Haymon cheque to Chavez Jr.

But the purse reported to the commission? That one is never a Haymon cheque.

There ya go buddy.

[KTFOKING]

There ya go buddy.

So just putting the [IMG] tags? Is there a certain icon that does that for you?

[Eff Pandas]

The Ali Act states that a manager cannot have "a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer". Obviously since all the event revenue is controlled by Haymon Sports, he does have a financial interest in the promotion. He is clearly violating the Ali Act.

How does a manager NOT have financial interest in the promotion of a boxer? A manager gets a % of his purse. A manager is directly tied to everything a boxer does in & out of the ring.

Thats one of those lines in the MAA that make no sense to me & is redundant.

Technically to me it simply means a manager can't also be the promoter of his fighter. Which I think got outlawed back in the day, but I'm unsure. Maybe you know more about that.

[Marchegiano]

So just putting the [IMG] tags? Is there a certain icon that does that for you?

Sorry, TBH I thought you were making up an excuse to be lazy otherwise I'd've told you when I did it. The little mountain in the yellowish box under the redo arrow and to the left of the quote.

[KTFOKING]

Sorry, TBH I thought you were making up an excuse to be lazy otherwise I'd've told you when I did it. The little mountain in the yellowish box under the redo arrow and to the left of the quote.

Lol no, I am legitimately inept when it comes to things like this. I've yet to figure out how to embed a tweet off my phone LOL.

Thanks though, think I got it now!

[OnePunch]

How does a manager NOT have financial interest in the promotion of a boxer? A manager gets a % of his purse. A manager is directly tied to everything a boxer does in & out of the ring.

Thats one of those lines in the MAA that make no sense to me & is redundant.

Technically to me it simply means a manager can't also be the promoter of his fighter. Which I think got outlawed back in the day, but I'm unsure. Maybe you know more about that.

A manager is not supposed to have competing interests. His sole interest is supposed to be the fiduciary duty he has to the fighter. That is technically impossible if his company is also in charge of the event finances.

Now one could argue that Haymon losing over $500 million is evidence that he fullfills his fiduciary duties to the fighters, even if it results in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples money. But the language of the law carves out no such exception.

Remember, event revenue is finite. It is not unlimited. If 2 Haymon fighters are facing each other, it is impossible for him to fullfill his fiduciary duty to both sides of the fight. Every dollar, or other concession he negotiates for fighter A comes at the expense of fighter B. Its no different than having the same divorce lawyer represent both the husband and the wife. Its impossible to fight equally for both sides.......

[Eff Pandas]

A manager is not supposed to have competing interests. His sole interest is supposed to be the fiduciary duty he has to the fighter. That is technically impossible if his company is also in charge of the event finances.

I don't see how he's promoting a fight to have interest beyond that of a manager. He's paying others to promote fights. As long as he's not taking money from the promotion of said events, which those Haymon 2nd checks would have me believe he isn't, I don't see the issue.

Remember, event revenue is finite. It is not unlimited. If 2 Haymon fighters are facing each other, it is impossible for him to fullfill his fiduciary duty to both sides of the fight.

Huh?!?!?! That makes zero sense. Of course a manager can have two fighters fight each other & there not be an problem. Sh^t man I'm positive plenty of managers have had guys fight each other cuz there are managers who got nice rosters of 10, 20+ guys.

Every dollar, or other concession he negotiates for fighter A comes at the expense of fighter B. Its no different than having the same divorce lawyer represent both the husband and the wife. Its impossible to fight equally for both sides.......

Bruh no one is getting 50%+ of the beer money any damn way so this don't make no sense. From my understanding most boxers aren't even getting a % of the beer money in the first damn place so if being with Haymon equals you gotta share the beer money with your PBC opponent then thats still better than no beer money.