Arum, Top Rank Aim Overhand Right At Haymon; Lawsuit Seeks $100-Plus Damages

UPDATE: Late afternoon on Wednesday, a statement from Team Haymon was released, in response to the Top Rank suit. Here it is:

Statement from Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel:

Re: Top Rank, Inc. v. Alan Haymon et al

On behalf of our clients Alan Haymon, Haymon Boxing LLC, Haymon Sports, LLC and Haymon Holdings LLC

The lawsuit filed today by Bob Arum and Top Rank is entirely without merit and is a cynical attempt by boxing’s old guard to use the courts to undermine the accessibility, credibility and exposure of boxing that the sport so desperately needs.  The Premier Boxing Champions series makes boxing free again, by bringing championship boxing to free TV, with a fighter-first promise and a commitment to the fans to restore boxing to the luster of its heyday.  The continued success of this effort will far outlast this baseless lawsuit.

————————————————————————————————————————

Another shoe has dropped in the promotional wars of 2015; promoter Bob Arum has lodged a lawsuit against disruptor in chief Al Haymon, asserting that Haymon is a shadowy figure who is rigging the game to suit his nefarious needs.

This document and flurry aimed at the ex music biz maven, who has turned the sport on its head by snapping up marquee platforms, where he showcases the more than 200 fighters signed to him under an advisory capacity, comes on the heels of a similar one advanced by Oscar De La Hoya.

Arum is seeking $100 million plus in damages, and the suit, overseen by attorney Daniel Petrocelli in California, is stationed in the US District Court of Los Angeles.

The aim seems to be to turn off the money spigot which has been made available to Haymon from investment firm Waddell and Reed. Fighters have been enjoying stellar paydays this year as a result of the war chest Haymon enjoys, so we have not heard, really, a peep of protest from them, as their purses have been bumped north, but we can expect this suit to kick up dust, and shed light on practices by the sports top-most brokers of power in the coming months and maybe years.

Haymon is portrayed as a “shadowy” figure who is “rigging” the industry, and is engaged in practices of “payola,” which is essentially paying off people to get preferential treatment, and was a term popularized in the radio business in the 50s and 60s.

The suit puts forth that there is a groundswell of opposition to Haymon, including the Association of Boxing Commissions, who in April sent a request to the US AG to investigate Haymon’s practices. Also backing this play by Top Rank is De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins, who lodged their own suit, which will have Haymon arguably playing a ton of defense, and keeping his lawyers well paid…also, the call by the WBO president to have Haymon investigated is referenced. Message: there is a legion of anti Haymon folks who agree with the contentions in the suit.

The suit seeks to “rebrand” Haymon’s “time buy” model as “neo payola,” as illegally paying for prominent placement. More punches–Haymon has suppressed competition, illegally, by booking venues, engaging in “venue squatting,” so that other promoters have to move their events elsewhere. Examples for that argument include citing the April Ruslan Provodnikov-Lucas Matthysse bout, which ended up at the lower-tier venue Turning Stone Casino in Verona, NY, instead of a higher-profile staging platform.

Other points of interest: Haymon allegedly profiting from illegal ticket scalping, and being instrumental in blocking certain fighters from getting sparring from boxers who are “bought off” by Haymon.

Boiled down, the suit comes down the assertion that Haymon cannot act as both manager and promoter, because the Muhammad Ali Act forbids him from doing so. Also, that he is engaged in monopolistic practices by trying to corner venues, and block other promoters from booking them. Others are folded into the claim; the suit says that promoters like Lou DiBella, Leon Margules and Goossen Promotions are basically acting as covers for Haymon, are “sham” actors, not the “real” promoter who sets up all the matches of import.

In talking to some Haymon and Haymon-tied folks on background, I get the sense the reaction to this latest flurry ranges from ire, and counter-claims that Arum is in fact a bad actor himself, to resignation, in a “haters gonna hate” sphere, seeing it as a cost of doing business as the new monster on the block. No one is privately, to me, evincing any worry that the suits have merit, though I have to imagine, at least, that there has to be a private mindset of at the least mild concern that maybe the court takes the Top Rank side in this clash.

De La Hoya put out a statment a little after 3 PM Eastern time on Wednesday:

“I applaud Bob Arum and Top Rank Boxing for stepping up on behalf of fighters not only in their own stable, but all across the sport. Those like Bob and myself who have spent the bulk of their lives around boxing understand that the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is a crucial piece of legislation that serves to protect boxers and enhance the sport. Golden Boy Promotions will continue to push forward with our own lawsuit to ensure our wonderful sport continues to grow in a competitive, just manner.”

Background on GBP Lawsuit:  

On May 6, 2015, Golden Boy Promotions filed a $300 million lawsuit against Al Haymon and his related companies alleging repeated violation of antitrust laws and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.  The case was filed in Federal Court in Los Angeles.

In the court of public/Twitter opinion, reaction is mixed: some see Haymon as a bad actor, a master manipulator who has turned the industry on its ear and is bad for the sweet science; others are pleased with all the free content now available on marquee platforms.

There is now no shortage of Internet attorneys, I note,  labeling the suit one way or another, as “devastating” or the like, when in fact, opinion among ACTUAL logicians with degrees in that realm are mixed. For instance, I think the counter-claim can be made that the Haymon play leaving “no room for …other promoters” can be debated, as high profile shows put together by Golden Boy, Top Rank and Main Events have just occured or are about to. Bottom line, my two cents: let us let the lawyers do the lawyering, and do a better job at staying in our lane.

The fighters, by and large, are not squawking, as their purses have headed northward when in the Haymon fold, and the market all-told seems to reflect the new reality, arguably, as other promoters need to keep talent happy, lest they seek to jump to the Haymon ship.

One fighter mentioned in the 50 page suit is Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., a former Top Rank boxer; he did jump ship and was rewarded with a handsome payday in his last outing. Indeed, he posted a $1.75 million dollar check pic on social media, and that pic is noted in the suit…as evidence of Haymon’s odiousness, because the promoter typically pays the fighter, his “advisor” does not.

Bottom line–suit says Haymon wears too many hats: promoter, manager/advisor, popcorn seller. No bueno, it is alleged…that muddies his aims and loyalties and disqualifies him from doing business in a free and righteous open market. He is trying to gain a monolopoly, with the end result being a one-man game, the attorneys and Top Rank put forth, with only him controlling all the marbles…and then, the fans will have to pay the piper (“supracompetitive pricing”) and he will charge egregiously with all the power and players in his lap. For this reason, Top Rank asks that Haymon and companies be barred from doing this business, and seeks damages in excess of $100 million, “trebled.”

Trouble?

Is Haymon in quicksand now? Or is this much ado about near nothing?

Thoughts, readers?

 

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-Radam G :

TsAH's comes and go. Just as he did in the music industry, he will get bored, sued and will go to another adventure. Maybe politricking. Dude probably thinks that he and da Donald (Trump) can win the U.S. Presidency and throw all the Asians and Mexicans off the U.S. mainland. Hehehe! The bytch-arse shadow AH is going to start signing all the candidates running for 2016. They will start thanking him first and God second. OMFG! Can we get a tsAH break? Holla!


-Froggy :

Bob Arum [a Harvard Lawyer if I am not mistaken] is way too smart to do this unless he thinks he wins !


-Radam G :

Bob Arum [a Harvard Lawyer if I am not mistaken] is way too smart to do this unless he thinks he wins !
Da BobFather is going to kick tsAH's arse. He is also a lawyer from Harvard. Holla!


-Froggy :

Da BobFather is going to kick tsAH's arse. He is also a lawyer from Harvard. Holla!
Glad to hear it, it slipped my mind that they are both Harvard lawyers !


-deepwater2 :

I remember I made a post over 1 year ago. Tsah just signed the Latin snake to serve up to quillin or Jacobs.


-stormcentre :

Far out, Top Rank didn't mess around suing Al Haymon and "all " their related entities; Haymon Boxing LLC, Haymon Holdings LLC, Waddell & Reed Financial & Media Group Holdings, and Haymon Sports LLC. When you sue, not just the person and his main organization, but (in effect) everything he has and is related to; that is as close to a major - courts assisted - takedown/war as you get. Arum want to close the door on Haymon - in the event he loses - possibly folding up and liquidating one company; then starting again. That's the same as taking the time out to individually rub out every single one of the problematic ants on a kerb - as opposed to just spraying them and hope they move on. This will send a very loud shot across the bow of all other 2nd and lesser (promotional) players out there. Arum/TR, and (let's also not be na?ve about this) Golden Girl too, better hope it all sticks; because if it don't they themselves will potentially also undergo a pretty serious operational facelift themselves - as will Haymon if he loses. Man, if nothing else, a $100M writ hanging over your grey eyebrows certainly tests your; future plans/optimism, financial reserves, marital status, sex drive, and ability to sleep at night. I know one thing for sure, with a writ like that - even if Arum has good in house lawyers - someone has already proactively dumped a very handsome working budget in the bank account of an outsourced legal chambers; the kind that is an utterly ruthless hire gun, always well prepared, and has top silks and double digit legal lawyers/assistants on hand 24/7, and knows every argument and cultural nuance of the courts. No-one serious and of sound mind about writs of that magnitude goes to war like that without lining up all the right legal soldiers and silks first, and those cats always - and I mean always - want to see the color of your money first, before they even think of whether your concerns are worth their time. And there is nothing quite like money that snaps the best lawyer's attention your way. Just as a $100m writ does the same for it's unlucky recipient. Now this is just a hypothetical - but far stranger things have happened before in legal circles where (seriously) big Benjamins are concerned; if Roc Nation were to, in some way, shape or form, come on board with and/or "assist" Haymon and jointly or separately counter attack/sue Top Rank for the stranglehold on the future of the top level earning the sport has to offer .. . . That would be as interesting as it would probably stretch Top Rank; whom by no means is an angel when one considers the allegations filed against Haymon and Co's. Arum has previously filed lawsuits that are flawed, strategic, and frivolous in nature; usually to drown others out and destroy or exhaust them. Even though Arum can - at times - let his emotions rule both his logic and business mind; on the face of it this doesn't look like one of those charges though. However, that said, I can't imagine Haymon (before or after the above Top Rank writ) operating in a manner that is without the appropriate risk management and legal advice (regardless of whether his product/methods are appreciated or not), and/or laying down for Arum or anyone else. If we took this legal action and converted it into a boxing analogy, what we have here is a prime Frazier V a prime Marciano. Not in the least as the above-mentioned lawyers working on this case - just for Arum alone - will most likely spend more time in the office/courts using and exercising their minds and skills, than either of the aforementioned fighters would have spent in their respective gyms preparing for any fight; real or imagined. Time will tell. Good time for Floyd to exit the game, as the Money (in all senses of the phrase) may never be the same. :) :) :)
PS: If anyone can post a link (here or to my PM) to the actual LA writ that would be appreciated.


-stormcentre :

Far out, Top Rank didn't mess around suing Al Haymon and "all " their related entities; Haymon Boxing LLC, Haymon Holdings LLC, Waddell & Reed Financial & Media Group Holdings, and Haymon Sports LLC. When you sue, not just the person and his main organization, but (in effect) everything he has and is related to; that is as close to a major - courts assisted - takedown/war as you get. Arum clearly wants to close the door on Haymon - in the event he loses - possibly folding up and liquidating one company; then starting again. That's the same as taking the time out to individually rub out every single one of the problematic ants on a kerb - as opposed to just spraying them and hope they move on. This will send a very loud shot across the bow of all other 2nd and lesser (promotional) players out there. Arum/TR, and (let's also not be na?ve about this) Golden Girl too, better hope it all sticks; because if it don't they themselves will potentially also undergo a pretty serious operational facelift themselves - as will Haymon if he loses. Man, if nothing else, a $100M writ hanging over your grey eyebrows certainly tests your; future plans/optimism, financial reserves, marital status, sex drive, and ability to sleep at night. I know one thing for sure, with a writ like that - even if Arum has good in house lawyers - someone has already proactively dumped a very handsome working budget in the bank account of an outsourced legal chambers; the kind that is an utterly ruthless hire gun, always well prepared, and has top silks and double digit legal lawyers/assistants on hand 24/7, and knows every argument and cultural nuance of the courts. No-one serious and of sound mind about writs of that magnitude goes to war like that without lining up all the right legal soldiers and silks first, and those cats always - and I mean always - want to see the color of your money first, before they even think of whether your concerns are worth their time. And there is nothing quite like money that snaps the best lawyer's attention your way. Just as a $100m writ does the same for it's unlucky recipient. Now this is just a hypothetical - but far stranger things have happened before in legal circles where (seriously) big Benjamins are concerned; if Roc Nation were to, in some way, shape or form, come on board with and/or "assist" Haymon and jointly or separately counter attack/sue Top Rank for the stranglehold on the future of the top level earning the sport has to offer .. . . That would be as interesting as it would probably stretch Top Rank; whom by no means is an angel when one considers the allegations filed against Haymon and Co's. Arum has previously filed lawsuits that are flawed, strategic, and frivolous in nature; usually to drown others out and destroy or exhaust them. Even though Arum can - at times - let his emotions rule both his logic and business mind; on the face of it this doesn't look like one of those charges though. However, that said, I can't imagine Haymon (before or after the above Top Rank writ) operating in a manner that is without the appropriate risk management and legal advice (regardless of whether his product/methods are appreciated or not), and/or laying down for Arum or anyone else. If we took this legal action and converted it into a boxing analogy, what we have here is a prime Frazier V a prime Marciano. Not in the least as the above-mentioned lawyers working on this case - just for Arum alone - will most likely spend more time in the office/courts using and exercising their minds and skills, than either of the aforementioned fighters would have spent in their respective gyms preparing for any fight; real or imagined. Time will tell. Good time for Floyd to exit the game, as the Money (in all senses of the phrase) may never be the same. :) :) :)
PS: If anyone can post a link (here or to my PM) to the actual LA writ that would be appreciated.


-stormcentre :


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21165-Time-for-GGG-to-call-out-Lil-Floyd/page40


-stormcentre :


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21165-Time-for-GGG-to-call-out-Lil-Floyd&p=84909&viewfull=1#post84909


-Pazuzu :

The LA Times has posted the entire lawsuit.
->http://documents.latimes.com/top-rank-inc-lawsuit-against-al-haymon/ Paragraphs 58 and 59 (pages 17-18) argue that Haymon colluded in combining the roles of manager and promoter, in violation of the Ali Act, and have pics of the check he cut to JCC Jr to boot. Good stuff. This one will be interesting.


-stormcentre :

Ta - thanks for that. Boy, Bob's writ sure reads like their is a personal vendetta woven into its fabric, replete with circumstances described in their most legally obstructed way in order to make a case. They will need to ensure they get a judge that appreciates matters the way Bob seems to enjoy telling them. I am unaware whether it is against the law and/or in violation with the Ali act for an adviser/manager to pay one of their contracted fighters; whether or not it may not always be the done and/or promoter's thing. Fighters fighting on promotions held under the licence of promoters that don't always have a direct relationship with the fighters is certainly not new in boxing either; which is another assumed case in point Arum seems to make. Obviously Bob's issue - as far as pages 17 and 18 go (which are the pages I was commenting on above) - can be summarised as being one where a manager/adviser that has control over a fighter and promoter - as opposed to the dynamic that Top Rank prefers, where a promoter has control over a manager, adviser and fighter; constitutes a violation of the Ali act. Such a claim assumes any legal authority/control should exist between a manager/adviser and promoter, when I am unsure whether any that naturally does exist, does so solely due to business culture and cash flow, and not by way of law - unless contracted as such and then if that's the case then it means Haymon is free to contract the same "control" in his advisory role. Putting all that to one side; so long as the manager/adviser and promoter perform tasks that they are meant to - despite how blurred the lines between the two really are - then how can Arum strenuously prove Haymon is colliding with the promoters? Sure there are many that may feel they know how the strings are pulled and whom are the puppet masters, but Arum's writ seems to rely on the assumption that the person in control must be the promoter, and if that's not the case then the/an act is violated. Which all comes back to the purpose of the act; to primarily protect fighters. The Ali act is not there to protect promoter's market shares. And I don't see or hear any fighters claiming Haymon has financially damaged them. I can just Lou DiBella (another Harvard law graduate) standing up in court now - on behalf of Haymon - and saying; ""I am a licensed promoter and Haymon never performs my promotional functions and interferes with my legal responsibilities as a promoter. Haymon's role, as an advisor, is always clear and outlined in all our agreements. Perhaps Mr. Arum does not understand the role of an advisor, as they are widely used in many sports. I frequently provide promotional services to Haymon and others, for a fee; as is my legal right and business model. I know of no fighter that believes Al Haymon is not the best thing that has happened to their career, further casting doubts on any claim that the true meaning and spirit of the Ali act - which is to serve and protect fighter's interests - has been breached. When you're ready your Honor, and if it pleases the court, I would like to discuss some of Mr. Arums hypocritical claims and curious business practices, and I have brought with me today some evidence to assist this elucidation"". I think the working definition of the term "collude" as it appears in the Ali act and paragraph 11, page 17, of Bob's writ, is one that means a promoter and manager (Haymon seems to have modelled himself as an "advisor") may not "collude" to the disadvantage of a fighter; which of course Bob's writ makes no meaningful comment on. Furthermore, Bob's writ seems to suggest that because Hayman's "advisory" contracts (allegedly) prohibit fighters from freely contracting with legitimate promoters; this then effectively places Haymon in the role of promoter when he is no such thing. Notwithstanding the above comments, how will Arum prove this when - within his very own writ - he mentions the licensed promoters that Haymon does use? That then boils down to whether an advisor (Haymon) can contract a fighter - whom is contracted to him - to use only preferred promoters; which I will be very surprised if the answer to that is "no". Even if the answer is "no", it still doesn't mean Arum has proved Haymon acts as both a promoter and manager. In any event, Arum's writ and the Ali act seem to make no explicit mention of how or whether it is inappropriate and/or illegal for a manager and promoter to be one entity, and for it all to constitute "collusion"; when no fighter - that the Ali act is designed to protect - is disadvantaged/damaged. Finally, Arum offers the claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters - such as Top Rank - from accessing and promoting fighters. Well, of course they do because that's what contracts do - they monopolise a business advantage. However, Arum claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters from accessing and promoting fighters neatly overlooks the fact that almost all of the fighters contracted to Haymon do actually have access to legitimate promoters; as his shows substantiate. Which then means that Arum is bothered because Haymon's advisory contracts prevent his fighters from access legitimate promoters such as Top Rank. I hope for Arum, Top Rank, and Golden Boy, there is more substance to their claims than that which appears to reside on pages 17 and 18. I am not saying there is not the substance that lacks on the above pages elsewhere in the writ, but if it's not there this could be embarrassing for Top Rank; whom are - clearly from their writ - forecasting a dark future for themselves if Haymon continues. Which in itself may explain why there is no other option for Top Rank than to fire such a brazenly, possibly less than full strength, and interestingly worded shot/writ across the bows of Haymon's starship hoping he is blown away by the shockwaves, rather than substance. This is going to be real interesting. Wish I was a lawyer printing invoices for either Top Rank or Haymon right now, as if I was I would go out right away and buy one of those new "S" class Mercedes AMG V12 coupes. Black paint, black interior, twin turbo V12, with 1000Nm of torque at 1500rpm. Yes please. :)


-Pazuzu :

Ta - thanks for that. Boy, Bob's writ sure reads like their is a personal vendetta woven into its fabric, replete with circumstances described in their most legally obstructed way in order to make a case. They will need to ensure they get a judge that appreciates matters the way Bob seems to enjoy telling them. I am unaware whether it is against the law and/or in violation with the Ali act for an adviser/manager to pay one of their contracted fighters; whether or not it may not always be the done and/or promoter's thing. Fighters fighting on promotions held under the licence of promoters that don't always have a direct relationship with the fighters is certainly not new in boxing either; which is another assumed case in point Arum seems to make. Obviously Bob's issue - as far as pages 17 and 18 go (which are the pages I was commenting on above) - can be summarised as being one where a manager/adviser that has control over a fighter and promoter - as opposed to the dynamic that Top Rank prefers, where a promoter has control over a manager, adviser and fighter; constitutes a violation of the Ali act. Such a claim assumes any legal authority/control should exist between a manager/adviser and promoter, when I am unsure whether any that naturally does exist, does so solely due to business culture and cash flow, and not by way of law - unless contracted as such and then if that's the case then it means Haymon is free to contract the same "control" in his advisory role. Putting all that to one side; so long as the manager/adviser and promoter perform tasks that they are meant to - despite how blurred the lines between the two really are - then how can Arum strenuously prove Haymon is colliding with the promoters? Sure there are many that may feel they know how the strings are pulled and whom are the puppet masters, but Arum's writ seems to rely on the assumption that the person in control must be the promoter, and if that's not the case then the/an act is violated. Which all comes back to the purpose of the act; to primarily protect fighters. The Ali act is not there to protect promoter's market shares. And I don't see or hear any fighters claiming Haymon has financially damaged them. I can just Lou DiBella (another Harvard law graduate) standing up in court now - on behalf of Haymon - and saying; ""I am a licensed promoter and Haymon never performs my promotional functions and interferes with my legal responsibilities as a promoter. Haymon's role, as an advisor, is always clear and outlined in all our agreements. Perhaps Mr. Arum does not understand the role of an advisor, as they are widely used in many sports. I frequently provide promotional services to Haymon and others, for a fee; as is my legal right and business model. I know of no fighter that believes Al Haymon is not the best thing that has happened to their career, further casting doubts on any claim that the true meaning and spirit of the Ali act - which is to serve and protect fighter's interests - has been breached. When you're ready your Honor, and if it pleases the court, I would like to discuss some of Mr. Arums hypocritical claims and curious business practices, and I have brought with me today some evidence to assist this elucidation"". I think the working definition of the term "collude" as it appears in the Ali act and paragraph 11, page 17, of Bob's writ, is one that means a promoter and manager (Haymon seems to have modelled himself as an "advisor") may not "collude" to the disadvantage of a fighter; which of course Bob's writ makes no meaningful comment on. Furthermore, Bob's writ seems to suggest that because Hayman's "advisory" contracts (allegedly) prohibit fighters from freely contracting with legitimate promoters; this then effectively places Haymon in the role of promoter when he is no such thing. Notwithstanding the above comments, how will Arum prove this when - within his very own writ - he mentions the licensed promoters that Haymon does use? That then boils down to whether an advisor (Haymon) can contract a fighter - whom is contracted to him - to use only preferred promoters; which I will be very surprised if the answer to that is "no". Even if the answer is "no", it still doesn't mean Arum has proved Haymon acts as both a promoter and manager. In any event, Arum's writ and the Ali act seem to make no explicit mention of how or whether it is inappropriate and/or illegal for a manager and promoter to be one entity, and for it all to constitute "collusion"; when no fighter - that the Ali act is designed to protect - is disadvantaged/damaged. Finally, Arum offers the claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters - such as Top Rank - from accessing and promoting fighters. Well, of course they do because that's what contracts do - they monopolise a business advantage. However, Arum claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters from accessing and promoting fighters neatly overlooks the fact that almost all of the fighters contracted to Haymon do actually have access to legitimate promoters; as his shows substantiate. Which then means that Arum is bothered because Haymon's advisory contracts prevent his fighters from access legitimate promoters such as Top Rank. I hope for Arum, Top Rank, and Golden Boy, there is more substance to their claims than that which appears to reside on pages 17 and 18. I am not saying there is not the substance that lacks on the above pages elsewhere in the writ, but if it's not there this could be embarrassing for Top Rank; whom are - clearly from their writ - forecasting a dark future for themselves if Haymon continues. Which in itself may explain why there is no other option for Top Rank than to fire such a brazenly, possibly less than full strength, and interestingly worded shot/writ across the bows of Haymon's starship hoping he is blown away by the shockwaves, rather than substance. This is going to be real interesting. Wish I was a lawyer printing invoices for either Top Rank or Haymon right now, as if I was I would go out right away and buy one of those new "S" class Mercedes AMG V12 coupes. Black paint, black interior, twin turbo V12, with 1000Nm of torque at 1500rpm. Yes please. :)
Btw, here's Top Rank's outside counsel. He's probably already got a garage full of those AMGs.
->http://www.omm.com/danielpetrocelli/


-leon30001 :

100 bucks, huh? woof...dat's a lot of lettuce!


-SouthPawFlo :

PBC has put on better matches than both GBP & Top Rank combined, and Haymon fighters are paid more.....


-stormcentre :

PBC has put on better matches than both GBP & Top Rank combined, and Haymon fighters are paid more.....
Good post/point. But what SPF has said (even if it is just a perception that represents the majority of boxing spectators, and I am not entirely sure it is) defines the issue that makes it (seem) worth while for Top Rank to take action, even if they don't have a strong case. What happens to their businesses if they don't? Therefore (in their eyes) Haymon must be breaking the law right? Anyway, that's food for thought - as much as it allows insight into how and why many questionable court cases (big or small) make their way into the courts. Obviously there is more to it than my above posts' comments on a few pages, but I think a few interesting aspects that will probably decide which way the pendulum swings are as follows; 1) Can an advisor perform similar functions to that of a manager and still be considered an advisor, and vice-versa? Whether someone, in boxing, can operate as an advisor and also perform the same and or similar functions as a manager when those managerial functions are themselves subject to the Ali and other acts; seems to be the burning question. In other words do you - if you're an "advisor" - have to be titled as a "manager" in order for your performance/execution of functions (that a manager can also perform) to be subject to the auspices of the Ali act? The world and white/blue collared workforce is littered with people that perform various similar functions with various titles, so this will be interesting. Not in the least as - as far as the ink on Haymon's contracts are concerned - I really doubt there is any subterfuge taking place. As I should imagine those contracts/agreement explicitly state Haymon is an advisor - just as clearly as none of his fighters appear disadvantaged and/or compromised. Perhaps it is that the boxing industry role/responsibility definitions within the Ali act - when it was first written - were not broad enough. There appears to be no explicit term in there for corruption and collusion related to trainers, medical staff, and typical corner-men; yet these people can often perform similar functions to each other and those mentioned above. If this is the case then Arum/Petrocelli and Co may need to argue that it was an implied term - within the Ali act - that all persons performing the duties normally considered to be performed by a manager (even if their title was an "advisor") would be and should be called a manager; meaning that even though the Ali act does not say this, it surely meant it. Just as when you buy a house from someone the actual purchase document - in some countries - may not always explicitly state that the persons from whom you think your purchasing it actually own it; yet this can be - and is - successfully legally implied into the purchase document to such an extent that the document itself does not really need to state such. Implied terms. Nevertheless, I would imagine that implying such terms into the Ali act - so that anyone doing something a manager does is a manager (even if it were illegal to be an advisor, which it is not) - for the sole purpose to support Arum's cause, would raise eyebrows and create a precedent. And whilst Judges often do the former, they don't like to do the latter without very good reason. I am not sure Arum's interests would constitute a very good reason for a judge in LA. 2) Does the Ali act's definition extend beyond the protection of fighters and also cover and/or encompass the protection of promoters' own interests; such as Top Rank and Arum: Within the writ the Ali act is detailed, but then later in it Arum's representatives furnish the writ with their own interpretation of the Ali act; namely how the Ali act (effectively) exists to protect "boxing". From there much of Arum's foundation is laid out to supposedly not just justify his claims and concerns - but also present his case as the correct and righteous one. I am not an expert on the Ali act but I believe the entire spirit of it was injected into law by Muhammad Ali himself for the sole purpose of protecting fighters and to also make it harder - if not put and end - to corrupt promotional and managerial practices, that many saw and/or believed were emanating from King; when/where he (and/or his son) would - blatantly - act as both the manager and promoter. So, based on that (possibly flawed on my part) understanding of the Ali act it appears that the primary objective of the Ali act is to protect fighters, by preventing their managerial and promotional relationships colluding in a way where it
disadvantages the fighter. I believe the Ali act (and Arum's writ) even explicitly details how confusing the legal/business world of boxing can be for (some) fighters, and on that premise it then introduces the Ali act itself as being brought into effect
to protect fighters - not to protect boxing business persons; whom - unlike many fighters - usually have a slew of legal, business and other options and advantages on their side. Therefore, Arum's interpretation of the Ali act may or may not be a stretch too far, particularly given that; A) As can be seen from Arum's writ neatly appears to sidestep over/around; there are no fighters claiming they're damaged and/or disadvantaged by Haymon's practices. In fact the very opposite exists. B) Even if Haymon has blurred the responsibility lines (despite what we may know/think, I am still not sure that can be legally proven yet, but this is the best position for Arum I can think of right now) between manager and advisor, it is still difficult to see how that will constitute a "collusion" that has impacted anyone other than the market and Arum; which goes to my above post/comment related to whether the Ali act is there to protect promoters' interests. Because if the Ali act is there to (other/all) protect promoters' interests, then the way Arum ensures all his fighters fight each other first and before ever looking outside of his stables - as he has done for decades - seems like a very similar operational approach to me. See, if that's the case, then how do Top Rank's signed fighters access other promoters; as Arum's writ states this is the test for the Ali act and/or his own case. Also, if that's the case then how are Top Rank themselves then not in conflict with the Ali act? See, it gets messy when you start to say that the Ali act applies to anything else other than the fighter's interests; which is surely how Muhammad Ali intended it. Personally, I think Haymon has come up with a business model that both, decouples itself from the traditional promoter's reliance (that Top Rank and others have) on network dollars, whilst also ensuring that fighters gravitate to (and are happy with) Haymon in a manner where that also ensures the network dollars do the same. It turns the industry upside down and makes a complete mockery of the typical boxing promotional business model to such an extent that they find it hard to compete; the very situation many other promoters attempt to thrust upon their competitors. Same thing is happening now with electric motors being put into dedicated/hybrid sports and passenger cars. You have all the vehicle manufacturers that have invested billions of dollars into their R&D, production plants, commercial real estate, and robotic assembly lines; all geared up for the next 15 years of making traditionally powered cars. Now they all have to change their business case/models and tool up for a new gig. That's why the cars are called hybrid and/or KER equipped; because the vehicle manufactures and also the oil companies previously, decades ago, shunned electric motors (that are obviously hugely more efficient than fuel powered engines) and all got into bed with each other and politicians; to make their views and interests right. But despite the trillions of dollars of losses that the new electric-motor-in-cars revolution represents for the vehicle industry and above considerations, they have no foundation to sue for their losses because all that is happening is a new technology and business model is coming to town. Furthermore, there is the fact that the oil and gas, and also the vehicle industries themselves all had the chance previously to invest in the technology and change business models; but they didn't and instead opted to try their chances at sticking to tradition - which is usually the easy path to take when deep and inventive thinking is the alternative. From what I can tell, Top Rank had the chance to adopt a similar business model to PBC and Haymon, but - despite doing it all it could to achieve the very same outcomes - it didn't. Perhaps Top Rank, too, was too steeped in tradition to change. :) Petrocelli - in my opinion - will need to consider all this and mount a decent argument to dismiss the possibility of it - rather than a valid point in law - being his client's real motive. However, since Petrocelli's smarter than, and probably driving better cars {but not motorcycles :) } than, me; my bet is the he has already considered it. Now all he needs to do is convince a judge of it. Easy stuff eh? OK that's my lunch break done, back to the grindstone for me. If someone can (please) find where in the Ali act it explicitly mentions how the act itself applies beyond protecting fighter's interests, and as such therefore protects promoters interests, that would be greatly appreciated. Nothing that I say here is in defence or prosecution of Haymon or Arum. We all (think we) know what they do; me included. But what matters now - in relation to this legal matter - is; A) How appropriately Haymon has operated, including the fact that all he has done, written, said, and created, are now legally discoverable items. But on that point; given that he and Lou Dibella are Harvard law graduates and experienced in the fight game, one would think they're not complete dummies. B) Whether Arum's interpretations of the pertinent acts and Haymon's conduct can be proven. C) Whether any of Arum's - not his unproven allegations, assertions, and/or assumptions - but "only" those interpretations, assertions, and allegations that are proven; are in fact in conflict with the law. This may end up being more interesting than following Ms. Jackson's domestic abuse case, and the (no doubt) myriad of (Gloria Aldred) strategic and possibly real allegations, against Floyd unfold. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Btw, here's Top Rank's outside counsel. He's probably already got a garage full of those AMGs.
->http://www.omm.com/danielpetrocelli/
Yep, can't argue with that. Dude looks cashed up, smart, and the sort of person that - like most savvy lawyers - you really don't want to have big run ins with. Thanks. :)


-stormcentre :

PBC has put on better matches than both GBP & Top Rank combined, and Haymon fighters are paid more.....
Good post/point. But what SPF has said (even if it is just a perception that represents the majority of boxing spectators, and I am not entirely sure it is) defines the issue that makes it (seem) worth while for Top Rank to take action, even if they don't have a strong case. What happens to their businesses if they don't? Therefore (in their eyes) Haymon must be breaking the law right? Anyway, that's food for thought - as much as it allows insight into how and why many questionable court cases (big or small) make their way into the courts. Obviously there is more to it than my above posts' comments on a few pages, but I think a few interesting aspects that will probably decide which way the pendulum swings are as follows; 1) Can an advisor perform similar functions to that of a manager and still be considered an advisor, and vice-versa? Whether someone, in boxing, can operate as an advisor and also perform the same and or similar functions as a manager when those managerial functions are themselves subject to the Ali and other acts; seems to be the burning question. In other words do you - if you're an "advisor" - have to be titled as a "manager" in order for your performance/execution of functions (that a manager can also perform) to be subject to the auspices of the Ali act? The world and white/blue collared workforce is littered with people that perform various similar functions with various titles, so this will be interesting. Not in the least as - as far as the ink on Haymon's contracts are concerned - I really doubt there is any subterfuge taking place. As I should imagine those contracts/agreement explicitly state Haymon is an advisor - just as clearly as none of his fighters appear disadvantaged and/or compromised. Perhaps it is that the boxing industry role/responsibility definitions within the Ali act - when it was first written - were not broad enough. There appears to be no explicit term in there for corruption and collusion related to trainers, medical staff, and typical corner-men; yet these people can often perform similar functions to each other and those mentioned above. If this is the case then Arum/Petrocelli and Co may need to argue that it was an implied term - within the Ali act - that all persons performing the duties normally considered to be performed by a manager (even if their title was an "advisor") would be and should be called a manager; meaning that even though the Ali act does not say this, it surely meant it. Just as when you buy a house from someone the actual purchase document - in some countries - may not always explicitly state that the persons from whom you think your purchasing it actually own it; yet this can be - and is - successfully legally implied into the purchase document to such an extent that the document itself does not really need to state such. Implied terms. Nevertheless, I would imagine that implying such terms into the Ali act - so that anyone doing something a manager does is a manager (even if it were illegal to be an advisor, which it is not) - for the sole purpose to support Arum's cause, would raise eyebrows and create a precedent. And whilst Judges often do the former, they don't like to do the latter without very good reason. I am not sure Arum's interests would constitute a very good reason for a judge in LA. 2) Does the Ali act's definition extend beyond the protection of fighters and also cover and/or encompass the protection of promoters' own interests; such as Top Rank and Arum: Within the writ the Ali act is detailed, but then later in it Arum's representatives furnish the writ with their own interpretation of the Ali act; namely how the Ali act (effectively) exists to protect "boxing". From there much of Arum's foundation is laid out to supposedly not just justify his claims and concerns - but also present his case as the correct and righteous one. I am not an expert on the Ali act but I believe the entire spirit of it was injected into law by Muhammad Ali himself for the sole purpose of protecting fighters and to also make it harder - if not put and end - to corrupt promotional and managerial practices, that many saw and/or believed were emanating from King; when/where he (and/or his son) would - blatantly - act as both the manager and promoter. So, based on that (possibly flawed on my part) understanding of the Ali act it appears that the primary objective of the Ali act is to protect fighters, by preventing their managerial and promotional relationships colluding in a way where it disadvantages the fighter. I believe the Ali act (and Arum's writ) even explicitly details how confusing the legal/business world of boxing can be for (some) fighters, and on that premise it then introduces the Ali act itself as being brought into effect to protect fighters - not to protect boxing business persons; whom - unlike many fighters - usually have a slew of legal, business and other options and advantages on their side. Therefore, Arum's interpretation of the Ali act may or may not be a stretch too far, particularly given that; A) As can be seen from Arum's writ neatly appears to sidestep over/around; there are no fighters claiming they're damaged and/or disadvantaged by Haymon's practices. In fact the very opposite exists. B) Even if Haymon has blurred the responsibility lines (despite what we may know/think, I am still not sure that can be legally proven yet, but this is the best position for Arum I can think of right now) between manager and advisor, it is still difficult to see how that will constitute a "collusion" that has impacted anyone other than the market and Arum; which goes to my above post/comment related to whether the Ali act is there to protect promoters' interests. Because if the Ali act is there to (other/all) protect promoters' interests, then the way Arum ensures all his fighters fight each other first and before ever looking outside of his stables - as he has done for decades - seems like a very similar operational approach to me. See, if that's the case, then how do Top Rank's signed fighters access other promoters; as Arum's writ states this is the test for the Ali act and/or his own case. Also, if that's the case then how are Top Rank themselves then not in conflict with the Ali act? See, it gets messy when you start to say that the Ali act applies to anything else other than the fighter's interests; which is surely how Muhammad Ali intended it. Personally, I think Haymon has come up with a business model that both, decouples itself from the traditional promoter's reliance (that Top Rank and others have) on network dollars, whilst also ensuring that fighters gravitate to (and are happy with) Haymon in a manner where that also ensures the network dollars do the same. It turns the industry upside down and makes a complete mockery of the typical boxing promotional business model to such an extent that they find it hard to compete; the very situation many other promoters attempt to thrust upon their competitors. Same thing is happening now with electric motors being put into dedicated/hybrid sports and passenger cars. You have all the vehicle manufacturers that have invested billions of dollars into their R&D, production plants, commercial real estate, and robotic assembly lines; all geared up for the next 15 years of making traditionally powered cars. Now they all have to change their business case/models and tool up for a new gig. That's why the cars are called hybrid and/or KER equipped; because the vehicle manufactures and also the oil companies previously, decades ago, shunned electric motors (that are obviously hugely more efficient than fuel powered engines) and all got into bed with each other and politicians; to make their views and interests right. But despite the trillions of dollars of losses that the new electric-motor-in-cars revolution represents for the vehicle industry and above considerations, they have no foundation to sue for their losses because all that is happening is a new technology and business model is coming to town. Furthermore, there is the fact that the oil and gas, and also the vehicle industries themselves all had the chance previously to invest in the technology and change business models; but they didn't and instead opted to try their chances at sticking to tradition - which is usually the easy path to take when deep and inventive thinking is the alternative. From what I can tell, Top Rank had the chance to adopt a similar business model to PBC and Haymon, but - despite doing it all it could to achieve the very same outcomes - it didn't. Perhaps Top Rank, too, was too steeped in tradition to change. Petrocelli - in my opinion - will need to consider all this and mount a decent argument to dismiss the possibility of it - rather than a valid point in law - being his client's real motive. However, since Petrocelli's smarter than, and probably driving better cars {but not motorcycles } than, me; my bet is the he has already considered it. Now all he needs to do is convince a judge of it. Easy stuff eh? OK that's my lunch break done, back to the grindstone for me. If someone can (please) find where in the Ali act it explicitly mentions how the act itself applies beyond protecting fighter's interests, and as such therefore protects promoters interests, that would be greatly appreciated. Nothing that I say here is in defence or prosecution of Haymon or Arum. We all (think we) know what they do; me included. But what matters now - in relation to this legal matter - is; A) How appropriately Haymon has operated, including the fact that all he has done, written, said, and created, are now legally discoverable items. But on that point; given that he and Lou Dibella are Harvard law graduates and experienced in the fight game, one would think they're not complete dummies. B) Whether Arum's interpretations of the pertinent acts and Haymon's conduct can be proven. C) Whether any of Arum's - not his unproven allegations, assertions, and/or assumptions - but only those interpretations, assertions, and allegations that are proven; are in fact in conflict with the law. This may end up being more interesting than following Ms. Jackson's domestic abuse case, and the (no doubt) myriad of (Gloria Aldred) strategic and possibly real allegations, against Floyd unfold.


-stormcentre :

I reread some of the Top Rank writ the other night, just a few more pages. Wow, the section titled "Introduction" itself is steaming with personal overtones and subjective comment. Reads like someone is trying to convince the courts that Haymon is Batman and Gotham city's worst evil superhero nightmare. Haymon; "The most powerful man in boxing that pulls the strings from the shadows". Detailing and opening an affidavit with such commentary here in Australia, and also in the UK, with such a subjective and emotional narrative like that would almost certainly place you - in the eyes of the judge - as a plaintiff/applicant with a personal axe to grind. I am not sure the USA judges are any different, but then Petrocelli is obviously a really experienced guy. But I don't know a trial lawyer that would be happy with such a subjective attempt to personally persuade the courts that the "other guy" was a baddie. Usually - even in the most gruesome murder cases - the courts want just the facts, and substance to the allegations, as the closing arguments (and sometimes cross examination) is where the lawyers get to "tell the story" a bit. Sure the courts accept, and sometimes even appreciate, some word-smithing and Shakespearean dialogue from the plaintiff and defence's counsels; but by/large they usually see such personalised discussions as a sign that you are attempting to influence the courts (before the hearing) with material other than facts and objective statements. Sometimes a client will be so overbearing that his counsel is forced to write an affidavit in terms that the lawyer himself may not feel is completely appropriate for the outcome in mind. Bob Arum is a lawyer too, so perhaps this is not entirely out of the question. Read the "Introduction" section and see what you think.
->http://documents.latimes.com/top-rank-inc-lawsuit-against-al-haymon/ Looking at the section titled "Factual Allegations" (page 6) brings no joy either. As that section seems to be more of a combination of historically related legal cases/judgement and sited acts/cases, replete with some Top Rank interpretations of them that Top Rank obviously feel support their writ and allegations. Some of these interpretations I have mentioned in above posts; Ali act. It is not until you get to line 25 of page 12 (para 41) where the writ actually, begins, to dive into a useful, but somewhat diluted, allegation of Haymon that makes use of this material interestingly called "factual allegations - federal government regulation of professional boxing"; which (at para 41) itself reverberates of what precisely Arum's issue seems to be . . . ""Haymon - the most powerful man in boxing" having many marketable boxers in his stable and them being ruled by Haymon's assumed illegal and absolute control over them." Only when you get to page 14, line 8 (para 46), within the section titled "The Defendant's Illegal Tortious & Anti-competitive Scheme" does the writ really, meaningfully, drop into the "Factual Allegations". Such an approach, to me, seems reminiscent of someone trying to build up the facts and allegations to possibly be more than what they are. I could be wrong with that claim there. But if I am, then, for some reason, there are no real and meaningful factual allegations until page 14; despite the document claiming they start at page 6. If I notice this a judges clerk or assistant - whom will read the affidavits and court documents and brief the judge(s) - certainly will. From here the writ speaks of "concerns" other organisations and people may have had about Haymon's operating methods and (again) asserts that Haymon plays a dual role as promoter and manager. Here (page 14) is where the real substance of Arum's allegations lay - not up where the "Factual Allegations" section starts and claims at page 6. It would be interesting to hear what some of the people and entities that Arum quotes here (Haymon's business associates, The Association of Boxing Commissions, The WBO President, etc) have to say about Arum's assertions. Particularly if the courts were to - via the facilitation of a Petrocelli/Top Rank subpoena - compel any of these figures to give evidence. That is certainly what I would be doing if I were the plaintiff. Not in the least as Haymon will undoubtedly be supported by DiBella, whom as a lawyer, ex HBO executive, and promoter, will make for a very convincing witness. Interestingly though, many of those within the writ whom are listed, themselves, most likely have a financial and vested interest in restoring the traditional business model back to one where sanctions and promoters have power and share wealth; which in itself has been, for years, interestingly the subject of both many anticompetitive/related concerns, and also boxing articles. If you're detecting a bit of sarcasm from me you're right, and that's because it is a bit funny to think that Arum himself - during the course of his business - exerts absolutely no influence over managers and at the same time allows all his signed fighters to access any manager/promoter that they like; which is what we and possibly a court must at least consider in order to understand the real motive and substance behind this action, and not deem it hypocritical and frivolous. The action's timing - just after Floyd (Haymon fighter) beats Pacquaio (Arum fighter) too - whom is Top Rank's absolute cash cow; is also as interesting as it may lend to whether the action is perceived as being personally motivated. Still, with all that said, it looks like there is a mountain of suspicion and also some real factual evidence to support the Arum-allegation that Haymon can operate in a manner similar to a manager or promoter. Some of Arum's best chances to prove this seem to lay with using Haymon's business associates (page 14, line 24) as witnesses; provided their testimony turns out to stand up against a strong cross examination and (for reasons I will explain later) I strongly doubt that. Additionally, on the allegation of Haymon operating in a manner similar to a manager or promoter, Haymon will surely turn around and say words to the effect; ""if that does ever happen, and I don't agree it does, then it's only insofar as much as when advisory discussions with managers and promoters take place, as they would overlap in any promotional entities' normal course of business"". Haymon will then offer all the promoters names and licences that he uses to the court, to show how he does not operate as a promoter in any of his PBC shows. Arum will have to - with proof and facts - refute that. How will Arum do that and prove to the courts that promoters and guys like Lou DiBella, whom work with Haymon, are lying? When they can all easily say - without lying - that they offer/provide their promotional services to PBC, not only in accordance with the law - but also in a similar manner to how other parts of the industry - including Top Rank - operate? That then possibly means that Top Rank can't say (allege?) Haymon always operates as both a promoter and manager, just a manager; potentially destroying the "firewall" (page 11, line 23) argument - an argument itself that, I think, most reasonable and sane persons would struggle with believing Arum complies with. Have a read of it and try and tell yourself that Top Rank in the course of its business doesn't blow that "firewall" apart. :) Then there is the fact that every Haymon fighter themselves has some responsibility to ensure they are comfortable with Haymon as an "advisor"; which is all over his contracts. And, they clearly are happy with this - meaning they (in contract law) actually want Haymon to operate as an "advisor" and not a manger or promoter; even if he may "oversee" and "advise" on those last 2 functions for them. So, Haymon has fighters and promoters that (will undoubtedly) all not only say he is an "advisor" (not a manager or promoter) - but also that Haymon is positively serving their and other fighter's interests like never before. This is one clever, strategic, and legal reason why Haymon has always paid his fighters extremely well. Because without the ability to say/prove that, any legal assertion like Top Rank's would be immensely stronger. This is shown by omission in how Arum's writ - despite being ambiguous, personalised, built up in sections, and lengthy - neatly sidesteps the issues of how well all Haymon fighters are treated and how this directly relates to and also conforms with the spirit of the Muhammad Ali act. In many other sporting endeavours you have trainers, managers, agents (that are advisors of sorts), and a myriad of other titles for all the various folks that have all learned how to carve a living out of the guys that play ball and take punishment for a vocation. If Arum wins this it means a fighter can't have an "advisor" provide them advice on the troubled waters of boxing management and promotion, where - as we all know - many of the real concerns (also) exist. But providing advice and, where required, representation, in all forms of life and work for people that both want and accept it is the primary function of any lawyer, and Haymon is a lawyer. Last time I checked lawyer's can give advice to you on almost anything their qualifications and experience allow; regardless of what titles may or may not exist in the fields of interest/work that the advice may apply. Add to it all, Arum's writ itself and possibly the Muhammad Ali act all acknowledge that most fighters find it hard to navigate through the business world of boxing, including its managers and promoters; therefore presenting a very strong case for the Muhammad Ali act not only supporting the role of a fighter's "advisor" - but also opening the door wide to allow Haymon's legal team to imply a term into the act that supposes it meant such a mechanism, provided it supported fighters' interests. And if nothing else, I think no-one can say/prove that Haymon is not supporting his fighter's interests; as the (glaring) lack of comment within Arum's assertions on this critically important aspect of his writ shows. Furthermore, if Arum paid his fighters the same as Haymon then Arum would possibly have the same anti-competitive monopoly that Haymon has. So, in fact, what Haymon does (or does not do) also exposes how much some other promoters do not (but could) pay their fighters; goes to the Muhammad Ali act. The above 11 sentences/points, and perhaps even some of that above it, will probably already be considered arguments for whomever lawyer Haymon is currently throwing big cash at to defend him. I would like to know who that guy is, and what car he drives. If Haymon wins this not only will Top Rank and many other promoters possibly never operate in the same manner - but they may also have to pay their fighters more. And . . surely that consideration - if not the line itself - will be discussed in the closing arguments by Haymon's leading trial lawyer/whip. :)


-stormcentre :

Further to this . . . . It was, possibly, a shortsighted suggestion - within the Ali act itself (Page 11, Para 37, Line 19) - and/or, perhaps more likely, also a shortsighted interpretation of that very suggestion within the Ali act - related to how there are at least 2 distinct markets in the business of professional boxing; that leads Arum and counsel to seemingly assume that the only multibillion dollar markets in the business of boxing are that for only a manager and promoter. As the Ali act itself states that there are - "at least" - 2 distinct markets in the business of professional boxing; that being for managers and promoters. This, therefore, does not exclude there being more than 2 distinct markets in the business of professional boxing; providing for advisors. Despite his writ containing this information; Arum's actual allegations and legal claim appears to both rely on and assume that the Ali act itself only allows for 2 - not at least 2 (as it really states) - distinct markets in the business of professional boxing; managers and promoters. Based on the Ali act itself it therefore appears that there are - more than 2 - distinct markets in the business of professional boxing. As, clearly, there are not only markets for managers and promoters - but also markets for advisors. Such a consideration, which appears - contrary to Arum's writ's allegations - to provide for advisors and other business titles (in conjunction/addition with managers and promoters) would potentially/effectively short circuit Arum's claims that rely upon, not only a firewall existing between manager and promoter (Page 10, Para 33, Line 9) - but also confining and deeming anyone operating as an advisor (that is alleged to perform similar functions as a manager and promoter) to be either only ever a manager or only ever a promoter. What this means is that the act itself - like many aspects of law - may not be absolute in it's application, the way that Arum has interpreted it; where he has (deliberately?{some lawyers do not do this infrequently, and that is done, when it is, to seemingly inject substance into arguments}) disregarded any alternative and/or additional definition, application or meaning of the Muhammad Ali act other than to assume it serves his writs' purpose because it contains no examples of the other markets that can both exist in the business of boxing and include advisors; like Haymon/PBC. Arum needs the courts to interpret the act as only providing for 2 distinct markets in the business of professional boxing (managers and promoters); when in fact the act clearly provides for - more than 2 distinct markets in the business of professional boxing - despite only explaining in detail, or using for an example, the act's operation in relation to 2; managers and promoters. This - on the face of it - possibly means that Haymon is simply operating within another distinct market within the business of professional boxing; as the Ali act explicitly allows for. Interesting also, is how Arum's writ makes no mention of how the act - at least implicitly (even though I would say explicitly) - provides for advisors by way of the above argument; itself a point that possibly pulls the carpet out from under the feet of several of the writ's assumptions, assertions, and claims. Still, despite how these considerations of the writ itself may possibly impact Arum's action, this is why you have a good trial lawyer and team; as sometimes a good trial lawyer and team can overcome a weak case/outline. I think next I will take another look at Arum's anti-competitiveness claims, as I may have missed something there that is a strength for him, that has jumped to mind. More on that later. :) :) :)


-brownsugar :

Ta - thanks for that. Boy, Bob's writ sure reads like their is a personal vendetta woven into its fabric, replete with circumstances described in their most legally obstructed way in order to make a case. They will need to ensure they get a judge that appreciates matters the way Bob seems to enjoy telling them. I am unaware whether it is against the law and/or in violation with the Ali act for an adviser/manager to pay one of their contracted fighters; whether or not it may not always be the done and/or promoter's thing. Fighters fighting on promotions held under the licence of promoters that don't always have a direct relationship with the fighters is certainly not new in boxing either; which is another assumed case in point Arum seems to make. Obviously Bob's issue - as far as pages 17 and 18 go (which are the pages I was commenting on above) - can be summarised as being one where a manager/adviser that has control over a fighter and promoter - as opposed to the dynamic that Top Rank prefers, where a promoter has control over a manager, adviser and fighter; constitutes a violation of the Ali act. Such a claim assumes any legal authority/control should exist between a manager/adviser and promoter, when I am unsure whether any that naturally does exist, does so solely due to business culture and cash flow, and not by way of law - unless contracted as such and then if that's the case then it means Haymon is free to contract the same "control" in his advisory role. Putting all that to one side; so long as the manager/adviser and promoter perform tasks that they are meant to - despite how blurred the lines between the two really are - then how can Arum strenuously prove Haymon is colliding with the promoters? Sure there are many that may feel they know how the strings are pulled and whom are the puppet masters, but Arum's writ seems to rely on the assumption that the person in control must be the promoter, and if that's not the case then the/an act is violated. Which all comes back to the purpose of the act; to primarily protect fighters. The Ali act is not there to protect promoter's market shares. And I don't see or hear any fighters claiming Haymon has financially damaged them. I can just Lou DiBella (another Harvard law graduate) standing up in court now - on behalf of Haymon - and saying; ""I am a licensed promoter and Haymon never performs my promotional functions and interferes with my legal responsibilities as a promoter. Haymon's role, as an advisor, is always clear and outlined in all our agreements. Perhaps Mr. Arum does not understand the role of an advisor, as they are widely used in many sports. I frequently provide promotional services to Haymon and others, for a fee; as is my legal right and business model. I know of no fighter that believes Al Haymon is not the best thing that has happened to their career, further casting doubts on any claim that the true meaning and spirit of the Ali act - which is to serve and protect fighter's interests - has been breached. When you're ready your Honor, and if it pleases the court, I would like to discuss some of Mr. Arums hypocritical claims and curious business practices, and I have brought with me today some evidence to assist this elucidation"". I think the working definition of the term "collude" as it appears in the Ali act and paragraph 11, page 17, of Bob's writ, is one that means a promoter and manager (Haymon seems to have modelled himself as an "advisor") may not "collude" to the disadvantage of a fighter; which of course Bob's writ makes no meaningful comment on. Furthermore, Bob's writ seems to suggest that because Hayman's "advisory" contracts (allegedly) prohibit fighters from freely contracting with legitimate promoters; this then effectively places Haymon in the role of promoter when he is no such thing. Notwithstanding the above comments, how will Arum prove this when - within his very own writ - he mentions the licensed promoters that Haymon does use? That then boils down to whether an advisor (Haymon) can contract a fighter - whom is contracted to him - to use only preferred promoters; which I will be very surprised if the answer to that is "no". Even if the answer is "no", it still doesn't mean Arum has proved Haymon acts as both a promoter and manager. In any event, Arum's writ and the Ali act seem to make no explicit mention of how or whether it is inappropriate and/or illegal for a manager and promoter to be one entity, and for it all to constitute "collusion"; when no fighter - that the Ali act is designed to protect - is disadvantaged/damaged. Finally, Arum offers the claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters - such as Top Rank - from accessing and promoting fighters. Well, of course they do because that's what contracts do - they monopolise a business advantage. However, Arum claim that Hayom's contracts exclude legitimate promoters from accessing and promoting fighters neatly overlooks the fact that almost all of the fighters contracted to Haymon do actually have access to legitimate promoters; as his shows substantiate. Which then means that Arum is bothered because Haymon's advisory contracts prevent his fighters from access legitimate promoters such as Top Rank. I hope for Arum, Top Rank, and Golden Boy, there is more substance to their claims than that which appears to reside on pages 17 and 18. I am not saying there is not the substance that lacks on the above pages elsewhere in the writ, but if it's not there this could be embarrassing for Top Rank; whom are - clearly from their writ - forecasting a dark future for themselves if Haymon continues. Which in itself may explain why there is no other option for Top Rank than to fire such a brazenly, possibly less than full strength, and interestingly worded shot/writ across the bows of Haymon's starship hoping he is blown away by the shockwaves, rather than substance. This is going to be real interesting. Wish I was a lawyer printing invoices for either Top Rank or Haymon right now, as if I was I would go out right away and buy one of those new "S" class Mercedes AMG V12 coupes. Black paint, black interior, twin turbo V12, with 1000Nm of torque at 1500rpm. Yes please. :)
Thanks for doing the exhaustive research. I read all I could find about the lawsuit on the internet, and it seems similar to when Mayweather was convicted of domestic violence in 2012. Before the media could say "Ray Rice" three times Floyd was under intense scrutiny and the subject of extremely negative coverage from journalist and media pundits who only had second hand information. It was widely reported that Mayweather would serve 15 to 60 years if convicted for charges as diverse as grand larceny for checking the call log of his ex's cell phone (which he purchased) to kidnapping his son whom he temporarily detained,.....as the frivolous charges began to dissipate weeks before the trail, 60 years suddenly became an uninteresting 60 days. I suspect Haymon maybe one of the most ruthless peddlers of flesh who has ever managed boxers in n the sport of boxing. The music industry from where Haymon rised to financial prominence is always in need of such men,...stepping into the world of boxing was a lateral move which requires the same identical character traits as the music industry. The seeds to oust Haymon from the boxing industry originated in 2012 when Floyd dumped HBO after nearly a decade of distinguished service to sign with Showtime. The perceived betrayal led to a forced mass exodus of all Al Haymon boxers to Showtime along with multiple signings of GoldenBoy boxers (or more correctly boxers who had a very loose agreement to fight for GB) to the Haymon banner while Oscar was still convalescening in a rehab center due to some non productive personal issues.. Similarly Arum has recently expressed his extreme animosity toward Haymon due to the way he says he was mistreated by MGM, (although the hate goes way back).....and the ticketing distribution process in which we witnessed one of the most dubious ticket allocation processes ever reported within weeks and days before one of the most colossal events in the history of the sport. You would not have thought the reprehensible price goughing practices exhibited by MGM and the promoters would not have descended into an all out feeding frenzy for such a lucrative fight. Reading the accounts of many of the ticket buyers, the process of procuring a ticket reminded me of the complexity (presented in many documentaries) of what dope dealers had to do score 1000 kilos of smack from the French Connection. Meanwhile the speed at which Haymon is signing new talent coupled with ease at which Haymon has obtained stations to air his broadcasts must be seen as a threat to both GB and TR. Hence the multiple law suits from ABC, WBO, GB, TR, and several others appears to be an attempt to through as much muck on the wall as possible to see what sticks (as in Mayweathers case). But as quickly as Haymon can make enemies, he has also made 10 times as many allies. All the managers, promoters, distributors, and fighters who deal with Haymon talk about is how big Haymon's generosity is and how he provides all the perks imaginable to his constituents including free tickets, the best training facilities, transportation, training costs, venues paid up....etc... I suspect Haymon will end up getting his wings clipped to some degree, but not to the extent that he won't be able to fly. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out during the next couple of years it will take to resolve.


-stormcentre :

Good post. I always like read other's detailed and well thought out posts about boxings' tricky/interesting fights and subjects, and this is certainly one of them. Since the forum competition one could argue will reasonable success that has in some ways/areas unfortunately declined. My understanding is that Haymon, as an advisor; 1) Receives less than most managers. 2) Has made several other boxers far richer than any other promoter before them. 3) Has created the worlds richest sportsman. 4) Started in top level boxing sometime around 2000 with the late Vernon Forrest. 5) Gained notoriety and his first major foothold in the sport when he assisted Floyd's exodus from Top Rank ~2006 for 3/4 of a Million dollars; look at what Arum lost there in that deal. 6) Effectively, in writing, pledges to assist fighters' career via his advisory services. 7) Founded Haymon Boxing who is headquartered in LV, and later set up Premier Boxing Champions (PBC), which is no doubt going to be referred to in Arum's trial as a promotional organisation. 8) Spent ~ $20M on airtime buys with NBC for ~20 shows . 9) The NBC deal effectively meant that NBC would - for the first time in 30 years deliver what the majority of the boxing fraternity regularly claimed it lacked and needed - free to air broadcasted prime time boxing. 10) PBC's first show (even considering cable TV) flew through the sky as a rotating horizontally and vertically polarised electromagnetic wave carrying all the architectural acoustic and colour video information of the live event in a manner that was totally indifferent to how geographically dispersed and/or removed from the actual event any of the end (armchair restrained) viewers may be; featuring Keith Thurman fighting Robert Guerrero. 11) PBC's first show amassed viewership digestion numbers in the order of just over 4 million, ensuring it was the most watched boxing telecast since sometime in the late 90s when Oscar De La Hoya fought. 12) PBC also signed up a two-year deal with ESPN detailing ~12 events per year, with almost all of them being scheduled for prime times. 13) Caused not an inconsiderable amount of controversy with not only the perceived predictability of some of his bouts - but also how they apply or don't apply to sanctions, titles, and weight divisions. 14) Could "arguably" be said to be creating his own boxing sanction or similar; yet again - if done correctly - something that may be aligned with what the boxing fraternity has long yearned for, whilst complaining about how the existing sanctions operate. 15) Has been "reported" to be in the process of manufacturing their own championship belts, which would potentially see PBC fighters compete for and wear these belts/titles; effectively bypassing the traditional sanctions, championships and belts. 16) Could possibly ensure that such an above-mentioned business model could fundamentally operate in a similar manner to, perhaps, how Dana White ran UFC; where almost all MMA fighters were signed to the same promotion (advisor?); a business model that - despite being close to, and also not quite, boxing - will no doubt become - at least - a consideration (in relation to the issues it possibly has and has not created) for the discussed writ and its defence. 17) Appears to be, at least indirectly through PBC, related to the fact that; 17a) When James DeGale was about to fight Andre Dirrell for the IBF Super Middleweight title, very little IBF related material was found to be coming from PBC sources. 17b) When Badou Jack defeated Anthony Dirrell to supposedly become the new WBC Super Middleweight title holder, Jack was announced as the new world champion - little or no mention was made of the WBC sanctioning body. Whether this was because no-one bothered to pay the sanctioning fees or not, I don't know; but it fits with the above points. If Haymon were to be associated with an entity that created their own sanction/organisation - which I don't believe there are, aside from money, too many legal and/or entry barriers to - that entity combined with Haymon's signed fighters would - to some extent - virtually own the sport of professional boxing. Just as many tribunals and other organisations "own" and/or "control" various ball sports throughout the world. This would then - again - theoretically at least - deliver boxing what is has repetitively, for years, claimed it lacked and needed; which is an overarching organisation that potentially defeats the diffused and often complained about corrupt practices that thrive in such environments. How many times have we over the last decade read a boxing article that speaks along those lines? One must always be careful what one asks for. Anyway, given all this it's little wonder Oscar, this last week, publicly cheered and applauded Arum's writ. As - if nothing else - Haymon has made more ground in these last few years, not only doing what it is that many said needed to be done (albeit controversially, but would there be another way?) - but Haymon has also within roughly the same timeframe gained more ground in achieving the (true) business objectives, within boxing, that much of his competition aspire for, including the authors of all writs Haymon is currently in receipt of. I wonder if, in the act of the WBC (or the WBA or IBF) creating their own sanction, that is in itself not an anti-competitive move? Such an organisation certainly was not created without any motivation to both monopolise and control boxing and its champions. I think Haymon - as BS above suggests - will (at least) get his wings clipped a little, particularly with respect to some of the ant-competition claims Arum makes. But by/large any punitive and other obstacles he encounters from the writ(s) will just make him and his business interests morph into another - more legally appropriate - shape. There is too much money in boxing for anything else to happen. And, as Haymon only too well knows, not too many people before him have come anywhere near this close to achieving both, what he originally set out to do and also all the above points. Meanwhile, I guess we all get to wait and see what happens as Haymon exploits his - Arum defined/called - dominance in the market, and delivers us Thurman V Collazo. :) :)


-brownsugar :

You brought up some good points, the Ali act was created to protect boxers who were not receiving their proper wages, not necessarily to punish managers for making fighters rich. .... and since when has there been a limit on the number of fighters who could be signed?


-Radam G :

You brought up some good points, the Ali act was created to protect boxers who were not receiving their proper wages, not necessarily to punish managers for making fighters rich. .... and since when has there been a limit on the number of fighters who could be signed?
The Ali Act was created to stop unfair practices to all boxers. Not to enrich boxers that sign with tsAH. And stay with him. Dude is a straight-up crook. He has dumped a lot of pugs on the side of the road. And they have not been able to get fights or moolah because he has blocked boxing shows by promoters. Dude is a snake. And he is going down. His tricking-and-d?cking moves are numbered. Holla!


-deepwater2 :

Is it true that anyone under contract with tsAH, is not allowed to speak any negativity or derogatory things about him?


-Radam G :

Is it true that anyone under contract with tsAH, is not allowed to speak any negativity or derogatory things about him?
True DAT! Dude has dumped as many pugs as he has signed. And speaking negativity or derogatory about him is not allowed. He has a goon squad that break legs, and arms and faces for those who violate his policies. True stuff! Dude is a menace. He makes the mafia look like choir boys. And has run small-time promoters like Murad Muhammad, Akbar Muhammad and Harold Smith out of business on the mainland USA. Holla!


-stormcentre :

The Ali Act was created to stop unfair practices to all boxers. Not to enrich boxers that sign with tsAH. And stay with him. Dude is a straight-up crook. He has dumped a lot of pugs on the side of the road. And they have not been able to get fights or moolah because he has blocked boxing shows by promoters. Dude is a snake. And he is going down. His tricking-and-d?cking moves are numbered. Holla!
That's not necessarily true, but I appreciate you had a shot at it. To agree with what you're saying is potentially the same as saying because Floyd didn't explicitly state that he wanted the penalty for a MayPac positive PED result to be unlimited (as in not limited), he didn't take any part in making that penalty unlimited (so to speak); when in actual fact his - widely misinterpreted - rejection of the limited penalty (~$5M) in effect made the MayPac positive PED penalty not limited to $5M. Amongst the things the Ali act was created for was to stop unfair practices, so yes you're correct there. The unfair practices that brought the need for the Ali act to the attention of those whom could change things was largely observed by the questionable monetary practices in boxing and how they almost always - despite being out of the witness/persons of interests control - ended up hitting the boxer - the performer and fighter that trained hard and also often bled in the boxing ring - the hardest. So, therefore, in the act of stopping unfair practices, the act does actually seek to - if not enrich boxers - then certainly ensure they are not always financially disadvantaged; regardless of whom they sign with - whether it be Haymon or not. I agree that Haymon has some practices that could easily lend some to think he is a snake. I'm not big on his approach/definition of; an opponent, a challenging contest, and weight divisions, either. However, I doubt there has ever been a person that has ever financially benefitted and genuinely befriended so many fighters as Haymon. Everyone I have asked in the game has not been able to give me another name that sits atop Haymon's in that regard. Certainly not Arum or Oscar, whom are no halo shrouded angels themselves. :)


-stormcentre :

Is it true that anyone under contract with tsAH, is not allowed to speak any negativity or derogatory things about him?
I haven't actually seen that part of any Haymon agreement, but "non denigration", "public disrepute" and "promotional" (not in the typical boxing sense) contractual clauses are not uncommon in many legal contracts and agreements. I have signed a few - just for business - myself; where me and/or the other party simply wants to control the public perception of the involved parties as much as law will permit. Hollywood is full of them, and to some extent that's why you never hear actors saying what they think about the industry and people they work for/with, as they do their talk show rounds promoting the latest films they're in. The last actor I can think of that ignored this was Mickey Rourke and I think his career took a 15 year hiatus as a result. Haymon - in my opinion - would not be taking the business and other risks he is, and also both making the majority of his fighters wealthy and treating them in the favorable ways that he does (such that it gives rise to our/others concerns); only to take the chance some may speak out negatively about him. As an adjunct; almost every employer - employee contract and/or the relevant/associated laws within the states (where you live) and also in our sunburnt Australian country effectively restrict employees speaking negatively and/or bringing the organization into public disrepute. The law - which is obviously more complex than I detail here - is quite tried and tested. Example; a guy was in Bali years ago wearing a T-Shirt with his employer's company name on it and skulling jugs of beer whilst standing on a pub table screaming "man want women now for bedroom entertainment". Many guys and girls where laughing and cheering him on. To some extent he achieved legend status for this humorous act because of the way we are as a society, particularly when on holidays. However, to this guy's initial (but not final) satisfaction there was also a local Sydney news cameraman in the crowd holidaying whom took personal video of the situation, and when the cameraman recounted his own holiday to his colleagues it somehow ended up on one of those shock-journalistic shows titled something like, "the crazy things drunken Aussies do in Bali". So for several months the Bali-holidaying jug skulling legend was a living legend in suburban Sydney. That was until his employer took action, sacked him, and decided to not progress their case for significant damages; but not before the courts made it very clear that the company did indeed have a case for damages due to the above laws. That was despite the incident happening in Bali; another country. Your laws in the USA are no less stringent in this respect. You (we) must not bring your employer - and in some cases anyone else (but that then edges in defamation, which is another area of the law) - into disrepute; as you are effectively your employer's servant. And, yes, that word "servant" not only exists in the relevant laws (torts I think) when describing the employee/employer relationship - but lawyers love to use it with/to employees whom defend their cases that are similar to the above. So in effect these laws exist and my bet is Haymon's contracts - whilst not necessarily straight up employee/employer agreements - simply lever off them and/or make them (that apply) more explicitly obvious to the other party/boxer; which is in effect (legally, if not otherwise) is not only a good thing to do - but would also be viewed favorably by the courts because - unlike many fighting contracts - it brings forward to the attention of the other party what their responsibilities in this respect are in return for their income, remuneration, and fame. I'm not saying any of this is morally right or wrong, just giving you the facts as I understand them. Cheers. :) :) :)


-brownsugar :

True DAT! Dude has dumped as many pugs as he has signed. And speaking negativity or derogatory about him is not allowed. He has a goon squad that break legs, and arms and faces for those who violate his policies. True stuff! Dude is a menace. He makes the mafia look like choir boys. And has run small-time promoters like Murad Muhammad, Akbar Muhammad and Harold Smith out of business on the mainland USA. Holla!
Where did you hear this at RG ? can you provide proof?


-Radam G :

Where did you hear this at RG ? can you provide proof?
I don't make up syet. I will let TSS scribes do what they do. And provide you what they want to. I'm in da loop of pugilism poop, so I always have da scoop. I have no time or desire to cyberspace bulljive. TsAH has the means and mean to bull puck with every promoter and boxer that he chooses to mess with. This is why his arse is getting sued. It is time to take some of the sneaky, sleazy mean out of his shadowy arse. Where is The Shadow? I'm sure that he can provide script proof to you how lethal tsAH is and has been to small timers. Especially if they double fudge mess with him. Dude has not gain power by being a softy and a go along to get along. He wants the power. And he wants it all. Dude is dangerous. And this red-light district sport is not a wuzzy one. Real, extreme violence happens inside and outside dat squared jungle. More than the typical poser and fanfaronade will ever know. Holla!


-brownsugar :

I don't make up syet. I will let TSS scribes do what they do. And provide you what they want to. I'm in da loop of pugilism poop, so I always have da scoop. I have no time or desire to cyberspace bulljive. TsAH has the means and mean to bull puck with every promoter and boxer that he chooses to mess with. This is why his arse is getting sued. It is time to take some of the sneaky, sleazy mean out of his shadowy arse. Where is The Shadow? I'm sure that he can provide script proof to you how lethal tsAH is and has been to small timers. Especially if they double fudge mess with him. Dude has not gain power by being a softy and a go along to get along. He wants the power. And he wants it all. Dude is dangerous. And this red-light district sport is not a wuzzy one. Real, extreme violence happens inside and outside dat squared jungle. More than the typical poser and fanfaronade will ever know. Holla!
So the answer is no. No proof, no eye witness accounts. No names dates or places. Just the inside poop? OK then.


-stormcentre :


-Radam G :

So the answer is no. No proof, no eye witness accounts. No names dates or places. Just the inside poop? OK then.
I got straight-up proof. It is not hard to find. And there are plenty of eye witnesses. We are dealing with syet everywhere for those that are a part of da game -- da red-light-district game where syet is always poppin' off, especially with gangsta tsAH. I don't play cyberspace warring and bullsyetting. And like they tell you from the mean streets, I'm no snitch or in legal-crooks business bytch. I'm surprised that you cannot find the "eye witness accounts," and "names, dates or places." It is not hard to find. You will get it when TSS scribes write about it, since this is your information hangout. TsAH is going down. And like all crooks, tsAH will be exposed. Have a blessed day. Holla.


-Radam G :

Boxing must really be dead as heck in Columbus O. There was once a time that peeps from there would know da haps before evy'bodee and dey momma else. Nobody there were asking for proof of diz and dat and da third. They know da syet. Their pugvine was da scoot of da poop to be jealous about. I take it that they have all moved away and/or died out. And da P-Islands is taking the last telling-the-truth dawg from there to help "Coach no joke" Freddie Roach train and coach the 2016 Filipino Olympic boxing team. Holla!


-Radam G :

OOPS! I musta' fo'got! You didn't know the above either. Maybe because TSS scribes have not reported it yet. I'm one of the readers/posters here; not one of the scribes. I stay in my lane. I'm not trying to compete and be a quasi journalist here. Like I said. Let TSS scribes put the stories out. And I will just comment as a reader/poster. I'm not providing syet of who, what, where, when, why and how unless I select to. I used to go through this syet with long-absent TSS readers/posters "Salt Lover" and "Anony." And in the end, I've been right about 99 percent of everything that I've posted. I will be right about tsAH too. He ain't syet! But a _____ ______ da ______. Holla!


-brownsugar :

Cut the crap RG, you make a public statement on an internationally known website and don't have a single shred of proof to verify your statements, except to somehow blame it on the capitol of the state of Ohio? .....What does that even mean?... What does the number of boxers in Ohio have to do with Al Haymon allegedly breaking legs and silencing promoters like a modern day Blinky Palermo? Maybe he held Bob Arum over the 50th floor of a hotel balcony, Suge Night style to keep him quiet all these years, maybe Al was the one who forced Oscar DLH to don pantyhose and take photographs so he could manipulate GB for over a decade? The trouble is, I ask you a simple question about one of the most success music/entertainment and Boxing promoters in history,....a man who grossed over 60$ million dollars and staged 500 concerts alone in 1992,..... A man who Promoted Mary J Blige, Whitney Houston, New Edition, the Eddie Lavert family and MC Hammer while he was still still studying for his masters in business administration in Harvard... and who Promoted one of the most successful Comedy Concerts and movies by presenting "Eddie Murphy RAW!" Which served as a springboard to Murphy's movie career. Not to mention his revolutionary concert series that he partnered with Phil Chase to create ("The Budweiser Festival Concert Series ") which featured multiple acts that appealed to multiple demographics.... And try to tell everyone that Al Haymon is a leg breaking Gangster, I gotta ask,... Where do you come up with this stuff?... Its fine,... Now that I see that you have nothing in the way of credible information to verify what you so boldly claimed,.... I'm simply going to be moving on.....


-brownsugar :

And I forgot to mention that Al Haymon was voted by the boxing writers association as manager of the year, in 2005, 2012, and 2013. Many of the writers on the BWAA also write for the TSS,....Do you suppose any of those guys would qualify as "insiders" who could smell da' poop?


-Radam G :

Cut what crap? Mr. B-sug, I can make all the public statements that I desire to. And Imma stay in my lane. I'm not one of the boxing journalists here. I'm a poster/reader. I provide what I want to to whom that I want to and that I want to. Don't try to judge me by TSS scribes' standards. I've never played that game the ten years that I've been here. And I will never start playing that game. I'm in the real boksing game. And I know da real real of da deal. TsAH's regime is fading to black. Dude is whack! And he has been behind all types of brutal attacks. Mismatching pugs in dat squared jungle. And send his squad of goons to bust arses outside of it. The world is a violent place. And tsAH loves violence. He did up when he was in the music industry. His bytch arse is doing it up in the sweet science. But now the piper is coming and he has to and will pay for his punkified moves to destroy and conquer da game. You go ahead and be one of his fanfaronades. I'm not one. And I will keep on posting, as his arse is toasting. I'm not a TSS scribe; so don't expect from me what they will give you. Again, have a blessed day and chillax with the anger. Your grandsons got gramps rolling. Thank God that you are not trolling. Hehe! Holla!


-Radam G :

And I forgot to mention that Al Haymon was voted by the boxing writers association as manager of the year, in 2005, 2012, and 2013. Many of the writers on the BWAA also write for the TSS,....Do you suppose any of those guys would qualify as "insiders" who could smell da' poop?
YUP! And da dude thot is not even a manager on anybody's paper. He calls himself an adviser, not a manager. And he has no license as such. He is a bytch-@$$ gangsta on slicking and d?cking the system. But the gig is just about up. Holla!


-Radam G :

Cut the crap RG, you make a public statement on an internationally known website and don't have a single shred of proof to verify your statements, except to somehow blame it on the capitol of the state of Ohio? .....What does that even mean?... What does the number of boxers in Ohio have to do with Al Haymon allegedly breaking legs and silencing promoters like a modern day Blinky Palermo? Maybe he held Bob Arum over the 50th floor of a hotel balcony, Suge Night style to keep him quiet all these years, maybe Al was the one who forced Oscar DLH to don pantyhose and take photographs so he could manipulate GB for over a decade? The trouble is, I ask you a simple question about one of the most success music/entertainment and Boxing promoters in history,....a man who grossed over 60$ million dollars and staged 500 concerts alone in 1992,..... A man who Promoted Mary J Blige, Whitney Houston, New Edition, the Eddie Lavert family and MC Hammer while he was still still studying for his masters in business administration in Harvard... and who Promoted one of the most successful Comedy Concerts and movies by presenting "Eddie Murphy RAW!" Which served as a springboard to Murphy's movie career. Not to mention his revolutionary concert series that he partnered with Phil Chase to create ("The Budweiser Festival Concert Series ") which featured multiple acts that appealed to multiple demographics.... And try to tell everyone that Al Haymon is a leg breaking Gangster, I gotta ask,... Where do you come up with this stuff?... Its fine,... Now that I see that you have nothing in the way of credible information to verify what you so boldly claimed,.... I'm simply going to be moving on.....
All the singers who you mentioned that had tsAH's support went broke -- bankrupt as _____ _____. Da dude thot is a pucking con-man lawyer. You know what they are call. RIGHT? Holla!


-Radam G :

Cut the crap RG, you make a public statement on an internationally known website and don't have a single shred of proof to verify your statements, except to somehow blame it on the capitol of the state of Ohio? ... And try to tell everyone that Al Haymon is a leg breaking Gangster, I gotta ask,... Where do you come up with this stuff?... Its fine,... Now that I see that you have nothing in the way of credible information to verify what you so boldly claimed,.... I'm simply going to be moving on.....
BTW! You are so full of yourself that you don't get it with your double standards and double bulljive! You "don't have a single shred of proof to verify your statement, except to somehow blame it on the" ignorance of your not knowing what goes on in the big business of boxing and the music industry because your arse is not in it, so you can bullsyet it. And be the keyboard warrior that you are on the Internet. Money May has even been threatened with an arse thrashing and getting his bone broke by a squad of goons of his former manager J Prince. And Money May cried like a bytch for Da BobFather to pay moolah to save his arse. And tell me how many music dudes have been busted up or shot or killed by goons for diz or dat and da third. Holla at Fiddy. And I wish that you could holla at Tupac. He got shot the night of an Iron Mike scrap. Man, you are a safe, naive keyboard warrior! Your never having experience the big league of sports and entertainment is coughing loudly. You reside in a fantasy world not of boxing-and-entertainment reality. I apologize for bothering you. I thought that you knew a bit of the actuality of the reality of boxing. I see that you are just in extreme self denial of even wanting to hear the truth from who you believe that is inferior to you. I won't bother you anymore. Holla!


-brownsugar :

Lol.... You make me laugh even when I'm not in the mood RG, as I said you have not one single iota of fact to establish your claims, even the folks who you said could back up your accusations voted Big Al manager of the year 3 times.... If you have anything even closely to resembling a credible post I'd like to read it and respond, but so far you haven't provided anything credible regarding the so-called Harvard taught gangster of the boxing world except unverifiable "insider poop"........moving on....


-stormcentre :

Thanks for your contributions Radam. Sounds like you have a lot of knowledge about how Haymon can violently operate, and on that subject, I for one would love to see some URLs, links, and media reports that associate Haymon with the stand-over and other aggressive/menacing activities you mentioned. Back to the (quasi) journalism, legal matters, and Arum's writ. . . . . . Page 18, Para 60, Line 20; where Arum and counsel seem to almost wildly rant with allegations and use quasi factual references as (if they were) proof; right up to where it is claimed Haymon is demonstrating immense power and self interest; there are some interesting, emotional, and curious claims. It is through these sections where it appears that Arum may have either overlooked the possibility of, and/or does not want to acknowledge that, promoters may not always be at the top of boxing's business/food chain. Here Arum and counsel quote business media publications - not always a form of accepted and reliable evidence in court - as if they are sound evidence mechanisms; as a means to underwrite and provide legitimacy to their own claims/inferences, including those that suggest any "advisor" that employs the services of an outsourced promoter and exerts influence over them - in the same manner as any vendor/supplier and client business relationship would operate - constitutes a legally unacceptable relationship in boxing. Whilst such a business relationship (where a promoter and their licence is used due to the fact that Haymon does not have one) may add more latency, red tape, and business layers, to possibly the same extent as it may also serve as a good defence for the anti-competition claims Arum makes in relation to venue sitting; the premises here in the writ seems to be that; 1) No one other than a promoter should make and/or be involved in final boxing promotional decisions, including those about ticket prices and presentation. 2) Anyone that does make and/or be involved in final boxing promotional decisions including those about ticket prices and presentation (even if they know about them and have explicitly stated they are an "advisor"); must - only - be a promoter. I am unsure whether there is any sound legal basis for these assumptions, and I can't find anything within Arum's writ that directly addresses how the Ali act provides for other business markets than just promoters and managers, as Arum's writ seems to rely on; which is discussed at length in my previous posts, 15 and 17. Furthermore, even if the Ali act did not envisage any other business markets in boxing than promoters and managers (as Arum's writ seems to rely upon); it is certainly not illegal to be an advisor. Perhaps it is not unexpected for Arum to be disquiet and outraged that Haymon, his business model, and/or any similarly operating "advisor" can use promoters as a commodity; in the same way as many promotional outfits use boxers and managers. Perhaps this is why Arum's writ seems to sidestep how the Ali act actually provides for Haymon's "advisory" role, just as much as Haymon's law degree and general business operations possibly also do. Perhaps this is also why Arum's writ seems to be disinterested in connecting the facts associated with - even if we accept that (Arum can prove in a court that) Haymon calls the shots in relation to the promoters that are temporarily on board with him - this not only in no way disadvantages fighters - but it actually has also been shown to (at least, financially) greatly benefit them. Further detracting from the impression Arum and his promoter shams, Ali act conflict, and firewall claims surely seek to create in the eyes of the court. Promoters can be and are regularly controlled and influenced by money; just as (Arum claims that) the promoters that Haymon and Co uses probably also are. An example of this is network dollars. Using Arum's argument within the above-mentioned pages one could easily state that HBO and Showtime employ sham promoters whilst themselves actually call all the shots and make almost all the promotional decisions; as only genuine promoters should do. HBO and Showtime have no boxing promotional licence, yet I doubt any fighter remains of primary interest to Arum and Golden Boy if they can't attract both network attention and dollars. One can only assume Arum's writ sidesteps bilateral evenhandedness and also this consideration due to the fact that treating Haymon and Co as HBO/Showtime are, effectively defeats Top Rank's purposes whilst also opening up a virtual pandoras box of complex legal, strategic and other issues; the boxing promotional broadcasting conundrum. Some of which may also serve Haymon's defence quite well. However, when briefly extrapolating that (boxing promotional broadcasting conundrum) consideration/argument it certainly appears that Arum - within his writ - wants to use Haymon's association with broadcasting facilities in a manner that suits him and his anti-competitive and other allegations - but not in a manner that places Haymon and Co operating similarly and/or just as (Arum accepts that) HBO and Showtime can and possibly do; which is exactly where Haymon and Co very well may actually best (legally) reside. Ah . . . how easy it is to disregard the hypocrisy and rules whilst exercising and making noise about the others that serve your interests; when your agenda is hidden and not always well written. Enough cheap poetry from me. Before diving off into Para 62, Line 8 Page 19 - where Arum references the Washington post as a reliable source for his claims that Haymon is a, and the main, promoter - Arum (at the tail end of Para 61) then seems to emotionally wander off track and use the possibly unnecessary term "frontmen" for the (real and main) promoters that Haymon's company's and/or those he is involved with, actually use. The writ seems to do this as a means of both; A) Reducing what outsourced and perfectly legal promoters (such as Lou DiBella) really do for Haymon; to seemingly fit his dismissive definition of "logistics". B) Self validating his own argument that Haymon is a/the promoter. Once again - even if these arguments didn't conveniently overlook and then instantly remember the genuine promoters Haymon and Co use as/when it suits - and even if the writ didn't "forget" that the Ali act does not explicitly suggest that only promoters and managers may ever be involved in the business of boxing (as Arum's pertinent aspects of his writ are almost critically tied to); using such flamboyant, forceful, and emotional language rarely serves litigants (or anyone publishing content to a wide and/or official audience) well. Same for the use of newspaper and other media publications/releases and/or references, as proof, substantiation, and evidence. Moving on . . . Page 19 begin its completion with Para 63, Line 15; where the writ offers the court the suggestion/inference, that because; A) The IBF may normally direct communication related to fights across to the respective fighters' promoters. B) The IBF - when dealing with fighters signed to Haymon - direct their communication related to fights across to Haymon. Haymon "must" be a promoter. Let's put aside how genuine, reliable, and interested in fighter retirement finances and health some sanctions are or are not, and also how much influence any tier 1 promotional outfit (especially one with access to network dollars) may have had over them . . . . . If we accept that Haymon is an advisor - as the Ali act appears to not prevent this, and also because both, it has not been proven that Haymon is not an advisor yet and also because one is always innocent until proven guilty - then the IBF actually should ensure such communication is directed to Haymon; whom is a legal advisor to the fighters in question. Just as Arum and Top Rank should include Haymon & Co in their discussions related to activities they may perform for them in the unlikely event that Haymon & Co was employing and using Top Rank's promotional services; as HBO, Showtime and other promoters/organisations have. Food for thought. I am looking forward to reading Haymon and Co's affidavit and any rebuttals it may include. That document will truly be, as they say, on fire. I expect it to also be cleverly crafted and containing far; A) Less emotional and subjective content. B) More careful language and facts. Cheers, :) :) :)


-brownsugar :

The only thing that has emerged from the Haymon camp is a blanket statement which refers to Arums lawsuit as being "completely unfounded and without merit" .....you know, the usual stuff, and a quick sound bite from Sam Watson when asked, " how far is Haymon willing to take his legal battle with TR?"....Watson responded...." To the death "..... So it will be interesting... and lengthy.


-The Shadow :

The only thing that has emerged from the Haymon camp is a blanket statement which refers to Arums lawsuit as being "completely unfounded and without merit" .....you know, the usual stuff, and a quick sound bite from Sam Watson when asked, " how far is Haymon willing to take his legal battle with TR?"....Watson responded...." To the death "..... So it will be interesting... and lengthy.
Hi guys, just checking in, chiming in. Missed you! I was skimming this thread and just wanted to clear up some things: 1) Al Haymon is NOT a lawyer. He's an entrepreneur. (Bob Arum and Lou DiBella are Harvard lawyers. Haymon has a Harvard MBA.) 2) He IS licensed as a manager. LOL love the Suge Knight/Vanilla Ice reference. And I know plenty of people who do business with Al Haymon, who fight under his banner, and some signed with him that the public may not even know have turned pro. NO ONE has said a bad word about him. (And this is off the record.) Not a single one I've talked to. Even one guy (Andre Dirrell) who wished to leave him, he let go. Lucas Matthysse is another, which was mostly his manager's deal. He treats them well so if they want to leave, leave. (1 out of 200 isn't bad at all.) Sure enough, when Dirrell realized the error of his ways, Haymon took him back, no grudges. In fact, steered him directly to a title shot. Interestingly enough, I've heard quite a few hypocrites complain about him, however. This is what Oscar De La Hoya said to Editor Mike in 2010: " "[Bob Arum and Don King] had a chokehold on this sport for 40 years" and pronounced them yesterday's news. He lauded the UFC business plan and its status as the only real player in the MMA space. "We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates."" Sucks when someone else does to you what you've been doing to others. Just food for thought.


-deepwater2 :

Watson responded...." To the death " Well that sounds respectful. Hey, the more the merrier. But to say you are taking over the sport just to feed us more garbage fights does not excite me or bring any new fans into the sport. Just because boring and overmatched fights are on TV every week isnt really a good thing. Exciting fights,spectacular knockouts, and underdogs beating the favorite sometimes,is what brings more fans into the sport.


-Radam G :

Lol.... You make me laugh even when I'm not in the mood RG, as I said you have not one single iota of fact to establish your claims, even the folks who you said could back up your accusations voted Big Al manager of the year 3 times.... If you have anything even closely to resembling a credible post I'd like to read it and respond, but so far you haven't provided anything credible regarding the so-called Harvard taught gangster of the boxing world except unverifiable "insider poop"........moving on....
Where is your single iota of fact. The rules that you put on other readers/posters, put them on yourself, BIG MAN! In the end, I will prove to be right , as I always do. I'm not going to even name the times. Besides, you will run like you always do. Suddenly you will develop amnesia. And tell me to pull up the Threads of your wrongs. But like always, I will not because I'm not into any gotcha and fake syet. As I have said, I'm not a TSS scribe. When the time comes, a TSS scribe will do da do. Holla!


-Radam G :

Hi guys, just checking in, chiming in. Missed you! I was skimming this thread and just wanted to clear up some things: 1) Al Haymon is NOT a lawyer. He's an entrepreneur. (Bob Arum and Lou DiBella are Harvard lawyers. Haymon has a Harvard MBA.) 2) He IS licensed as a manager. LOL love the Suge Knight/Vanilla Ice reference. And I know plenty of people who do business with Al Haymon, who fight under his banner, and some signed with him that the public may not even know have turned pro. NO ONE has said a bad word about him. (And this is off the record.) Not a single one I've talked to. Even one guy (Andre Dirrell) who wished to leave him, he let go. Lucas Matthysse is another, which was mostly his manager's deal. He treats them well so if they want to leave, leave. (1 out of 200 isn't bad at all.) Sure enough, when Dirrell realized the error of his ways, Haymon took him back, no grudges. In fact, steered him directly to a title shot. Interestingly enough, I've heard quite a few hypocrites complain about him, however. This is what Oscar De La Hoya said to Editor Mike in 2010: " "[Bob Arum and Don King] had a chokehold on this sport for 40 years" and pronounced them yesterday's news. He lauded the UFC business plan and its status as the only real player in the MMA space. "We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates."" Sucks when someone else does to you what you've been doing to others. Just food for thought.
Good to see you, The Shadow. Do me a favor and put a copy of tsAH's manager license here. You know that it is public information if he is indeed one. And what are the rules for servicing as a pug's promoter and manager. And tsAH yes -- my bad -- is an entrepreneur, as the BobFather is. And for 40 years, da Don K and Da BobFather did not have a chokehold on promoting. The Duvas with Main Event in the 1980s and Bank-swindling Harold Smith with MAPS in the 1970s were major competition. Maybe you don't remember how many pubs that the Duvas signed out of the 1984 Olympics. The Duvas had Da Don struggling until the death of the main Duva. Also, Murad Muhammad was a lukwarm with the competition in the 90s and early 2000s. It is major exaggeration about Da Don K having a chokehold at any time because he was primarily a promoter for the heavyweights, though he would go as low as welterweight in America. Top Rank had the first million-dollar purses for pugs from middleweight down to flyweight. Anyway, good to see you back posting. Holla!


-brownsugar :

Hi guys, just checking in, chiming in. Missed you! I was skimming this thread and just wanted to clear up some things: 1) Al Haymon is NOT a lawyer. He's an entrepreneur. (Bob Arum and Lou DiBella are Harvard lawyers. Haymon has a Harvard MBA.) 2) He IS licensed as a manager. LOL love the Suge Knight/Vanilla Ice reference. And I know plenty of people who do business with Al Haymon, who fight under his banner, and some signed with him that the public may not even know have turned pro. NO ONE has said a bad word about him. (And this is off the record.) Not a single one I've talked to. Even one guy (Andre Dirrell) who wished to leave him, he let go. Lucas Matthysse is another, which was mostly his manager's deal. He treats them well so if they want to leave, leave. (1 out of 200 isn't bad at all.) Sure enough, when Dirrell realized the error of his ways, Haymon took him back, no grudges. In fact, steered him directly to a title shot. Interestingly enough, I've heard quite a few hypocrites complain about him, however. This is what Oscar De La Hoya said to Editor Mike in 2010: " "[Bob Arum and Don King] had a chokehold on this sport for 40 years" and pronounced them yesterday's news. He lauded the UFC business plan and its status as the only real player in the MMA space. "We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates."" Sucks when someone else does to you what you've been doing to others. Just food for thought.
Thanks for making an unscheduled appearance Shadow, we've been deprived of your keen input on matters on the businesses side of TSS. My comments about Watson saying they were prepared to take the legal fight to the death was simply a comment by Watson indicating that he believed Haymon was prepared to go all the way with their single minded effort to clear Haymon of all charges. It appears to have gotten misinterpreted along the way....lol.... welcome back man....you've been missed.


-stormcentre :

Hi guys, just checking in, chiming in. Missed you! I was skimming this thread and just wanted to clear up some things: 1) Al Haymon is NOT a lawyer. He's an entrepreneur. (Bob Arum and Lou DiBella are Harvard lawyers. Haymon has a Harvard MBA.) 2) He IS licensed as a manager. LOL love the Suge Knight/Vanilla Ice reference. And I know plenty of people who do business with Al Haymon, who fight under his banner, and some signed with him that the public may not even know have turned pro. NO ONE has said a bad word about him. (And this is off the record.) Not a single one I've talked to. Even one guy (Andre Dirrell) who wished to leave him, he let go. Lucas Matthysse is another, which was mostly his manager's deal. He treats them well so if they want to leave, leave. (1 out of 200 isn't bad at all.) Sure enough, when Dirrell realized the error of his ways, Haymon took him back, no grudges. In fact, steered him directly to a title shot. Interestingly enough, I've heard quite a few hypocrites complain about him, however. This is what Oscar De La Hoya said to Editor Mike in 2010: " "
[Bob Arum and Don King] had a chokehold on this sport for 40 years" and pronounced them yesterday's news. He lauded the UFC business plan and its status as the only real player in the MMA space. "We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates."" Sucks when someone else does to you what you've been doing to others. Just food for thought.
Hey There, Isn't Haymon a law graduate? I was told and thought he was. Oh . . hold on . . just as I type someone googled it and is telling me . . . Haymon grew up in Cleveland, studied
economics at Harvard, and he also a master’s degree in business administration there too apparently. Somehow I had, convincingly, thought Haymon was a lawyer. I don't know how now - perhaps I got his qualifications mixed in/up with Lou's. Anyway, got that wrong; apologies. Thanks for clearing that up Shadow. I have seen (some of) his agreements and those explicitly reference him as an "advisor"; which can also happen if you're a licensed manager. I don't think you can actually be a ""licensed"" advisor in boxing; not sure. To your bolded comments; yes, many *people have changed their mind once they began to realise that Haymon cold threaten their business - not the other way around as the same *people may have thought. Cheers. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Watson responded...." To the death " Well that sounds respectful. Hey, the more the merrier. But to say you are taking over the sport just to feed us more garbage fights does not excite me or bring any new fans into the sport. Just because boring and overmatched fights are on TV every week isnt really a good thing. Exciting fights,spectacular knockouts, and underdogs beating the favorite sometimes,is what brings more fans into the sport.
Yep, you're right D2. Haymon's delivery of genuinely competitive fights and those that adhere to the specified (for now; see my above post 19, point 14) weight divisions has been, perhaps, an indicator of how much pressure there is on him to return the investment others have placed in him and that he has placed in fighters/others. It has also been - in some cases - a let down too. Top Rank have - at times - delivered us a consistently similar meal too. This legal battle is going to be real interesting. :) :)


-Radam G :

Thanks for making an unscheduled appearance Shadow, we've been deprivednof your keen input on matters on the businesses side of TSS. My comments about Watson saying they were prepared to take the legal fight to the death was simply a comment by Watson indicating that he believed Haymon was prepared to go all the way with their single minded effort to clear Haymon of all charges. It appears to have gotten misinterpreted along the way....lol.... welcome back man....you've been missed.
TsAH has is already wuzzying out. He does not have a management contract with any pug. He officially has an "Advisor Compensation Contract($)" in which he takes out 15 percent and give the pugs nothing but a gym to work out in. And when he gives them loans, he immediately takes it out of their purses. Once again, you should be able to find this stuff, BIG MAN! TsAH is ______ _______ ______. Holla!


-brownsugar :

TsAH has is already wuzzying out. He does not have a management contract with any pug. He officially has an "Advisor Compensation Contract($)" in which he takes out 15 percent and give the pugs nothing but a gym to work out in. And when he gives them loans, he immediately takes it out of their purses. Once again, you should be able to find this stuff, BIG MAN! TsAH is ______ _______ ______. Holla!
Whatever you say little guy.


-stormcentre :

Man . . . as these last few 6 months have shown us. There really is nothing like Mayweather, Pacquaio, Arum, and Haymon (not necessarily in that order) to polarize the opinions and emotions of boxing fans. It's fukcing nuts. With the content of this thread and also those both, suggesting Pac should fight Marquez or retire, and that which proposes that Floyd is having his last fight soon (against, of course, a bum :) ); I will be very surprised if things don't get back to MayPac melting point again - brimming/awash with the usual high intensity peaks of rainbow-variety murderous/suicidal tendencies and overtones. And whilst we are now only just edging into Top Rank V Haymon litigation matters, still to come are all the Pacquaio lawsuits that allege fraud and Floyd's domestic battery allegation courtesy of Ms. Jackson and her Aldred assisted grab for cash. This year is going to be entertaining one, even for (part time :) ) rehabilitated Meth freaks and pretend/quasi journalists like me. :) But the good news is - as a forum and website - we (usually) smash the others right out of the solar system for quality, humor, and overall fight-game experience and knowledge. As they say in Ireland and here in "Straylia" (where our Aussie intonation is not only perfect - but also the envy of the entire world) It's a *DEDW and Bob's your uncle.
->http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bob's+your+uncle *Dog eat dog world.


-brownsugar :

Man . . . as these last few 6 months have shown us. There really is nothing like Mayweather, Pacquaio, Arum, and Haymon (not necessarily in that order) to polarize the opinions and emotions of boxing fans. It's fukcing nuts. With the content of this thread and also those both, suggesting Pac should fight Marquez or retire, and that which proposes that Floyd is having his last fight soon (against, of course, a bum :) ); I will be very surprised if things don't get back to MayPac melting point again - brimming/awash with the usual high intensity peaks of rainbow-variety murderous/suicidal tendencies and overtones. And whilst we are now only just edging into Top Rank V Haymon litigation matters, still to come are all the Pacquaio lawsuits that allege fraud and Floyd's domestic battery allegation courtesy of Ms. Jackson and her Aldred assisted grab for cash. This year is going to be entertaining one, even for (part time :) ) rehabilitated Meth freaks and pretend/quasi journalists like me. :) But the good news is - as a forum and website - we (usually) smash the others right out of the solar system for quality, humor, and overall fight-game experience and knowledge. As they say in Ireland and here in "Straylia" (where our Aussie intonation is not only perfect - but also the envy of the entire world) It's a *DEDW and Bob's your uncle.
->http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bob's+your+uncle *Dog eat dog world.
Ain't that the truth!


-brownsugar :

Where is your single iota of fact. The rules that you put on other readers/posters, put them on yourself, BIG MAN! In the end, I will prove to be right , as I always do. I'm not going to even name the times. Besides, you will run like you always do. Suddenly you will develop amnesia. And tell me to pull up the Threads of your wrongs. But like always, I will not because I'm not into any gotcha and fake syet. As I have said, I'm not a TSS scribe. When the time comes, a TSS scribe will do da do. Holla!
If you'd truly read my post about Al Haymon 's accomplishment's RG you'd know that what I wrote was written almost verbatim from the Boxing Rec website. I stated names, money amounts and a time frame, so if you have evidence to the contrary let's hear it, But l will never accuse someone of criminal activity or impune the character of another person publically unless I post the reasons why. Folks like yourself .....who get on the web and make all type of accusations about people they dont know ......without even posting a reason why, and cant cite a single incident that validates the accusations I consider cowards.... but that's fine,. .....do you. Anybody can hide behind a keyboard and say whatever they want because they aren't wealthy enough to sue or important enough for the accused party to them track down... Its the blessing and the curse of the internet. ...I'm not trying to reform anybody but I will comment on gross inaccuracies from time to time when I feel like it. and you can't stop me. And yes I will hide occasionally..... I will Bob and Weave, slip and slide and vanish from the scene like a poltergeist running toward the light if I want to,... because getting in a long personal and protracted argument with someone who may have gotten their feelings hurt for whatever reason is a waste of my time. Better off to go do something productive... Also its funny that you mentioned amnesia, I think I do have it a little bit. I run into people all the time who want to do something for me because they say I loaned them a dollar or bought them a beer or helped them fix a flat tire.... I always tell them they don't owe me anything because it was forgotten by the next morning. Life is too grand to keep score or revisit non productive endeavors...and good deeds ( usually performed after a few drinks) Feel free to pull up any of my posts anytime you want because you are that "gotcha" kind of guy. I can.stand up for them all ( I think) or admit my mistake.


-Radam G :

If you'd truly read my post about Al Haymon 's accomplishment's RG you'd know that what I wrote was written almost verbatim from the Boxing Rec website. I stated names, money amounts and a time frame, so if you have evidence to the contrary let's hear it, But l will never accuse someone of criminal activity or impune the character of another person publically unless I post the reasons why. Folks like yourself .....who get on the web and make all type of accusations about people they dont know ......without even posting a reason why, and cant cite a single incident that validates the accusations I consider cowards.... but that's fine,. .....do you. Anybody can hide behind a keyboard and say whatever they want because they aren't wealthy enough to sue or important enough for the accused party to them track down... Its the blessing and the curse of the internet. ...I'm not trying to reform anybody but I will comment on gross inaccuracies from time to time when I feel like it. and you can't stop me. And yes I will hide occasionally..... I will Bob and Weave, slip and slide and vanish from the scene like a poltergeist running toward the light if I want to,... because getting in a long personal and protracted argument with someone who may have gotten their feelings hurt for whatever reason is a waste of my time. Better off to go do something productive... Also its funny that you mentioned amnesia, I think I do have it a little bit. I run into people all the time who want to do something for me because they say I loaned them a dollar or bought them a beer or helped them fix a flat tire.... I always tell them they don't owe me anything because it was forgotten by the next morning. Life is too grand to keep score or revisit non productive endeavors...and good deeds ( usually performed after a few drinks) Feel free to pull up any of my posts anytime you want because you are that "gotcha" kind of guy. I can.stand up for them all ( I think) or admit my mistake.
You can make up all the dumb syet that you want to. But when tsAH go tumbling like a weed, you will claim that you never said any of this crazy syet. You ought to quit with your long-winded bullsyetting. But you can't because it is one of your addictions. What do you see when you look in the mirror? Yourself! And you know that. So quit being personal because you don't know how to find syet. And anything that you cannot find, somebody made it up. And if you don't like somebody, it is not legit. And if it is not what you find and like from YouTube, it a POS. Trying to escape addictions with bulljiving in cyberspace is going the same way as the late, great Houdini. Your optical illusions are bunked. And a pop to the gut will get you. That is a metaphor. You always miss those. Holla!


-brownsugar :

You can make up all the dumb syet that you want to. But when tsAH go tumbling like a weed, you will claim that you never said any of this crazy syet. You ought to quit with your long-winded bullsyetting. But you can't because it is one of your addictions. What do you see when you look in the mirror? Yourself! And you know that. So quit being personal because you don't know how to find syet. And anything that you cannot find, somebody made it up. And if you don't like somebody, it is not legit. And if it is not what you find and like from YouTube, it a POS. Trying to escape addictions with bulljiving in cyberspace is going the same way as the late, great Houdini. Your optical illusions are bunked. And a pop to the gut will get you. That is a metaphor. You always miss those. Holla!
Whatever you think about me is none of my business, and its the least of my concern. Your Personal squabbles bore me.


-stormcentre :

You could patent and rent that simple and straightforward sentence/line out for various situations that life throws at you and make a fortune. :)