BoxRec

lazboy wrote:Mistersaintlaurent = enlightenedone

mistersaintlaurent wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Selling a TV show to a network doesn't automatically make you a boxing promoter.

Boxing promoters sometimes eat hamburgers. Does eating a hamburger make you a boxing promoter? It's a complete logical fallacy.

Haymon hires promoters to promote events for his fighters. No different than Haymon hiring a driver to drive his fighters. Does that mean Haymon is a driver because he hired one?

The proof of concept didn't fail because they successfully proved their concept! Networks were skeptical that boxing could draw millions of viewers. PBC proved it can.

Most of the big cards are on Showtime because it was never the plan to give away every major event. Just enough to prove to the networks that the events will draw millions.

When the time comes to secure a paid deal, if PBC is unable to do so, then you can claim the concept failed. But to claim that now is foolish and nothing more than sour grapes from haters.

Please spare me your useless analogies. PBC contracts with networks to put on boxing cards. They subcontracts out the promoting duties but they still pay the costs, and their relationship with the networks is identical to that of Top Rank or Golden Boy. They make profits and losses in the same ways.

The time-buy concept is on life support. The network ratings were shaky, and they took a bath on a lot of those cards. CBS/Showtime pays them good money for good cards, so they're focusing on that now, with a limited number of cards elsewhere. They're basically in the same position they were in 2 years ago before the "PBC" brand had a name, and Haymon was dealing pretty much exclusively with Showtime.

.

As soon as you spare me your amateur hour uneducated and misinformed opinions, I'll be happy to stop using analogies to show you how silly you are.

You're just being pedantic, nothing more. So PBC doesn't contract with networks, Haymon Sports LLC does. And they subcontract with promoters to actually put the cards on. In what way does that make any material difference to this discussion? It doesn't.

The time buy concept isn't on life support. Your critical thinking is. The time buys were contracted for a specific length of time and will continue for that amount of time.

There's a reason there haven't been any cards on NBC/NBCSN for months, and there are none scheduled. Same reason there are no cards scheduled on ESPN, only 1 on Fox, and why purses and production costs were slashed last year. They were bleeding money, and putting good cards on Showtime is the only way they are actually profitable.

They're not in the same position they were in 2 years ago because now Haymon has more leverage from Showtime, is getting more money from Showtime, and is now getting money from Spike as well.

What additional leverage? What leverage do they have over Showtime now that they didn't have 2 years ago? You can bet the fees they're getting from Spike are minimal, considering the garbage cards they've put on that network over the last few months.

Honestly I don't have anything against the PBC. Good fights are good fights and I don't care who puts them on. But these claims that nothing has changed and everything is going swimmingly are ridiculous. There's been a very clear change in their promotional strategy over the last 6 months, and it's not a coincidence that this change coincides with an investor lawsuit and financial documents demonstrating that they've blown through hundreds of millions of dollars.

.

I understand exactly what I'm talking about. I know Haymon is technically a manager, not a promoter, although he certainly skirts the line drawn by the Ali Act. Being pedantic about the details isn't doing anything for anyone. Haymon's competitors are Top Rank and Golden Boy. Haymon Sports competes with other boxing promoters for TV time and money, despite the fact that they're not a licensed promoter and they have to subcontract to licensed promoters to put their cards on. You can drop it now, I'm not interested in being "corrected" by some internet know-it-all on a topic I already know about.

The only network that PBC is putting a big card on over the next few months is CBS. CBS and Showtime are the same company. They're not competitors. The idea that Haymon can tell Showtime to fornicate off is not particularly realistic.

You don't think that maybe, just maybe, the reason we're not seeing so many NBC/NBCSN/ESPN cards is because they've already blown through half their investors money, and they actually need to start generating some revenue?

.

You are being naive if you think Haymon isn't skirting a very thin legal line. He is a manager, but he's also the CEO of a company that subcontracts with licensed promoters to put on cards with the fighters he manages. Just because they are obeying the letter of the law doesn't mean they are obeying the spirit. If Haymon Sports were itself a licensed promoter, it would be an illegal arrangement.

Haymon's competitor is HBO? No, that makes no sense. Haymon is not going to "sink" HBO. Total gibberish.

They have blown through half their investors money. Have you not read any of the articles about the lawsuit?

jujigatame wrote:Have you not read any of the articles about the lawsuit?

Please provide a link to the lawsuit notes. I've read articles that summarise points that make for interesting reading, as click-bait, but none of them have actually quoted all the legal notes verbatim.

There's some discussion of the investor lawsuit with numbers here:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/9/20/12 ... oxing-news

And this is some coverage of the GBP lawsuit:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/12/1/13 ... oxing-news

I think a lot of GBP's case is weak. The strongest part is what I was referring to earlier, the idea that Haymon is, in every way that matters, operating as both manager and promoter, preventing the fighters he manages from working with GBP.

.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:I've also had my attorneys go through the Ali act inside and out and nothing Haymon is doing violates the letter, or the spirit, of the act.

You did what?

.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:what was unclear about what I wrote?

Nothing was unclear. Absolutely nothing.

.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:So what merited an emoji explosion? Before I got my promoters license in New York, I had my attorneys do some routine due diligence. As I'm sure most would.

The way you articulated it, or perhaps my interpretation of your explanation, read as though you specifically paid your attorneys to verify whether Al Haymon had contravened the Ali Act, which would be utterly absurd if true.

Alternatively, if you'd paid your attorneys to go through Ali Act on an unrelated matter, then this doesn't mean you possess their knowledge of this legislation, since it was them that performed the work, not you, which suggests you don't possess the detailed knowledge to express an educated opinion on Haymon's situation, because you don't know all the facts (i.e. all the evidence).

.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:i have read the ali act cover to cover many times, but when i became a licensed promoter, i had my attorneys go over it thoroughly as well. specifically due to concerns of the manager/promoter firewall since i have worked as both a manager and promoter at various points in my life.

so it's a very personal matter for me that i am well educated about.

haymon is not a boxing promoter. not by the letter of the law, nor the spirit. gb's lawsuit is going nowhere fast and tr's flopped as well.

Are you in possession of all the lawsuit notes of the GBP/Haymon case and thoroughly understand all the content in the context of the allegations being made?

Do you have a professional relationship with Al Haymon and have privileged access to his confidential internal business practices, the type of activities being discussed by Haymon and GBP's legal representatives and relevant witnesses?

If not, then you don't possess enough knowledge of the situation, because your opinion would contain guesswork.

That's not a personal criticism, since most of us are in the same boat. I've chosen to refrain from expressing an opinion on the situation for that very reason.

There's nothing wrong about holding an opinion that contains an element of guesswork or intuition, but please make that clear.

Couldn't you just conversate in your head? One is enough!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Couldn't you just conversate in your head? One is enough!

Are you feeling inadequate? Do you have an inferiority complex?

Enlightened-One wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Couldn't you just conversate in your head? One is enough!

Are you feeling inadequate? Do you have an inferiority complex?

This is sick sh%$ Enlightened-One. You've gone too far.

.

lazboy wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Couldn't you just conversate in your head? One is enough!

Are you feeling inadequate? Do you have an inferiority complex?

This is sick sh%$ Enlightened-One. You've gone too far.

The spirit of the act is to prevent conflicts of interest. The manager is supposed to represent the athlete, his client. He is supposed to negotiate with promoters to get the best deal possible for his client. Generally, this arrangement is incentivized by the manager taking a percentage of his client's purses. This way, their interests are always aligned.

Now, if the manager is the one making deals with TV networks and subcontracting out with licensed promoters to actually produce the cards with his talent, the arrangement is turned on its head. Suddenly, his interests are not necessarily aligned with his clients anymore, because the client's purses are no longer his primary revenue generator. In many ways, the client starts working for the manager, rather than vice versa.

Now, I'm genuinely interested (not being facetious here) in how this is not the case with Haymon.

And this is all beside the point that there has been a very obvious shift in promotional strategy from PBC, which likely coincides with the fact that they've lost a lot of money and their investors are suing them.