BoxRec

fergusg wrote: I'll ask you the same question again, what has Al Haymon done that is really so bad... or much worse than the likes of Don King or Bob Arum?

OK, let's compare apples to apples. Arum was arranging Chavez vs Golovkin fight. Then Chavez realized that he would get his a$$ badly kicked and ran to Haymon. Who is he going to fight ? Fonfara !!!

As somebody already mentioned, if King was managing Mayweather, then the Pacquiao fight would have happened 5 years ago.

ikorolev wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Haymon is WAY worse than other promoters.

Al isn't a promoter so no clue why you are comparing him to "other promoters".

Haymon dictates who fights who to promoters he works with, so comparing him to promoters as a person who matches fighters is fair.

Thats what you're supposed to do ffs as a manager/"advisor".

"Hey Mr. Promoter, can I get my guy on your card?....Cool, nice.....Can I get him fighting Bummy "The Homeless Beggar" McGee....nice, I'll talk to my guy & we'll got the contracts all signed up".

As the promoter you can always say nah I'll pass. If he's throwing the promoter money to put on bs fights that no one wants to see & they can't get viewers or sell seats its a situation that works itself out & he goes out of business. The fact that Al hasn't parlayed this situation into bankruptcy & has parlayed it into boxing telecasts on CBS, CBS Sports, Spike & soon it would sound like ESPN & potentially Telemundo & maybe even BET suggests he's doing quite mfing well.

ikorolev wrote:

fergusg wrote: I'll ask you the same question again, what has Al Haymon done that is really so bad... or much worse than the likes of Don King or Bob Arum?

OK, let's compare apples to apples. Arum was arranging Chavez vs Golovkin fight. Then Chavez realized that he would get his a$$ badly kicked and ran to Haymon. Who is he going to fight ? Fonfara !!!

As somebody already mentioned, if King was managing Mayweather, then the Pacquiao fight would have happened 5 years ago.

If Floyd was with Don or Bob he'd be needing people to buy him sh!t in the mall by now instead of paying for random peoples crap.

And bruh get it right. Ferg brokedown what really happened. You can't use incomplete info to make your point & not get called on it. At least be intellectually honest about the complete situation & don't cherry pick facts.

The situation isn't much different from the Floyd vs Antonio Margarito situation from years ago. Floyd woulda made $8M for fighting him, but he'd have to re-sign with Bob. He wanted to do something without Bob, he took his out. And got paid $8M for fighting Carlos Baldomir & got the fight Bob told him was silly/impossible/whatever vs Oscar that made Floyd who he is today. If that doesn't tell you Bob is lowballing guys & short selling mfers idk what does. If you are being intellectually dishonest you could just say "Floyd scared". That ain't the full story though & the people with 2 brain cells to rub together know it.

This is the getting hit in the head business. People get f#cked up all the time. Go watch a video of Magomed or Gerald McClellan or go visit Randie Carver's or Emiliano Valdez's graves or go talk to Meldrick Taylor. If you aren't paying fighters what their worth, then go f#ck yourself imho. This is not a noble or mythical sport. People get f#cked up from lost memories 20 years later to severely changing ones life to death. Pay them for it.

Yes, King and Arum are greedy mfers, but they make/made more interesting fights than Haymon.

Yes, boxing is a cruel dangerous sport/work, but it is what it is and we don't want it to be a theater like WWE or one-sided execution show.

ikorolev wrote:Yes, King and Arum are greedy mfers, but they make/made more interesting fights than Haymon.

Again this is like saying Mario Andretti is a better race car driver than Bill Gates. It doesn't mean anything. King & Arum are PROMOTERS. Haymon is an ADVISOR (although to me he's a MANAGER more than anything). These are two different types of jobs in the boxing world. They have different goals.

Once Richard plays out the rest of his non-compete clause Al might be the president of some sort of PBC promotional outfit, but til that happens he isn't a promoter so you comparing him to one just seems silly.

fergusg wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Yes, King and Arum are greedy mfers, but they make/made more interesting fights than Haymon.

Again this is like saying Mario Andretti is a better race car driver than Bill Gates. It doesn't mean anything. King & Arum are PROMOTERS. Haymon is an ADVISOR (although to me he's a MANAGER more than anything). These are two different types of jobs in the boxing world. They have different goals.

Once Richard plays out the rest of his non-compete clause Al might be the president of some sort of PBC promotional outfit, but til that happens he isn't a promoter so you comparing him to one just seems silly.

Main Events (Kathy Duva) and Bad Dog Productions recently filed a lawsuit that alleged that Haymon is operating as a manager and promoter in violation of the federal Muhammad Ali Act.

Thomas Hauser alleges that Al Haymon always "controls" the promoters that he uses to promote the events of his fighters.

http://www.BS.com/what-al-haym ... ing--79627

Part of the reason why Haymon gets away with his dodgy shenanigans, is that the promoters and fighters he works with are usually well-paid for their services.

So technically-speaking, Al Haymon is neither a manager nor a promoter, which makes it very difficult to prove that his actions contravene the rules stated in the federal Muhammad Ali Act, which is compounded by the fact that the people he works with never seem to complain or raise lawsuits of their own.

Technically speaking thats all speculation.

From my understanding part of a manager or advisors job is to get their client the best fight possible for what they (the fighter, the manager, the team basically) wanna accomplish. The promoter always has the ability to turn down a fight. The manager always has the ability to walk away or go to other promoters (well outside of promotional deals a fighter may or may not have) if they don't like the promoters offer. And I believe its not against the Muhammad Ali act to pay your clients opponents purse to take some strain off the promoter if its kinda a bs fight the promoter isn't excited about or to pay both purses to really take the pain off of the promoter. If Al is doing that. And that isn't illegal via the Muhammad Ali act. And other cats are doing it. What exactly is Al doing that makes him both a promoter & a manager in anyway different from what other people are doing or could be doing?

Edit: Alright actually was super curious & the Muhammad Ali act don't even make no damn sense in regards to promoters/managers.

‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for--

‘(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

‘(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1)--

‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and

‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing match of 10 rounds or more.

This is part of section 5 of the MAA. First off wtf does "In General" mean lol. So sorta kinda you can or can't do this. "Just you know in general sorta you know watch it...yea basically watch it."

And it also sounds like if you are fighting under 10 rounds its game on anyway lol.

It sounds like a promoter CAN'T make moves on a manager, but a manager can make moves on a promoter so if you pay purses on behalf of your fighters than they'll throw on whatever fight cuz its cutting their expenses down.

fergusg wrote:@ReggieDiggs - The filing of the lawsuits aren’t speculation

Captain obvious over here lol. Yea I didn't mean the lawsuit. I mean the claims in said lawsuit.

ReggieDiggs wrote:King & Arum are PROMOTERS. Haymon is an ADVISOR (although to me he's a MANAGER more than anything). These are two different types of jobs in the boxing world. They have different goals.

You have to admit Heymon is blurring the lines. It is not normal for a manager to directly negotiate with TV outlets. His PBC brand is not technically a promotion but it will effectively be subcontracting to licensed promoters, so for all intents and purposes he is running a promotion.

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

This in particular doesn't even seem possible to me. As a manager you get a % of your clients purse (at least in every contract I've heard about managers fees in). Thus you obviously have a financial interest in your clients promotion. Right? Am I missing something here?

fergusg wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:

fergusg wrote:@ReggieDiggs - The filing of the lawsuits aren’t speculation

Captain obvious over here lol. Yea I didn't mean the lawsuit. I mean the claims in said lawsuit.

Therein lies the problem! Whilst I always assume innocence until proven guilty, Main Events would have had to supply evidence and legal justification to warrant their lawsuit against Haymon.

I personally don’t have much of a problem with powerful figures breaching the Muhammad Ali act, since many of them work with promoters, managers and fighters that they can control anyway. So the intention of the act and possible consequences of breaching this rule is bypassed due to technicalities

If Haymon really is guilty of operating as a promoter and a manager, it’s hard to envisage that Bob Arum & Don King hasn’t broken the very same rules at some point in time.

What section of the MAA is anyone here or any lawsuit suggesting Al is breaking?

ikorolev wrote:Just look at Wilder's career. There is nothing even coming close to that. Garcia vs Salka will forever be an example of the most horrible matching.

See the careers of Julio Cesar Chavez Jr and Canelo Alvarez up to their first title opportunities ... also note who those opportunities were against.

You don't remember any mismatches on HBO or SHO that was as bad as Garcia/Salka? How long have you been watching boxing?

You, like a bunch of other people, have some particular bias against Haymon. You can't explain it because it stems from the most foolish part of your reasoning.
So keep bitching about Gacia/Salka ... I'm getting ready to watch Garcia/Peterson on NBC.

ReggieDiggs wrote:This is part of section 5 of the MAA. First off wtf does "In General" mean lol. So sorta kinda you can or can't do this. "Just you know in general sorta you know watch it...yea basically watch it."

"in general" only means that there can be exceptions, which are specifically itemized in the same quote

ReggieDiggs wrote:

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

This in particular doesn't even seem possible to me. As a manager you get a % of your clients purse (at least in every contract I've heard about managers fees in). Thus you obviously have a financial interest in your clients promotion. Right? Am I missing something here?

as far as the manager v promoter stuff, they both have to be licensed to do what they do by law.
it's actually criminal to act as a boxing manager or promoter without a license and the penalties
include fines and jail. the terms you are using are defined by law in the legal descriptions of
managers and promoters by statute. for example, here in florida:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2 ... ter548/All
"548.002 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
(13) “Manager” means any person who, directly or indirectly, controls or administers the boxing, kickboxing, or mixed martial arts affairs of any participant."
"548.017 Participants, managers, and other persons required to have licenses."
"The Florida State Boxing Commission, as created by subsection (1), shall administer the provisions of this chapter. The commission has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter and to implement each of the duties and responsibilities conferred upon the commission, including, but not limited to:
(d) Requirements relating to a manager’s participation, presence, and conduct during a match."

basically if you represent a boxer in the business of boxing you need a manager's license.
al haymon has a manager's license.
al haymon is a manager.
it doesn't matter what he calles himself if he gets dragged into court.
the judge doesn't care if he calls himself and advisor or a philosopher, yada yada.
the law is really specific, and you can't be a promoter and manager at the same time.
at least here in florida, if a manger represents a boxer, he needs to submit a signed agreement.
one of these: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pr ... nd_man.pdf
if describes what their obligations are to each other and the terms of the agreement.

sucracristo wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:This is part of section 5 of the MAA. First off wtf does "In General" mean lol. So sorta kinda you can or can't do this. "Just you know in general sorta you know watch it...yea basically watch it."

"in general" only means that there can be exceptions, which are specifically itemized in the same quote

ReggieDiggs wrote:

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

This in particular doesn't even seem possible to me. As a manager you get a % of your clients purse (at least in every contract I've heard about managers fees in). Thus you obviously have a financial interest in your clients promotion. Right? Am I missing something here?

as far as the manager v promoter stuff, they both have to be licensed to do what they do by law.
it's actually criminal to act as a boxing manager or promoter without a license and the penalties
include fines and jail. the terms you are using are defined by law in the legal descriptions of
managers and promoters by statute. for example, here in florida:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2 ... ter548/All
"548.002 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
(13) “Manager” means any person who, directly or indirectly, controls or administers the boxing, kickboxing, or mixed martial arts affairs of any participant."
"548.017 Participants, managers, and other persons required to have licenses."
"The Florida State Boxing Commission, as created by subsection (1), shall administer the provisions of this chapter. The commission has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter and to implement each of the duties and responsibilities conferred upon the commission, including, but not limited to:
(d) Requirements relating to a manager’s participation, presence, and conduct during a match."

basically if you represent a boxer in the business of boxing you need a manager's license.
al haymon has a manager's license.
al haymon is a manager.
it doesn't matter what he calles himself if he gets dragged into court.
the judge doesn't care if he calls himself and advisor or a philosopher, yada yada.
the law is really specific, and you can't be a promoter and manager at the same time.
at least here in florida, if a manger represents a boxer, he needs to submit a signed agreement.
one of these: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pr ... nd_man.pdf
if describes what their obligations are to each other and the terms of the agreement.

What the F U C K does the law have to do with boxing?

sucracristo wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:This is part of section 5 of the MAA. First off wtf does "In General" mean lol. So sorta kinda you can or can't do this. "Just you know in general sorta you know watch it...yea basically watch it."

"in general" only means that there can be exceptions, which are specifically itemized in the same quote

ReggieDiggs wrote:

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

This in particular doesn't even seem possible to me. As a manager you get a % of your clients purse (at least in every contract I've heard about managers fees in). Thus you obviously have a financial interest in your clients promotion. Right? Am I missing something here?

as far as the manager v promoter stuff, they both have to be licensed to do what they do by law.
it's actually criminal to act as a boxing manager or promoter without a license and the penalties
include fines and jail. the terms you are using are defined by law in the legal descriptions of
managers and promoters by statute. for example, here in florida:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2 ... ter548/All
"548.002 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
(13) “Manager” means any person who, directly or indirectly, controls or administers the boxing, kickboxing, or mixed martial arts affairs of any participant."
"548.017 Participants, managers, and other persons required to have licenses."
"The Florida State Boxing Commission, as created by subsection (1), shall administer the provisions of this chapter. The commission has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter and to implement each of the duties and responsibilities conferred upon the commission, including, but not limited to:
(d) Requirements relating to a manager’s participation, presence, and conduct during a match."

basically if you represent a boxer in the business of boxing you need a manager's license.
al haymon has a manager's license.
al haymon is a manager.
it doesn't matter what he calles himself if he gets dragged into court.
the judge doesn't care if he calls himself and advisor or a philosopher, yada yada.
the law is really specific, and you can't be a promoter and manager at the same time.
at least here in florida, if a manger represents a boxer, he needs to submit a signed agreement.
one of these: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pr ... nd_man.pdf
if describes what their obligations are to each other and the terms of the agreement.

Okay so under FL laws, & I'd presume under other regions, Al is a manager. How is Al being a promoter?

If he's suggesting fights whats the problem? Plenty of managers suggest fights, in fact many fighters today suggest there manager will help with that process or outright decide who'll he'll fight next. Just seen a Rios video today where Rios basically said just that, he'll fight whoever Cameron Dunkin, his manager, wants him to.

If he's paying the promoter, the opponents purse, his fighters purse or both fighters purses to take some expenses off of the promoter whats the problem with that? Heard of cats doing this & I don't see anything in MAA that'd suggest that is illegal.

What else is there Al could be doing wrong? I don't see anything about a manager buying up TV time.

He doesn't even have a promoters license. That would seem to be his first hurdle.

ReggieDiggs wrote: Okay so under FL laws, & I'd presume under other regions, Al is a manager. How is Al being a promoter?

the commissions would not let events be staged without a licensed, bonded promoter, who files all the paperwork
and pays all the expenses yada yada. therefore, the cards haymon's fighters appear on all are promoted by licensed
promoters. if people are dragged into court and there is a licensed promoter and all the papers were filed and
i's dotted and t's crossed, then the allegation that haymon is a promter will be summarily thrown out.
i'm with you, diggs. they just keep coming back over and over like haymon is a promoter like they don't
know the difference. it's like banging your head against a wall thread after thread.

that link i posted before has a whole novel in the statute about promoters obligations and from
the commission site you can look at all the required forms and requirements for the license
and fees and requirements to stage fights. the law really leaves no wiggle room for this stuff.
if haymon was a promoter, it would be pretty easy to show.

"(20) “Promoter” means any person, and includes any officer, director, employee, or stockholder of a corporate promoter, who produces, arranges, or stages any match involving a professional."

if guilty haymon could get 60 days in jail + civil fines and forfeiture, but so far we are just talking
about civil suits, and the finding of haymon breaking the law would not be a civil issue. it would
be a criminal matter in a different court, which could end haymon's boxing career if he was found guilty.

i just want to add that the topic of the thread is whether haymon is good for boxing or not,
and for example quillin vacating his title to avoid korobov, and garcia-salka, and i could go on
and on, the jury is out with me whether haymon is a net + or - for the sport from an enthusiasts
perspective. we want to see good matchups. haymon has signed an army of boxers and by law
he has obligations to all of them and it remains to be seen if he will keep his promises to them
and of course his investors will be paying close attention. if he gets a promoter's license or takes
a job with a promoter, his managerial contracts vaporize, so he is depending on promoters to
cooperate, and he doesn't have a good track record getting along with promoters.

fergusg wrote:If Haymon really is guilty of operating as a promoter and a manager, it’s hard to envisage that Bob Arum & Don King hasn’t broken the very same rules at some point in time.

Isn't Koncz basically an in house manager for top rank?

benion wrote:

fergusg wrote:If Haymon really is guilty of operating as a promoter and a manager, it’s hard to envisage that Bob Arum & Don King hasn’t broken the very same rules at some point in time.

Isn't Koncz basically an in house manager for top rank?

Thats the speculation with Koncz. It seems a lil more hidden if he is. I believe it to be the case. Its more of a way to control Manny more than anything imho.

Don had his stepson managing guys lol. Obviously some collusion going on there or best case even if you are being 100% fair & straight up the appearance of shadiness is HUGE.

fergusg wrote:What is Al Haymon doing that is so different to what we have previously seen many other promoters do in the history of the sport, which Lou Dibella describes as a “a dirty, rotten, filthy, corrupt business”?

• If Al Haymon was so bad, then how has he managed to accumulate a stable of at least 174 fighters?

• Why do so few of them leave him?

• How many fighters have expressed a desire to leave Al Haymon in comparison to Top Rank within the last few years?

• Why is Al Haymon the only man in the sport trying to bring boxing back to prime-time network television, which is funded out of his own pocket, whilst GBP & Top Rank have their fights televised via a combination of cable and PPV?

• If Al Haymon was really so devious, why did Leo Santa Cruz (the man named in the first post in this thread) name his baby boy after him?

I’m not suggesting for one second that Al’s an innocent angel, but there are many bigger scoundrels in the sport of boxing than he is!

nobody said that he is bad for his fighters, but for the fans.

of course there are other Promotors who are doing that too. german Promotors like Sauerland or Universum are well known for that Approach too, feeding their opponents easy title defenses.

fergusg wrote:

dominik wrote:nobody said that he is bad for his fighters, but for the fans.

of course there are other Promotors who are doing that too. german Promotors like Sauerland or Universum are well known for that Approach too, feeding their opponents easy title defenses.

Al Haymon’s PBC is being shown on free-to-air US network television, which means that fight fans won’t have to pay for cable fees or PPV’s (like they currently do with HBO or Showtime) to watch some really competitive and high-profile bouts, such as:
• Keith Thurman vs. Robert Guerrero
• Adrien Broner vs. John Molina Jr.
• Danny Garcia vs. Lamont Peterson
• With more competitive fights on the way…

Therefore, is Al Haymon really so bad to the fans? :??

"F#cking Haymon with his elite caliber fights on Free TV. Dammit!!!!!!! I wanna pay for the elite caliber fights I watch!!!!!!!!!!!"

I think its a lil early to make a decision on Al's goodness or evilness & I mean thats something thats always changing anyway. I think Richard & Al played a part together to do Oscar dirty which is always gonna be something in my Al Haymon file in my brain til I find real facts that indicate otherwise & I think Al made some longer game strategic decisions during his time with GBP that rubbed boxing fans the wrong way, but if he can do something half as good & fun as the possibilities seem with top guys fighting each other on free tv I think that will all be mostly forgiven by nearly all except the biggest haters of Al. And personally I don't think you can even throw on too many Danny vs Rod Salka type fights on free tv & expect to make what Al seems to be trying to make here. So at this point Al puts on bs fights at his own detriment imho.