English Español
Advertisement
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    South Beach
    Posts
    3,599

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    While I'm not finding the case yet -- but trust me, I will -- I did stumble over some other interesting information.

    While everyone is talking about Ward, looks like something potentially HUGE has gone under the news radar.

    Top Rank, just a few days ago, filed a lawsuit against Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., claiming to have rights to him for five more fights!

    I'm going to look into that right now and write a brief news item on it.

    Dino and Mike, if no one has written about this, feel free to take it and throw it on main page. I'll have it done in a few for TSS Universe in a few minutes.

    As far as Ward is concerned, here's a link for you to look at the one filed in April against Goossen: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dy18vfabg...%20lawsuit.pdf

  2. #22
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    While I'm not finding the case yet -- but trust me, I will -- I did stumble over some other interesting information.

    While everyone is talking about Ward, looks like something potentially HUGE has gone under the news radar.

    Top Rank, just a few days ago, filed a lawsuit against Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., claiming to have rights to him for five more fights!

    I'm going to look into that right now and write a brief news item on it.

    Dino and Mike, if no one has written about this, feel free to take it and throw it on main page. I'll have it done in a few for TSS Universe in a few minutes.

    As far as Ward is concerned, here's a link for you to look at the one filed in April against Goossen: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dy18vfabg...%20lawsuit.pdf
    Yes, I had wondered what was going on with him.

    Chavez Jr. has seemed rather unjustifiably difficult to work with at the moment.

    (Oh did I mention he is lazy and in my opinion commercially pretenscious; which is never a good mix of characteristics in boxing, particularly when your obligated to fight whom those you may have pi$$ed off arrange).

    And, most fighters (or people for that matter) - even if they are not contractually obliged to Bob or Top Rank - let alone if they are contractually obliged - that pi$$ Bob off usually end up having their azzes kicked pretty hard in either the legal, financial, boxing-progress, or all; stakes.

    I refer to my earlier post in this thread about Ward and Goosen, and consider the fact that now - with his new alliance to Golden Boy and therefore indirectly Canelo - Bob perhaps doesn't value Chavez' (Mexican) stock.

    And let's face it, despite how durable he is, Chavez Jr. is hardly a carbon copy of his father and ready to fight any and everyone; despite how marketable he may be.

    Personally, I don't think Chavez Jr. wants to be in the ring and a fighter anymore.

    But, like most, he loves the money, fame, attention, and women, and of course winning - which I don't think he's confident of being able to continuously do in a legitimate sense.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    South Beach
    Posts
    3,599

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcentre View Post
    Yes, I had wondered what was going on with him.

    Chavez Jr. has seemed rather unjustifiably difficult to work with at the moment.

    (Oh did I mention he is lazy and in my opinion commercially pretenscious; which is never a good mix of characteristics in boxing, particularly when your obligated to fight whom those you may have pi$$ed off arrange).

    And, most fighters (or people for that matter) - even if they are not contractually obliged to Bob or Top Rank - let alone if they are contractually obliged - that pi$$ Bob off usually end up having their azzes kicked pretty hard in either the legal, financial, boxing-progress, or all; stakes.

    I refer to my earlier post in this thread about Ward and Goosen, and consider the fact that now - with his new alliance to Golden Boy and therefore indirectly Canelo - Bob perhaps doesn't value Chavez' (Mexican) stock.

    And let's face it, despite how durable he is, Chavez Jr. is hardly a carbon copy of his father and ready to fight any and everyone; despite how marketable he may be.

    Personally, I don't think Chavez Jr. wants to be in the ring and a fighter anymore.

    But, like most, he loves the money, fame, attention, and women, and of course winning - which I don't think he's confident of being able to continuously do in a legitimate sense.
    Spot on. As usual. But at the same time, Arum knows Chavez is a golden ticket. And who the heck knows what will happen with Canelo when his old promoters finally get Golden Boy in court in a few months?

    Check out my report, I just posted it. I didn't get all the legal documents; I didn't want to pay $35 for it. The info I had was enough.

    It's a pretty big document but if they want to run it and people want to read it, I'll get it.

  4. #24
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    I am analysing the previous claim (you provided) and will provide an easy-to-interpret legal breakdown of each parties position and chances of success soon; so we know where it is all going and so we also have a foundation to understand both the impact of and the recent lawsuit itself that Goosen has filed.

    More to ensue.

  5. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post

    It's a pretty big document but if they want to run it and people want to read it, I'll get it.
    Yes please Shadow – provided you’re not putting yourself out.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    South Beach
    Posts
    3,599

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by stormcentre View Post
    I am analysing the previous claim (you provided) and will provide an easy-to-interpret legal breakdown of each parties position and chances of success soon; so we know where it is all going and so we also have a foundation to understand both the impact of and the recent lawsuit itself that Goosen has filed.

    More to ensue.
    Looking forward to reading it. Are you in the law business too?

  7. #27
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
    Looking forward to reading it. Are you in the law business too?
    Not really . . . but I have had a few work for me and directed a team of them before.

    Anyway, here it is.

    Basically, according to Ward, it seems he believes that the promotional contract between himself and Goosen – because that contract exceeds 7 years and therefore violates the Labor code 2855 – whether it be by way of contract-extension (that the contract itself actually provides for) resulting from Ward’s injuries, inabilities, unwillingness or other; is not valid in terms of the applicable laws.

    Goosen appears to claim that the promotional contract between himself and Ward doesn’t exceed 7 years, and that because Ward himself has benefitted from the agreement and has also exercised his rights detailed within the promotional contract, previously and without regard to the now claimed invalidity of the contract; the contract must therefore be valid - even in Ward’s mind.

    An unmistakable implication of Goosen Tutor Promotions (GTP) is that Ward has benefitted from the promotional contract and exercised it – but as soon as he realized he may be worth and/or able to acquire more he sought to frustrate and/or nullify the agreement on the basis it violates the above-mentioned Labor code.

    From the arbitration’s findings and the provided evidence from all parties, it’s not in dispute that Ward seeks to nullify the agreement between him and GTP on the basis that it violates the above-mentioned Labor code; just as much as it is (currently) not in dispute that Ward has also not proven how the promotional contract between them does violate Labor code 2855.


    The commission or any other body, except for a superior or other suitably qualified Californian court really can - from what I understand - only rule on the contents of the promotional contract- not necessarily whether the promotional contract complies with the wider set of contractual and other laws.

    And in that sense this is their limitation.

    It’s a limitation that Ward understands, relies on, and vehemently details by way of claiming that no matter how the promotional contract has been – in Gossen’s or the commission’s interpretation – extended in accordance with clauses within the promotional contract itself; the contract itself is still invalid in law due to the above and other related factors.

    It’s an interesting point, because – if Ward has been contractually obliged to Goosen Tutor Promotions for a period of longer than 7 years – it doesn’t appear immediately obvious - from any of the timeframes associated with the promotional contract in question that Ward has requested both the commission and LA superior court to nullify – that the promotional contract in question extends beyond 7 years; with or without any extension that has been applied for reasons detailed below.

    Apparently, in 2013 GTP requested the promotional contract (in question and dated {*but not legally brought into effect on} 6 April 2011) be extended by 16 months.

    This GTP request came about by way of provisions within the promotional contract itself that explicitly provide for such action; as a result of Ward’s claimed disability associated with his shoulder injury/surgery and/or his later perceived or otherwise unwillingness to progress with a Kessler fight opportunity GTP arranged for him.

    In my opinion, this is no doubt why the fight is now being discussed as it is not only at the heart of any loss mitigation – but also a good indication of how the parties have responded to the law in general and also their obligations to the agreement in question; regardless of any of their interpretations and/or expectation of it.

    Additionally, it appears that Ward, starting in September 8th 2012*, brought the promotional agreement in question into effect by participating in his first bout after the Showtime super six tournament.

    In doing so he brought into effect what was not the first contractual agreement between himself and GTP; as he previously had signed a multi-fight contract with GTP in 2009.

    That previous multi-fight contract with GTP that seems to have commenced in 2009 actually preceded the above-mentioned and separate promotional agreement brought into effect on September 8th 2012 (as a result of Ward’s first bout after the Showtime super six tournament), had expired for approximately 9 months before the above-mentioned promotional agreement (that’s now in question) was brought into effect on September 8th 2012.

    Furthermore, the above-mentioned previous 2009 agreement that preceded the promotional agreement brought into effect on September 8th 2012; was between Andre Ward, James Prince and GTP.

    The above-mentioned previous 2009 agreement was not only a multi-fight contract/deal - it also referenced a contractual year as starting and finishing from/to September the 8th of the given years.

    So on the (perhaps misleading) face of it some of the issues “seem” to be;

    a) Does Ward’s previous invocation of his rights – as per the promotional contract that Ward claims is invalid – serve to nullify his current legal concerns, including those pertaining to the promotional contract being invalid.

    In other words if the contract is invalid in Ward’s mind, then why did Ward himself exercise his rights with it, call for it to be arbitrated (when his claim asserts that the commission can’t rule over it) and benefit from it?

    These potential conflicts and legal curiosities are highlighted by GTP and as such will probably serve them well for reasons I will detail later in this post.

    b) Does the arbitrator and/or commission really have the jurisdiction, power or authority to legally rule over a matter that may normally be reserved for superior courts?

    Such as whether the 7-year limitation term that pertains to Labor code 2855, which limits personal service contracts to no more than 7 years; applies to Ward’s case to the extent that he is removed from his contractual obligations to GTP.

    c) Do the group of contracts Ward claims that have and/or currently exist between himself, Prince and GTP constitute a consistent and legally singular promotional and/or personal service contract?

    Substantiating that it does (even though it appears Ward has not yet done that) appears to be the only way Ward can substantiate he has been contracted to GTP for a period of more than 7 years.

    d) Is the GTP proposed 16-month (or the commission’s resulting 14-month) extension of the existing promotional contract (that Ward questions and claims is invalid) fair for both the originally intended purposes of the contract and also the conditions amongst which the extension has actually originated; regardless of whether or not the promotional contract itself is valid?

    Some of Ward’s alleged refusal to accept these findings/rulings (that now push the expiry date of his contractual obligations to GTP right out to November 2016) appear to have originated from his genuine shoulder injury requiring surgery that initially occurred in 2012.

    Some of Ward’s other alleged refusals to accept these findings/rulings relate to his claim that - if any extension is valid in law – only 6 months should apply; as Ward was medically cleared within 6 months.

    Obviously this doesn’t mean Ward was ready to earn money (for him or GTP) and fight, then.



    Other considerations are that as a result of the above-mentioned injury/surgery Ward also brought about not only the cancellation of the proposed Kelly Pavlik fight – but apparently he also invoked an arbitration clause in the contract seeking to nullify the agreement with GTP on the basis that it was in contravention to the above-mentioned Labor code 2855; that apparently states words to the effect along the lines of . . . that personal services and other similar contracts must not exceed 7 years.

    However by the time Ward invoked the above-mentioned arbitration clause within the promotional contract and sought to nullify the agreement with GTP on the basis that it was in contravention to the above-mentioned Labor code – effectively claiming the combined terms of the above-mentioned agreements should be treated as one and exceeded 7 years – he had not only financially benefitted from the promotional contract with GTP – but he had also exercised rights within it – rights that (according to the commission and GTP) have implications for whether any arbitration finding in relation to the promotional contract with GTP can be circumvented on the basis that (as Ward now asserts) arbitration and/or the commission is not suitably qualified to rule over the promotional contract between GTP and Ward.

    Naturally, and perhaps not unreasonably, Ward only sought to exercise the right to deem any commission finding invalid if the finding didn’t suit him; hence his application to the LA superior court to both invalidate the promotional contract between him and GTP and overrule the commission’s findings and orders.

    In tandem with Ward invoking the above-mentioned arbitration clause within the promotional contract between him and GTP, and perhaps as an indication of how confident he was with these actions; Ward seems to have also at the same time – quite vehemently - sought to remove Goosen from discussing and/or representing him to HBO.

    This, in turn, then caused a series of other delays and a knock on effect with his career; as HBO stood back to let the legal dust between GTP and Ward settle.

    This and the fact that the commissions’ arbitration that Ward effectively invoked (by way of the promotional contract in question) eventually ruled in GTP’s favor – effectively (as far as the commission was concerned) allowing GTP to represent Ward to HBO and also act in Ward’s best interests (which was precisely what Ward didn’t want); in turn then threw a spanner in the works for Ward’s desired outcome with these actions, including his intention to free himself of the promotional contract between him and GTP.

    You can see how this got ugly quickly.

    As it no doubt all happened as it became obvious to the public that Mayweather was to retire in a few years, and that his void could be filled by Ward – just as much as the same earnings could be potentially be accessed by another suitably skilled operator.

    Ward eventually recovered from his shoulder surgery with the intention of meeting his contractual obligations, and in doing so he requested a tune up fight. The problem was that HBO were not prepared to buy such a fight and therefore Ward’s purse demands became an issue, concern and another area of frustration for all parties.

    This is said to have, in addition to those associated with Ward’s shoulder injury, introduced yet more unforeseen delays to the promotional contract – a point that would later come into play with arbitration.

    The resolution to the unforeseen delays pertaining to Ward’s request for a well paid tune up fight was claimed to be Edwin Rodriguez.

    However, that too presented another issue.

    As, Rodriguez was not available until November 16, 2013.

    Therefore, according to GTP, Ward’s injury, surgery and insistence on a tune up fight that HBO was not prepared to buy, all conspired to hold Andre’s career back in a way that GTP are not responsible for.

    And, so it is claimed, the lost time spanned a year; between the Novembers of 2012 and 2013.

    All these points were of interest to the commission – just as much as they didn’t (or haven’t yet) served Ward’s interests and arbitration actions.

    Of interest also is the fact that Ward also received $100K as a result of Edwin Rodriguez being overweight – yet another benefit of the promotional contract Ward claims is invalid.

    It’s perhaps worthwhile to consider that the commission – as Ward points out – may actually not the correct authority to rule over the matter due to the fact that the Labor code in question is superior to the contract in question and therefore a matter for a court of law.

    However, this doesn’t mean the commission have got their findings and/or decision right - or wrong for that matter.

    In other words a superior court may arrive at the same conclusion, and based on the provided information I will be surprised if they arrive at one that’s remarkably different to the commission.


    The entire matter – as I understand it – pivots on whether Ward can substantiate if the series of contracts and agreements that have been in place and involved, at least, he and GTP can really be considered to constitute a personal services contract that exceeds 7 years; when - according to the listed evidence that is not in dispute – the contracts in question involved different parties and different circumstances.

    In essence Ward appears to have been tied to GTP for more than 7 years by way of more than 1 contract and he wishes (and, to be successful with his actions, needs) a suitable authority to allow him to combine these agreements so they represent the practical situation he has been in; so that he can then claim the Labor code 2855 is in effect and move to nullify his contract/obligations to GTP.

    Unless we’re missing something big on this issue; talk about long shot.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love Ward and his work, and I believe GTP are also cool.

    But it’s hard to see where GTP have erred or done wrong here; based on my analysis and the information I have.

    Ward’s frustration with the situation, commission and mostly GTP appears to have finally led to him filing a lawsuit in December 2013 at the LA superior court.

    That lawsuit is said to request the LA superior court to do what GTP, arbitration and the commission would not do – deem the promotional contract between him and GTP null and/or invalid.

    Apparently - as it now stands - this matter has not yet been heard by the LA superior court.



    Back to the (perhaps misleading) face of some of the issues and what they “seem” to be;

    e) If the promotional contract is deemed invalid, is the entire promotional contract invalid? Or, only parts thereof?

    And how has either parties’ actions whilst the dispute has taken place impacted this?

    f) There seems to be no harm – at least from the commission’s perspective – of ruling on the promotional contract.

    Furthermore, there seems to be some strategy involved in, at least, assuming they can – as by doing so Ward gets to see what GTP cards are. However, this strategy may be the reason why GTP have now released a $10M lawsuit for damages against Ward.

    g) Continuity of contract(s) and whether each individual contract and/or agreement references and/or legally relates and represents one contiguous and continuous personal service contract; as Ward appears to require them to do so?

    h) Ward’s ability to demonstrate that he has mitigated losses may also be in question.

    As whilst GTP claim and appear to have offered Ward fight-assignments; Ward, for reasons that may be legitimate - either partly or wholly – for now appears to have been either uncooperative and/or rejected the concept on the basis that he has been in contract with GTP for more than 7 years and therefore he is not obligated to do so.

    For example, in early 2014, despite GTP receiving Ward’s LA superior court lawsuit only a few months earlier; GTP - acting in good faith - arranged for Ward to fight Kessler after being advised that Ward was willing and/or interested in the fight.

    According to history and evidence Ward didn’t fight Kessler as a result of this opportunity, and was possibly – in conjunction with Prince – noticeably uncooperative.

    As a result the Kessler fight was not accepted, as it appears Ward was steadfast in his belief that the promotional contract with GTP was void and not legally in effect.

    If nothing else – as I am sure he knows – this provides GTP with the ability to demonstrate his good faith and interests pertaining to mitigating losses, just as much as it possibly demonstrates Ward’s failure to mitigate losses.

    The point here is that it is not always a good thing to assume you are right when you litigate - to such an extent that you disregard obligations that you have, particularly those that you may legally have regardless of any court’s ruling; such as the obligation to mitigate losses, act in spirit of the contract and in good faith.

    Furthermore, and needless to say, when parties know they have a legal dispute, all parties still have an obligation to act in the spirit of the agreement, in good faith and to also mitigate losses.

    Otherwise, there potentially becomes financial and other incentives associated with frustrating contracts and/or experiencing losses.

    I am not saying Ward has not complied with his responsibilities to act in the spirit of the agreement, in good faith and to also mitigate losses, but from the provided information I also can’t easily see where Ward has explicitly set out to comply with these obligations and/or mitigate losses.

    That said, Ward (at least at this stage) doesn’t appear to be seeking damages either – GTP have now done that though with their recent $10M lawsuit against Ward.

    Back to the (perhaps misleading) face of some of the issues and what they “seem” to be;

    i) Because Ward is said to have previously exercised his rights - detailed within the promotional contract itself that he claims is invalid - with the same arbitrator and also seemingly without regard to the, now claimed, invalidity of the contract; GTP (and the commission) alleges that (even aside from the fact that Ward has benefitted from it) the contract must therefore be valid - even in Ward’s mind.

    Not in the least because – according to GTP – during prior to above-mentioned arbitration hearing brought about by Ward invoking the arbitration clause within the promotional contract between himself and GTP; in an effort to nullify the agreement with GTP on the basis that it was in contravention to the above-mentioned Labor code 2855; Ward actually exercised his rights within the same promotional agreement before the same arbitrator and in doing so he (allegedly) failed to raise the subject of the promotional contract being void due to the fact that it violated Labor code 2855.

    This becomes significant for reasons I detail later.

    As with most countries and states (of which the USA is no exception) when it comes to litigation the burden of proof usually falls on the shoulders of applicant, complainant, appellant, and person bringing the matter forward.

    In that sense, so far, Ward appears to have offered no substantial evidence, precedence or reason why his contractual relationship with GTP - which is reflected across several separate agreements – should be combined and considered as one so that Labor code 2855 can apply; as he expects.

    Additionally, and as stated above, there appears to be an absence of any indication that Ward has meaningfully attempted to mitigate his or GTP’s losses – in equal proportion to his claimed uncooperative actions that themselves possibly provide GTP with the ability to portray Ward as both arrogant and in breach of contract.

    Not in the least, as from the provided information, it appears that Ward has acted as if his desired outcome and the decision he seeks from the LA superior court, has actually been achieved.

    And in doing so it is clear that those actions represent a loss to GTP – just as much as a court may not find them to be of good faith.

    Of interest also is the fact that Ward has extensively benefitted - to the tune of more than 3 Million dollars - from the agreement he seeks to invalidate and claims was and is invalid.

    I can just imagine a suitably sarcastic judge issuing a throw away line to the effect that if someone can benefit from an invalid contract to the tune of more than $3 Million dollars, then they have no problem and the only issue is explaining how the contract could be invalid when it made you a Millionaire!

    Of interest also is the fact that Ward also received more than a half Million dollars as a signing bonus.

    Additionally, the same promotional agreement is said to have been negotiated by each parties’ attorneys, signed by all parties, and also approved by the commission.

    So much for a seriously invalid contract.

    In this sense, it seems the promotional agreement has well and truly been in effect and has significantly served Ward’s interests.

    However, from the evidence, it also seems - or (perhaps more importantly) at least can be relatively easily portrayed by GTP – that, after benefitting from the agreement, as soon as Ward wanted out (or perhaps when he learned that he could possibly be the next Mayweather) he then chose to take notice of a perceived (but unproven) limitation with the agreement that itself requires other contracts between him and GTP to be combined with the one in question in order for Ward’s interests in nullifying the agreement to be legally upheld; and then acted as if the perceived limitation existed regardless of the other party and/or any other legal obligations he may have had.

    One of the more significant driving thrusts behind having timeframe limitations associated with promotional and personal services agreements is not just to protect fighters and the public, but also so that all parties can periodically and meaningfully both assess and control their careers and interests; that the contract has been brought into effect to serve and benefit.

    The law usually works along the lines that . . . if the terms of the existing agreement are still beneficial to all involved parties at the time the contract expires, then the contract will be renewed.

    Conversely, if that is not the case, such limitations and indeed the Labor code 2855 itself serves as a mechanism to safeguard from any circumstance or situation that may arise from the initial agreement not foreseeing and/or considering future issues, concerns, value, revenue and any other matter that may benefit the parties and/or serve their needs; that was not considered at the time the original contract was brought into effect

    A test for this, and if/how it applies to Ward; may be whether Ward, within 7 years, has been prevented from renegotiation and/or being party to designing a promotional contract that best considers his interests in the most complete manner.

    On that matter and an assessment of the face value matters, it appears that is not the case.

    As one cornerstone of Ward’s action appears to explicitly require the multiple contracts between him and GTP – which themselves seem to serve as illuminated signposts as to where Ward has had the opportunity to leave and/or negotiate – to be combined and considered as one; when in fact not only are they separate - but (according to the relevant commission) Ward has (to date) not even tried to substantiate how they are all as one.

    Perhaps this substantiation will happen in the LA superior court. Who knows?

    However, for the time being it appears the substantiation of this important matter has not happened.

    Whether or not the lack of substantiation to the commission is itself a strategic move on Ward’s part, so GTP aren't armed with information and don’t know how Ward and his counsel will attack the matter of convincing a LA superior court that separate contracts between the same or similar parties are (effectively) the same as one continuous contract between them for the intended purposes; only time will tell.

    And yet another hurdle for Ward is the fact that – as mentioned above and by GTP in arbitration – he has not only previously participated in arbitration – but requested it and failed to advised the commission that he believes his promotional contract with GTP is invalid due to the Labor code 2855.

    The implication - whether it is true or not - is that it then suited Ward to keep the contract alive.

    This is (and has been) a problem for him.

    As apparently California law states that if a party to a contract believes that their entire contract – or the provision within it that provides for arbitration – is invalid; then they “must” announce this and/or oppose arbitration on that basis before participating; or forfeit the claim.

    Ward did not do this when he first requested arbitration, but I assume he will (in the LA superior court) argue that at that stage he either wasn’t aware of the application of the 7-year limitation and/or that it didn’t apply then.

    Or that it was only brought into effect by GTP’s actions pertaining to above-mentioned 14-month extension of the promotional contract in question.

    Either way – particularly considering it’s not in dispute that attorneys were hired by both parties to design and oversee the promotional contract’s execution - it’s most likely going to be the court’s view that it is Ward’s responsibility to know of any possible application of the 7-year limitation and/or whether it applies to his circumstances and promotional contract; even if they don’t pass judgment on how Ward seems to have both looked past the claimed violation of Labor code 2855 and then reverted back to it, when suits.

    As Ward himself, after benefitting from the promotional contract, originally brought the action forward to GTP, and as such Ward’s apparent failure to announce, as he brought the action forward, that he believes that the entire promotional contract between him and GTP – or the provision within it that provides for arbitration – is invalid; represents another legal hurdle for Ward.

    Just as much as expecting the superior court to return a decision that directly conflicts with previous commission’s decisions to find that Ward forfeited his claim by way of the above-mentioned means; does.

    It seems Ward had an obligation to notify the commission that he believed the promotional contract between him and GTP was invalid, if in fact he expected them to act as if it was and also refer to matter to a superior court.

    It also seems that since Ward didn’t do this – if that claim is true – Ward has then forfeited his right to claim that his contract is invalid and that the arbitration’s rulings, particularly those he takes exception to, are illegal - due to the (assumed) fact that the commission can’t rule on such matters.

    Adding to Ward’s problems is the fact that Ward explicitly stated in his arbitration request that, in the alternative, that is of the promotional contract was deemed valid – which the commission found it was – then the commission themselves should determine how long the promotional contract should be extended for, as a result of Ward’s shoulder injury and subsequent layoff.

    And this is precisely what they did.

    So on one hand Ward accepts that they can make such decisions - but then on the other (when it appears to not suit) it is as if he then doesn’t accept it and challenges it; which I suppose is his legal right.

    However, in doing as above-mentioned the commission also found that despite the fact that Ward offered tangible and medical proof that he was only incapacitated for 6 months (Ward’s reasoning to only add 6 months to the contract by way of the above-mentioned contractual provision that allows for such), they also found that in Ward - after announcing he was ready to go back to work - demanding a tune up fight that could not be reasonably delivered within the available timeframes, or in the required shape or financial form; Ward further contributed to the 1 year delay that resulted from these and the surrounding actions pertaining to his shoulder injury.

    Resulting from that was the commission’s decision to extend Ward’s promotional contract with GTP by 1 year, and not the 6 months Ward stipulated should apply if the promotional contract is deemed valid.

    Finally, on the matter of the promotional contract extension(s), GTP argued that since Ward filed his lawsuit in the LA superior court he has been uncooperative; citing the rejected Kessler fight.

    In light of this GTP successfully requested an additional 4 months be added to the promotional contract; resulting in the commission approving a 16-month extension to Ward’s promotional contract with GTP.

    However, despite this only 14 months in total was added, as the commission also considered that Ward’s recovery-training and preparation for Rodriguez should count as time recognized by the promotional contract; in this sense they considered 2 months “credit” appropriate – effectively taking 2 months off of the above-mentioned 16.

    This means that Ward’s promotional contract with GTP, which commenced on September 8th 2012 and was set to expire on September 8th 2015 (a 3 year contract); would now expire on November 8th 2016 – which still – in elapsed time – doesn’t exceed 7 years.

    In fact, even if one uses the earlier date of 6th April 2011 (when the promotional contract is dated; despite it only being considered to be brought into effect when Ward had his first fight after the Super six tournament) Ward’s promotional contract still doesn’t seem to extend beyond 7 years.

    Perhaps there is more to this.

    But, as it stands now and as I understand it, it will not be hard for GTP to portray Ward as the party that is; greedy, in breach, uncooperative, disinterested in mitigating losses and/or respecting due process.

    That doesn’t mean he is.

    But if there is evidence to suggest that Ward has not been looked after here and that his promotional contract is invalid due to the above-mentioned factors; I can’t find the evidence to support his claim in the provided filed lawsuit.

    I think this clears up why Ward may be going back to work and, at least seemingly, appearing to mitigate losses.

    I love Ward as a fighter, so I hope he moves through this as unscathed as possible.

    Anyway, let’s see what the GTP recently filed $10M lawsuit says.

  8. #28
    Advanced Users
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    10,233

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    I'm going with the "...illuminated signposts..." to a SOG winning this whole d@mn thang [$¡¢]. California law is weird, but will favor the money bringing-in boss bringing in more dinero. SOG made dat dough. The GTP got paid its share. Now whatever way, SOG goes, GTP shouldn't care. Being controlling and greedy arses, is what the crooks of GTP dare. And in the end, they will get nowhere.

    Without telling my business, I've being in similar shoes as SOG. And "The Funky Filipino" WON! SOG will also win. These double-talking, greedy SOBs always lose. And keep quiet about it.

    If GTP were winning, it wouldn't filed a $10mil lawsuit. The lawsuit is just a delay tactic. And to puck with the deciding judge. And he may just penalize GTP for being SOS -- stuck on stupid! Holla!

  9. #29
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,525

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    OK Men.

    When did Goossen-Tutor Promotions become just Goossen Promotions?

    And a better question still, why?

  10. #30
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,281

    Re: Goosen files 10 million dollar defamation suit against Ward

    Quote Originally Posted by dino da vinci View Post
    OK Men.

    When did Goossen-Tutor Promotions become just Goossen Promotions?

    And a better question still, why?
    Not sure Dino, but the arbitrated matter in relation to Ward's request to nullify his promotional contract with Goosen defines (by way of Goosen's attorney) Goosen as Goosen Tutor Promotions.

    So, if GTP changed to GP it must have happened after that, and perhaps to limit damages - if that's your inference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •