Enlightened-One wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 10:50
I am saying that there is no evidence of Al Haymon violating any antitrust laws or the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.
The burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence to support your accusations. Nobody else has been able to do, so I'm assuming you can't either.
I’ll also repeat my stance once again, since it seems that you’ve paid no attention to it…
I flatly-refuse to accuse a man that I’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person I know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t.
I am willing to argue that you’ve never met Al Haymon, you’ve never seen him talk, you’ve never read any of his interview transcripts and you also know absolutely nothing about this man!
Am I wrong?
Let's see if you're able to "Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk", because so far, you haven't!
There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.
You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:
I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.
Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.
So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:
Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.
There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:
One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.
If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.
Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.
You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.
You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.
The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!
None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.
So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise
I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!
So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!
If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.
I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.
Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.
Good luck to you kid!
Haha, I didn't think this thing would still be going. Hilarious. Oh well.
I don't you understand the definition of "factually accurate" and actually recognize what evidence is. Just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution put forward no longer could be constituted as evidence. What sense would that make? The Attorney General ignoring the ABC's evidence and request for an investigation doesn't make it invalid. It means it wasn't her priority. The lawsuits on the other hand.......
I can possibly say otherwise! Instead of living in a land of make-believe where you imagine Al Haymon was victorious in all of these lawsuits you might want to take a second to look at what actually happened: AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! Just so you know my caps lock key works as well as yours let me reiterate that, AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! He didn't win anything. Nothing was vindicated. Instead of going to trial where all of your "facts" could have been presented for the world to see he made concessions and settled. Why would he do that?! The way you make it sound this was open and shut!
You argue that Al Haymon is a content provider for a TV series and blindly try use lawsuits like Top Rank's to prove your point, yet none of the initial deals the PBC made, other than with Spike, were providing any content for a fee. He was literally buying airtime with a non-compete to present his product. Who would buy airtime to get their product exposure? There has got to be a word for that! Hmmmm, I think it's called a PROMOTER! Your arguments literally contradict themselves. I'm not surprised you choose to ignore that.
The Golden Boy lawsuit, you know the one you love to cite, being dismissed literally means nothing when you note the following items that were true by the dismissal date of January 2017:
1. Al Haymon had given up exclusivety with his TV networks.
2. Al Haymon had given up the clause in his advisory contracts giving him the option to deny a fighter from picking their own promoter.
3. The PBC's overall plan obviously wasn't working. It's very hard to show a monopoly when the entity your claiming is damaging you isn't successful. Promotions were still successful in the PBC world.
4. Golden Boy entered into a deal with ESPN before the dismissal. A company Haymon had initially been working with. This showed there was no barriers to entry into the marketplace. You kind of need to prove that to have an anti-trust case.
5. The so-called "sham promoters" (I hate that term) argued that when they are contracted by Haymon they perform a lot of the same duties they would on their own shows.....several items such as booking travel, credentialing media and staff, local sponsorship etc. Much of it would be labeled "event management."
6. Golden Boy was actually able to contract Haymon fighters to fight Canelo in multi million dollar events while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The judge's decision in 2017 in the Golden Boy lawsuit saying the PBC wasn't a monopoly led to the same response by many. "Yeah, No sh!t"
You see, that's why nobody would pay anyone for information on Al Haymon, including myself. It's over. He didn't take over boxing. He's a player with his Showtime and Fox deals and that's great. The sport is now thriving and fighters have several independent options.
Al's good to his top fighters, I absolutely give him that. Nobody should really complain whether he's a promoter or not because Top Rank basically controls all of ESPN's programming now. Same with Hearn at DAZN. It's really no different. It's just the way the sport has evolved at the top. I think it's safe to say that a lot of what Haymon did in the music business has translated over to what he does in boxing. Whether it's contracting with talent, selecting what cities to run in, deciding compensation for talent, selecting venues and dictating all business. (By the way, a lot of the promoter's Haymon contracts find their own sites for lower level shows) So if what he did in music is pretty much the same as what he does now in boxing, I guess only a quote from Al Haymon himself could put a label on it...........Here's Al Haymon from a 1990s interview with Ebony Men. (Even though these interviews are rare, are you still sure you're willing to bet I haven't read them all?)
"So I started calling record companies, calling buildings around town, and trying to introduce myself as a promoter so I could learn about the business and try to find out what was going to be my strategy to enter it. My original plan was to go after acts that weren’t hotly pursued by much bigger competitors." - Al Haymon
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 07 Sep 2018, 22:53
by lazboy
Clearly articulated. No waffle or repetition. Reasonable and persuasive. Walter has my vote.
I am concerned though. The household of EO, who will suffer his wrath. Will his dog Precious be fed (from silence of the lambs) will he clothe his mother. Well by mother I mean the corpse of his mother who is kept in his basement as he overlooks the management of the Bates motel.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.
You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:
I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.
Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.
So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:
Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.
There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:
One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.
If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.
Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.
You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.
You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.
The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!
None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.
So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise
I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!
So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!
If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.
I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.
Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.
Good luck to you kid!
Haha, I didn't think this thing would still be going. Hilarious. Oh well.
I don't you understand the definition of "factually accurate" and actually recognize what evidence is. Just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution put forward no longer could be constituted as evidence. What sense would that make? The Attorney General ignoring the ABC's evidence and request for an investigation doesn't make it invalid. It means it wasn't her priority. The lawsuits on the other hand.......
I can possibly say otherwise! Instead of living in a land of make-believe where you imagine Al Haymon was victorious in all of these lawsuits you might want to take a second to look at what actually happened: AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! Just so you know my caps lock key works as well as yours let me reiterate that, AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! He didn't win anything. Nothing was vindicated. Instead of going to trial where all of your "facts" could have been presented for the world to see he made concessions and settled. Why would he do that?! The way you make it sound this was open and shut!
You argue that Al Haymon is a content provider for a TV series and blindly try use lawsuits like Top Rank's to prove your point, yet none of the initial deals the PBC made, other than with Spike, were providing any content for a fee. He was literally buying airtime with a non-compete to present his product. Who would buy airtime to get their product exposure? There has got to be a word for that! Hmmmm, I think it's called a PROMOTER! Your arguments literally contradict themselves. I'm not surprised you choose to ignore that.
The Golden Boy lawsuit, you know the one you love to cite, being dismissed literally means nothing when you note the following items that were true by the dismissal date of January 2017:
1. Al Haymon had given up exclusivety with his TV networks.
2. Al Haymon had given up the clause in his advisory contracts giving him the option to deny a fighter from picking their own promoter.
3. The PBC's overall plan obviously wasn't working. It's very hard to show a monopoly when the entity your claiming is damaging you isn't successful. Promotions were still successful in the PBC world.
4. Golden Boy entered into a deal with ESPN before the dismissal. A company Haymon had initially been working with. This showed there was no barriers to entry into the marketplace. You kind of need to prove that to have an anti-trust case.
5. The so-called "sham promoters" (I hate that term) argued that when they are contracted by Haymon they perform a lot of the same duties they would on their own shows.....several items such as booking travel, credentialing media and staff, local sponsorship etc. Much of it would be labeled "event management."
6. Golden Boy was actually able to contract Haymon fighters to fight Canelo in multi million dollar events while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The judge's decision in 2017 in the Golden Boy lawsuit saying the PBC wasn't a monopoly led to the same response by many. "Yeah, No sh!t"
You see, that's why nobody would pay anyone for information on Al Haymon, including myself. It's over. He didn't take over boxing. He's a player with his Showtime and Fox deals and that's great. The sport is now thriving and fighters have several independent options.
Al's good to his top fighters, I absolutely give him that. Nobody should really complain whether he's a promoter or not because Top Rank basically controls all of ESPN's programming now. Same with Hearn at DAZN. It's really no different. It's just the way the sport has evolved at the top. I think it's safe to say that a lot of what Haymon did in the music business has translated over to what he does in boxing. Whether it's contracting with talent, selecting what cities to run in, deciding compensation for talent, selecting venues and dictating all business. (By the way, a lot of the promoter's Haymon contracts find their own sites for lower level shows) So if what he did in music is pretty much the same as what he does now in boxing, I guess only a quote from Al Haymon himself could put a label on it...........Here's Al Haymon from a 1990s interview with Ebony Men. (Even though these interviews are rare, are you still sure you're willing to bet I haven't read them all?)
"So I started calling record companies, calling buildings around town, and trying to introduce myself as a promoter so I could learn about the business and try to find out what was going to be my strategy to enter it. My original plan was to go after acts that weren’t hotly pursued by much bigger competitors." - Al Haymon
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 07 Sep 2018, 23:44
by gilgamesh
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 04:42
by Counter-puncher
lazboy wrote: ↑07 Sep 2018, 22:53
Clearly articulated. No waffle or repetition. Reasonable and persuasive. Walter has my vote.
I am concerned though. The household of EO, who will suffer his wrath. Will his dog Precious be fed (from silence of the lambs) will he clothe his mother. Well by mother I mean the corpse of his mother who is kept in his basement as he overlooks the management of the Bates motel.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
There isn't any "burden of proof" on me! I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously! But anyways, let's talk the talk.
You have to quit throwing around the Ali Act as if it's some sort of living entity that is enforced. It's not. It has no teeth, never has and never will until there's an Attorney General that cares in the slightest. The Association of Boxing Commissions, which is actually referenced in the bill to come up with minimum contract provisions, presented and appealed to the United States Attorney General with what they believe to be EVIDENCE that Al Haymon was acting as both a promoter and manager among other things. Since it's boxing this was completely ignored. If you'd like to read their findings and what they called evidence here's the link:
I'll answer your other questions in a moment, but my question is "Who cares?" The Attorney General didn't care how Haymon operated and never looked into the case. The ABC changed leadership and decided to declare that Haymon wasn't under investigation and they apparently no longer care. Nobody in boxing cares how Haymon operates anymore so why do you care how it's labeled? Does it change your income or life in any way, shape or form? What is with this obsession? I can't for the life of me figure out why these topics are so contentious. Only Al Haymon should care. I'll explain why in a bit.
Haymon's anti trust cases were not trials to find out whether or not he functioned as a promoter. For the longest time people argued that Haymon wasn't a manager, but was in fact an advisor only. Being an advisor would leave him outside of the Ali Act completely. Now you say you've never read any Al Haymon interview transcripts. That's too bad. If you were actually following these anti-trust suits and are as enlightened as you claim you would have already read Haymon's depositions from these cases because they give incredible insight not only into the person, but how the business of the PBC is run. In his depositions for the Golden Boy lawsuit Haymon finally admitted that he was in fact a boxing manager and it was found that he had actually been licensed as such in Nevada. Here's some fantastic coverage from Fight Opinion that goes much more in-depth.
So now Haymon has admitted he's a manager. Let's say somehow there was more backlash against him and the United States got an Attorney General that wanted to go after him and actually use the Ali Act for once. It would be a HUGE problem for Haymon, in my opinion, if he admitted to being both a manager and a promoter in depositions. He'd basically admit to knowingly being in violation. So what argument did Haymon's legal team use as to why he's not a promoter? They claimed the TV networks were actually the promoters. Yep. Haymon used Kerry Davis, formerly of HBO and largely credited for helping Haymon claim as much power as he now has in boxing, and Golden Boy used former promoter Gary Shaw as witnesses. Here's another great article from fight opinion:
Haymon's old advisory deals had language that prevented fighters from signing with promoters unless approved by Haymon. In response to Golden Boy's anti trust suit, Haymon waived that provision. Haymon also waived the exclusivity he had with TV networks he worked with. With those two things gone anyone claiming he was going to have a monopoly was going to have a very hard time proving it. The truth is those anti-trust cases fell pretty flat as the PBC struggled to gain market share, but to point to their dismissal as vindication that Haymon isn't a promoter is asinine. That was a very small part of what they were about.
There are a couple very easy ways to look at this so both sides can be right:
One side can say Al Haymon technically isn't a promoter because he isn't licensed as one. Sure, technically correct. These boxing commissions aren't going to push the issue, require him to get licensed and lose huge shows for their jurisdictions to try dig into an issue that NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYMORE! There's about 150 matchmakers operating in the US that have never been licensed as one either though. It's just how things go. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe that whoever holds the little piece of paper given out by the state as a promoter's license is always the one pulling the promotional strings.
If the other side were to say that Al Haymon and his companies perform every single duty of a promoter with the exception of getting licensed I believe you'd also be technically correct! They do! It's the old "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......." I don't need someone to get a piece of paper from a state to know what they are. He runs his business the way he wants and just got a huge deal with Fox that will be good for boxing. He's doing fine. I hope he gives us a ton of good fights.
Lastly, yes I actually met Al Haymon backstage at the MGM Grand in 2013 before the Mayweather/Canelo weigh ins. I was a guest of his personal matchmaker. I only briefly said hello. He was very soft spoken and seemed beloved by everyone there who knew who he was.
You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.
You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.
The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!
None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.
So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise
I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!
So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!
If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.
I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.
Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.
Good luck to you kid!
Haha, I didn't think this thing would still be going. Hilarious. Oh well.
I don't you understand the definition of "factually accurate" and actually recognize what evidence is. Just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution put forward no longer could be constituted as evidence. What sense would that make? The Attorney General ignoring the ABC's evidence and request for an investigation doesn't make it invalid. It means it wasn't her priority. The lawsuits on the other hand.......
I can possibly say otherwise! Instead of living in a land of make-believe where you imagine Al Haymon was victorious in all of these lawsuits you might want to take a second to look at what actually happened: AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! Just so you know my caps lock key works as well as yours let me reiterate that, AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! He didn't win anything. Nothing was vindicated. Instead of going to trial where all of your "facts" could have been presented for the world to see he made concessions and settled. Why would he do that?! The way you make it sound this was open and shut!
You argue that Al Haymon is a content provider for a TV series and blindly try use lawsuits like Top Rank's to prove your point, yet none of the initial deals the PBC made, other than with Spike, were providing any content for a fee. He was literally buying airtime with a non-compete to present his product. Who would buy airtime to get their product exposure? There has got to be a word for that! Hmmmm, I think it's called a PROMOTER! Your arguments literally contradict themselves. I'm not surprised you choose to ignore that.
The Golden Boy lawsuit, you know the one you love to cite, being dismissed literally means nothing when you note the following items that were true by the dismissal date of January 2017:
1. Al Haymon had given up exclusivety with his TV networks.
2. Al Haymon had given up the clause in his advisory contracts giving him the option to deny a fighter from picking their own promoter.
3. The PBC's overall plan obviously wasn't working. It's very hard to show a monopoly when the entity your claiming is damaging you isn't successful. Promotions were still successful in the PBC world.
4. Golden Boy entered into a deal with ESPN before the dismissal. A company Haymon had initially been working with. This showed there was no barriers to entry into the marketplace. You kind of need to prove that to have an anti-trust case.
5. The so-called "sham promoters" (I hate that term) argued that when they are contracted by Haymon they perform a lot of the same duties they would on their own shows.....several items such as booking travel, credentialing media and staff, local sponsorship etc. Much of it would be labeled "event management."
6. Golden Boy was actually able to contract Haymon fighters to fight Canelo in multi million dollar events while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The judge's decision in 2017 in the Golden Boy lawsuit saying the PBC wasn't a monopoly led to the same response by many. "Yeah, No sh!t"
You see, that's why nobody would pay anyone for information on Al Haymon, including myself. It's over. He didn't take over boxing. He's a player with his Showtime and Fox deals and that's great. The sport is now thriving and fighters have several independent options.
Al's good to his top fighters, I absolutely give him that. Nobody should really complain whether he's a promoter or not because Top Rank basically controls all of ESPN's programming now. Same with Hearn at DAZN. It's really no different. It's just the way the sport has evolved at the top. I think it's safe to say that a lot of what Haymon did in the music business has translated over to what he does in boxing. Whether it's contracting with talent, selecting what cities to run in, deciding compensation for talent, selecting venues and dictating all business. (By the way, a lot of the promoter's Haymon contracts find their own sites for lower level shows) So if what he did in music is pretty much the same as what he does now in boxing, I guess only a quote from Al Haymon himself could put a label on it...........Here's Al Haymon from a 1990s interview with Ebony Men. (Even though these interviews are rare, are you still sure you're willing to bet I haven't read them all?)
"So I started calling record companies, calling buildings around town, and trying to introduce myself as a promoter so I could learn about the business and try to find out what was going to be my strategy to enter it. My original plan was to go after acts that weren’t hotly pursued by much bigger competitors." - Al Haymon
That's a lot of waffle, but the only fact that matters, which is one you cannot possibly deny, relates to the following assertion...
An anonymous forum poster, who has no experience or involvement in the business side of boxing, cannot possibly prove that Al Haymon is a promoter when several multi-million lawsuits filed by Main Events, Top Rank and GBP failed miserably to substantiate the very same claim in court!
I hope you perform even more research via the internet, quoting lots of irrelevant third-party sources, because all your efforts are futile when you openly admit to being unable to undermine that one simple fact!
Am I wrong about this?
If you wholeheartedly claim that you can prove that Al Haymon is a promoter in a court of law, then why haven't you exploited an opportunity to earn millions of dollars by filing your own lawsuit against the PBC chief!
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 14:13
by caldo2025
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 05:48
Why do people insist on claiming that Al Haymon is a promoter, despite the fact that GBP, Top Rank and Main Events have all had their lawsuits either (very quickly) dismissed by numerous judges or they voluntarily dropped their cases due to not possessing any sort of evidence whatsoever?
Here’s my understanding of the role of that the PBC and Al Haymon plays in the sport of boxing?
• Al Haymon is the head honcho of the PBC and also plays the role of an advisor or manager to a roster of almost 200 fighters.
• The PBC is the primary boxing content provider for Fox, FS1, CBS & Showtime. The PBC is essentially a TV series.
• The PBC employs the services of numerous promoters to promote the events of the fights televised by their TV networks (i.e. DiBella, GYM, Mayweather Promotions, Murphys Boxing, Goossen Promotions, TGB, Warriors Boxing and many others).
• The same set of promoters, backed by Al Haymon, also allow their fighters to compete on fight cards managed by third-party rival promoters and TV networks (i.e. Top Rank -> ESPN; GBP -> ESPN/HBO; Main Events -> HBO; K2/GGG -> HBO; Queensberry -> BT; Matchroom -> Sky/DAZN).
For example: A fighter promoted by GYM, Eleider Alvarez, who is also advised by Al Haymon, recently competed in a fight televised by HBO, against a man promoted by Main Events, Sergey Kovalev.
• Al Haymon also works with fighters, like Danny Jacobs and Amir Khan, who usually don’t appear on PBC fight cards, as they’re members of the Matchroom stable. Lee Selby and James DeGale are in a similar position, as they now compete on Queensberry events televised by BT.
Here’s my understanding of the legal definitions/obligations of a promoter and manager:
• Manager = the fighter’s primary negotiating agent and representative who holds a “fiduciary duty” to his fighter, which means the manager must act in the fighter’s best interest
• Promoter = the producer of the boxing event, not the representative of any of the participants. The promoter is entitled to maximize his own profit from each fight promotion, because they're supposed to be the party that takes the financial risk of the fight promotion
On a separate note: a "matchmaker" and a "promoter" fulfil two distinct roles. Some promoters multi-task and perform their own matchmaking, whilst most either employ a matchmaker or use the services of an independent contractor. Either way, a matchmaker is not a promoter.
So why on earth do people continue to accuse a man they’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person they know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t?
Oh shut the F up already with this. Ur killing this site. Per usual.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 05:48
Why do people insist on claiming that Al Haymon is a promoter, despite the fact that GBP, Top Rank and Main Events have all had their lawsuits either (very quickly) dismissed by numerous judges or they voluntarily dropped their cases due to not possessing any sort of evidence whatsoever?
Here’s my understanding of the role of that the PBC and Al Haymon plays in the sport of boxing?
• Al Haymon is the head honcho of the PBC and also plays the role of an advisor or manager to a roster of almost 200 fighters.
• The PBC is the primary boxing content provider for Fox, FS1, CBS & Showtime. The PBC is essentially a TV series.
• The PBC employs the services of numerous promoters to promote the events of the fights televised by their TV networks (i.e. DiBella, GYM, Mayweather Promotions, Murphys Boxing, Goossen Promotions, TGB, Warriors Boxing and many others).
• The same set of promoters, backed by Al Haymon, also allow their fighters to compete on fight cards managed by third-party rival promoters and TV networks (i.e. Top Rank -> ESPN; GBP -> ESPN/HBO; Main Events -> HBO; K2/GGG -> HBO; Queensberry -> BT; Matchroom -> Sky/DAZN).
For example: A fighter promoted by GYM, Eleider Alvarez, who is also advised by Al Haymon, recently competed in a fight televised by HBO, against a man promoted by Main Events, Sergey Kovalev.
• Al Haymon also works with fighters, like Danny Jacobs and Amir Khan, who usually don’t appear on PBC fight cards, as they’re members of the Matchroom stable. Lee Selby and James DeGale are in a similar position, as they now compete on Queensberry events televised by BT.
Here’s my understanding of the legal definitions/obligations of a promoter and manager:
• Manager = the fighter’s primary negotiating agent and representative who holds a “fiduciary duty” to his fighter, which means the manager must act in the fighter’s best interest
• Promoter = the producer of the boxing event, not the representative of any of the participants. The promoter is entitled to maximize his own profit from each fight promotion, because they're supposed to be the party that takes the financial risk of the fight promotion
On a separate note: a "matchmaker" and a "promoter" fulfil two distinct roles. Some promoters multi-task and perform their own matchmaking, whilst most either employ a matchmaker or use the services of an independent contractor. Either way, a matchmaker is not a promoter.
So why on earth do people continue to accuse a man they’ve never met, never even seen talk, never read any of his interview transcripts, a person they know absolutely nothing about, of being a PROMOTER when it’s blatantly obvious that he isn’t?
Oh shut the F up already with this. Ur killing this site. Per usual.
You keep reading and responding to my threads and posts, don't you?
Everything I wrote in the above post is factually accurate.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 15:28
by jujigatame
EO, you argue like a child. Grow up.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 15:53
by Mexi-Box
jujigatame wrote: ↑08 Sep 2018, 15:28
EO, you argue like a child. Grow up.
EO doesn't like real facts. He only likes half-truths and agenda-driven drivel. He's a clown.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
jujigatame wrote: ↑08 Sep 2018, 15:28
EO, you argue like a child. Grow up.
EO doesn't like real facts. He only likes half-truths and agenda-driven drivel. He's a clown.
OK, attempt to provide a valid counter-argument for any of the facts I've cited.
I honestly don't know why people hate Al Haymon so much, but they're living in denial if they honestly believe that any of the points I've raised are factually incorrect.
Why is the truth so offensive? Why do people hate Al Haymon?
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 18:21
by candyslim
Hate is too strong a word but my negative feelings toward Al Haymon mainly derive from the corruption that pervades the World Boxing Conspiracy.
But Al Haymon isn't a promoter never mind the president of one of boxing's governing bodies, you would no doubt say, and you would of course be right. Al just sits there quietly not speaking, nor even moving his lips, while Maurizio Sulaiman does all the talking sat metaphorically on Al's lap.
I don't claim any particular insight. If truth be told I find the politics of boxing to be an unpleasant by-product and a tedious distractio, but you ask why people hate him, so my answer to you is that I dislike him because the impression I have formed of him, rightly or wrongly, is that he is the master puppeteer, making all the marionettes in their various guises as promoters, presidents of this and that, dance to his tune.
His agenda doesn't strike me as a benign or unselfish one. Like I say, it's Just my perception - although I'd venture to suggest it is unlikely to be a unique one.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 18:24
by Enlightened-One
candyslim wrote: ↑08 Sep 2018, 18:21
Hate is too strong a word but my negative feelings toward Al Haymon mainly derive from the corruption that pervades the World Boxing Conspiracy.
But Al Haymon isn't a promoter never mind the president of one of boxing's governing bodies, you would no doubt say, and you would of course be right. Al just sits there quietly not speaking, nor even moving his lips, while Maurizio Sulaiman does all the talking sat metaphorically on Al's lap.
I don't claim any particular insight. If truth be told I find the politics of boxing to be an unpleasant by-product and a tedious distractio, but you ask why people hate him, so my answer to you is that I dislike him because the impression I have formed of him, rightly or wrongly, is that he is the master puppeteer, making all the marionettes in their various guises as promoters, presidents of this and that, dance to his tune.
His agenda doesn't strike me as a benign or unselfish one. Like I say, it's Just my perception - although I'd venture to suggest it is unlikely to be a unique one.
As unbelievable as this may sound, whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything you've written, most of what you've claimed isn't unreasonable.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
jujigatame wrote: ↑08 Sep 2018, 15:28
EO, you argue like a child. Grow up.
EO doesn't like real facts. He only likes half-truths and agenda-driven drivel. He's a clown.
OK, attempt to provide a valid counter-argument for any of the facts I've cited.
I honestly don't know why people hate Al Haymon so much, but they're living in denial if they honestly believe that any of the points I've raised are factually incorrect.
Why is the truth so offensive? Why do people hate Al Haymon?
I don't hate Al Haymon. I don't love him but I don't think he's any worse than anyone else in the boxing world.
None of that has anything to do with your obnoxious and childish form of arguing.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 08 Sep 2018, 18:42
by candyslim
Thanks EO, I'll take that.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
EO doesn't like real facts. He only likes half-truths and agenda-driven drivel. He's a clown.
OK, attempt to provide a valid counter-argument for any of the facts I've cited.
I honestly don't know why people hate Al Haymon so much, but they're living in denial if they honestly believe that any of the points I've raised are factually incorrect.
Why is the truth so offensive? Why do people hate Al Haymon?
I don't hate Al Haymon. I don't love him but I don't think he's any worse than anyone else in the boxing world.
None of that has anything to do with your obnoxious and childish form of arguing.
You're too easily offended by the truth. I refuse to acknowledge opinions that don't reflect reality and I couldn't care less if that upsets you.
People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
I don't care if people dislike Al Haymon, but to live in denial of real-world facts is blatantly unacceptable.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 09 Sep 2018, 00:23
by jujigatame
I am not "offended" or "upset". I'm telling you that while you may think you're coming off like some razor-sharp debater making all the right arguments, you're actually coming off as a childish twit who has no interest whatsoever in listening to anyone or engaging in a genuine discussion. Actually, you're coming off a lot like chuck9788, the Off Topic forum's resident nutbag Trump sycophant.
In short, grow the fornicate up.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 09 Sep 2018, 00:28
by gilgamesh
jujigatame wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 00:23
I am not "offended" or "upset". I'm telling you that while you may think you're coming off like some razor-sharp debater making all the right arguments, you're actually coming off as a childish twit who has no interest whatsoever in listening to anyone or engaging in a genuine discussion. Actually, you're coming off a lot like chuck9788, the Off Topic forum's resident nutbag Trump sycophant.
In short, grow the eff up.
Yeah. Like a guy who's just waiting for you to stop talking so he can talk some more rather than listening to what's being said.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 17:32
You haven't provided any proof, only allegations that have never been substantiated. And we know this for certain based on the outcome of every single lawsuit that has ever been filed against Al Haymon... and you cannot possibly say otherwise.
You've also admitted to not actually knowing anything about Al Haymon. Saying "hello" to someone (if it actually happened), does not constitute having engaged in a conversation with the man.
The various lawsuits that all failed, were alleging that Haymon employed "sham" promoters, as he was actually promoting the PBC events, but there was no direct evidence of this. And we're not only talking about pieces of paper, certificates, emails etc., but also any testimonies from actual human beings. There was no direct evidence.... NONE! Absolutely fûck all!
None of the prosecuting lawyers were able to supply any compelling testimonies from reliable witnesses to substantiate their allegations. Not a single one of them.
So we're not talking about Al Haymon being an "unofficial" promoter in any sort of capacity, because he isn't. And you cannot prove otherwise
I'll say it again, in case you need reminding, the reason why EVERY SINGLE LAWSUIT AGAINST AL HAYMON FAILED was because THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to substantiate any of the allegations being proposed by the prosecuting lawyers!
So quoting various documents that were ultimately ignored during various lawsuits FAILS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!
If you can provide a NEW set of irrefutable direct evidence to substantiate your allegation of Al Haymon of being a promoter, then I can provide you with the contact details of GBP, Top Rank and Main Events, because they would likely pay you millions of dollars for your invaluable information.
I suspect that you're gullible and adopted the very same mainstream opinions possessed by the Lemming-like masses, without bothering to independently fact-check the validity of their claims, hence the reason why you cannot support your own stance.
Your confirmation bias, which was your weak attempt to win an argument on a forum, is not the same as independently fact-checking the validity of your own claims.
Good luck to you kid!
Haha, I didn't think this thing would still be going. Hilarious. Oh well.
I don't you understand the definition of "factually accurate" and actually recognize what evidence is. Just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution put forward no longer could be constituted as evidence. What sense would that make? The Attorney General ignoring the ABC's evidence and request for an investigation doesn't make it invalid. It means it wasn't her priority. The lawsuits on the other hand.......
I can possibly say otherwise! Instead of living in a land of make-believe where you imagine Al Haymon was victorious in all of these lawsuits you might want to take a second to look at what actually happened: AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! Just so you know my caps lock key works as well as yours let me reiterate that, AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! He didn't win anything. Nothing was vindicated. Instead of going to trial where all of your "facts" could have been presented for the world to see he made concessions and settled. Why would he do that?! The way you make it sound this was open and shut!
You argue that Al Haymon is a content provider for a TV series and blindly try use lawsuits like Top Rank's to prove your point, yet none of the initial deals the PBC made, other than with Spike, were providing any content for a fee. He was literally buying airtime with a non-compete to present his product. Who would buy airtime to get their product exposure? There has got to be a word for that! Hmmmm, I think it's called a PROMOTER! Your arguments literally contradict themselves. I'm not surprised you choose to ignore that.
The Golden Boy lawsuit, you know the one you love to cite, being dismissed literally means nothing when you note the following items that were true by the dismissal date of January 2017:
1. Al Haymon had given up exclusivety with his TV networks.
2. Al Haymon had given up the clause in his advisory contracts giving him the option to deny a fighter from picking their own promoter.
3. The PBC's overall plan obviously wasn't working. It's very hard to show a monopoly when the entity your claiming is damaging you isn't successful. Promotions were still successful in the PBC world.
4. Golden Boy entered into a deal with ESPN before the dismissal. A company Haymon had initially been working with. This showed there was no barriers to entry into the marketplace. You kind of need to prove that to have an anti-trust case.
5. The so-called "sham promoters" (I hate that term) argued that when they are contracted by Haymon they perform a lot of the same duties they would on their own shows.....several items such as booking travel, credentialing media and staff, local sponsorship etc. Much of it would be labeled "event management."
6. Golden Boy was actually able to contract Haymon fighters to fight Canelo in multi million dollar events while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The judge's decision in 2017 in the Golden Boy lawsuit saying the PBC wasn't a monopoly led to the same response by many. "Yeah, No sh!t"
You see, that's why nobody would pay anyone for information on Al Haymon, including myself. It's over. He didn't take over boxing. He's a player with his Showtime and Fox deals and that's great. The sport is now thriving and fighters have several independent options.
Al's good to his top fighters, I absolutely give him that. Nobody should really complain whether he's a promoter or not because Top Rank basically controls all of ESPN's programming now. Same with Hearn at DAZN. It's really no different. It's just the way the sport has evolved at the top. I think it's safe to say that a lot of what Haymon did in the music business has translated over to what he does in boxing. Whether it's contracting with talent, selecting what cities to run in, deciding compensation for talent, selecting venues and dictating all business. (By the way, a lot of the promoter's Haymon contracts find their own sites for lower level shows) So if what he did in music is pretty much the same as what he does now in boxing, I guess only a quote from Al Haymon himself could put a label on it...........Here's Al Haymon from a 1990s interview with Ebony Men. (Even though these interviews are rare, are you still sure you're willing to bet I haven't read them all?)
"So I started calling record companies, calling buildings around town, and trying to introduce myself as a promoter so I could learn about the business and try to find out what was going to be my strategy to enter it. My original plan was to go after acts that weren’t hotly pursued by much bigger competitors." - Al Haymon
That's a lot of waffle, but the only fact that matters, which is one you cannot possibly deny, relates to the following assertion...
An anonymous forum poster, who has no experience or involvement in the business side of boxing, cannot possibly prove that Al Haymon is a promoter when several multi-million lawsuits filed by Main Events, Top Rank and GBP failed miserably to substantiate the very same claim in court!
I hope you perform even more research via the internet, quoting lots of irrelevant third-party sources, because all your efforts are futile when you openly admit to being unable to undermine that one simple fact!
Am I wrong about this?
If you wholeheartedly claim that you can prove that Al Haymon is a promoter in a court of law, then why haven't you exploited an opportunity to earn millions of dollars by filing your own lawsuit against the PBC chief!
EO,
If you hate that I'm an anonymous forum poster then what does that make you? Can you let us know who you are and tell us your experience on the business side of boxing?
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Haha, I didn't think this thing would still be going. Hilarious. Oh well.
I don't you understand the definition of "factually accurate" and actually recognize what evidence is. Just because OJ Simpson was found not guilty doesn't mean everything the prosecution put forward no longer could be constituted as evidence. What sense would that make? The Attorney General ignoring the ABC's evidence and request for an investigation doesn't make it invalid. It means it wasn't her priority. The lawsuits on the other hand.......
I can possibly say otherwise! Instead of living in a land of make-believe where you imagine Al Haymon was victorious in all of these lawsuits you might want to take a second to look at what actually happened: AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! Just so you know my caps lock key works as well as yours let me reiterate that, AL HAYMON SETTLED TOP RANK'S LAWSUIT! He didn't win anything. Nothing was vindicated. Instead of going to trial where all of your "facts" could have been presented for the world to see he made concessions and settled. Why would he do that?! The way you make it sound this was open and shut!
You argue that Al Haymon is a content provider for a TV series and blindly try use lawsuits like Top Rank's to prove your point, yet none of the initial deals the PBC made, other than with Spike, were providing any content for a fee. He was literally buying airtime with a non-compete to present his product. Who would buy airtime to get their product exposure? There has got to be a word for that! Hmmmm, I think it's called a PROMOTER! Your arguments literally contradict themselves. I'm not surprised you choose to ignore that.
The Golden Boy lawsuit, you know the one you love to cite, being dismissed literally means nothing when you note the following items that were true by the dismissal date of January 2017:
1. Al Haymon had given up exclusivety with his TV networks.
2. Al Haymon had given up the clause in his advisory contracts giving him the option to deny a fighter from picking their own promoter.
3. The PBC's overall plan obviously wasn't working. It's very hard to show a monopoly when the entity your claiming is damaging you isn't successful. Promotions were still successful in the PBC world.
4. Golden Boy entered into a deal with ESPN before the dismissal. A company Haymon had initially been working with. This showed there was no barriers to entry into the marketplace. You kind of need to prove that to have an anti-trust case.
5. The so-called "sham promoters" (I hate that term) argued that when they are contracted by Haymon they perform a lot of the same duties they would on their own shows.....several items such as booking travel, credentialing media and staff, local sponsorship etc. Much of it would be labeled "event management."
6. Golden Boy was actually able to contract Haymon fighters to fight Canelo in multi million dollar events while their lawsuit was ongoing.
The judge's decision in 2017 in the Golden Boy lawsuit saying the PBC wasn't a monopoly led to the same response by many. "Yeah, No sh!t"
You see, that's why nobody would pay anyone for information on Al Haymon, including myself. It's over. He didn't take over boxing. He's a player with his Showtime and Fox deals and that's great. The sport is now thriving and fighters have several independent options.
Al's good to his top fighters, I absolutely give him that. Nobody should really complain whether he's a promoter or not because Top Rank basically controls all of ESPN's programming now. Same with Hearn at DAZN. It's really no different. It's just the way the sport has evolved at the top. I think it's safe to say that a lot of what Haymon did in the music business has translated over to what he does in boxing. Whether it's contracting with talent, selecting what cities to run in, deciding compensation for talent, selecting venues and dictating all business. (By the way, a lot of the promoter's Haymon contracts find their own sites for lower level shows) So if what he did in music is pretty much the same as what he does now in boxing, I guess only a quote from Al Haymon himself could put a label on it...........Here's Al Haymon from a 1990s interview with Ebony Men. (Even though these interviews are rare, are you still sure you're willing to bet I haven't read them all?)
"So I started calling record companies, calling buildings around town, and trying to introduce myself as a promoter so I could learn about the business and try to find out what was going to be my strategy to enter it. My original plan was to go after acts that weren’t hotly pursued by much bigger competitors." - Al Haymon
That's a lot of waffle, but the only fact that matters, which is one you cannot possibly deny, relates to the following assertion...
An anonymous forum poster, who has no experience or involvement in the business side of boxing, cannot possibly prove that Al Haymon is a promoter when several multi-million lawsuits filed by Main Events, Top Rank and GBP failed miserably to substantiate the very same claim in court!
I hope you perform even more research via the internet, quoting lots of irrelevant third-party sources, because all your efforts are futile when you openly admit to being unable to undermine that one simple fact!
Am I wrong about this?
If you wholeheartedly claim that you can prove that Al Haymon is a promoter in a court of law, then why haven't you exploited an opportunity to earn millions of dollars by filing your own lawsuit against the PBC chief!
EO,
If you hate that I'm an anonymous forum poster then what does that make you?
You're making another claim that you cannot possibly substantiate.
Please quote my words where I expressed my alleged "hatred" of anonymous forum posters?
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 09 Sep 2018, 05:00
by Lackeos
EO, please stfu. You got dominated worse than anyone has ever been dominated, walter has beat you 100:1 on factual matters, and all you do is make appeals to "I believe I'm factually correct" over and over, and of course, make pathetic ad hominem attacks. Every time he hits you with another 2,000 words of actual facts, you respond with "I've never heard of you. You're anonymous, and therefore wrong." You've also attempted to argue "if it hasn't been proven in a court that Haymon violated anti-trust laws, then he's not a promoter." Uh.. that's a total non-sequitur. The fact that he hasn't violated anti-trust laws (according to a jury) doesn't mean that he isn't a promoter. You don't have to break the law to be a promoter. There's not anyone in this thread who thinks you've made a decent argument, but you go on, oblivious to the the fact that you're embarrassing yourself. Your obliviousness rivals Don Quixote.
My suggestion: pack it in and find a different thread on a different topic to argue a position that you might stand a chance of being right about.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 09 Sep 2018, 07:43
by ewenhay
But that's the problem.
He started this thread to get some attention as he can't contribute to the Alvarez discussions as the facts don't work in his favour. Alvarez failed a drug test, that is fact.
This thread is a squirrel really.
Re: Why do people still claim that Al Haymon is a promoter?
Posted: 09 Sep 2018, 10:00
by candyslim
This thread is a squirrel? Surely you don't mean 'a collector of nuts'?
@Lackeos: Don Quixote you say? Plenty of windmills to tilt at in the Netherlands
I'm not in litigation with Al Haymon. Dude, it's a message board, don't take it so seriously!
But anyways, let's talk the talk.
