BoxRec

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 14:09 knowing dazn, they'll pay 2 billion to hire the law school janitor to defend them

boxer sues promoter over contract?????

That's never happened before

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 06:24

lazboy wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 06:02 Suing an entity with no money. Good luck.

DAZN has just recently agreed a new contract worth $1.5 billion with the Bundesliga and have also committed to extending their contract with the J-League, which will cost them $2.1 billion over twelve years.

So DAZN cannot pretend they don’t have sufficient funds to fulfil their $35m per bout contract guarantee with Canelo, if they literally continue to spend billions of dollars on other sports.

Canelo has placed DAZN in a tricky situation, because if they are reneging on their contractual obligations, then that streaming service may find it trickier expanding its portfolio with other business partners dealing with other sports, because they’ll lack credibility.

So for instance, if DAZN are trying to win the rights to cover one sporting event, they might not be able to acquire them (even if they outbid their rivals), if there’s a suspicion they’ll fail (at some point) to fulfil their contractual obligations (such as coughing up any money they owe).

It’s a bit like a bank manager refusing to issue a loan if they think the debtor won’t repay the monies they owe (based on their track-record), even if the person attempting to borrow the money is willing to sign a contract stating they would.

I’m not really sure what you arguments means - perhaps you don’t either as you have edited it 6 times.

It’s a good sign Dazn were able to secure billion dollar contracts but that doesn’t mean it has any liquid money or ability to pay Canelo. Those contracts are most likely paid by way of loans...therefore increasing Dazns liabilities. The loans were probably okayed as there is an actual asset, that of j-league broadcast rights. If Dazn default on payments, the bank will most likely take possession of those rights similar to a mortgage foreclosure. The situation is different for Canelo. Would anyone lend Dazn 30 plus million for one Canelo fight? Probably not, especially if he’s going to fight someone unheard of and unwanted. Therefore Dazn need to use there own money rather than a loan.

To sum it up. It may not matter that Dazn has secured those other contracts. That doesn’t mean they have money to pay for Canelo as you believe. They are just adding to their debt.

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 15:17

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 14:09 knowing dazn, they'll pay 2 billion to hire the law school janitor to defend them

You boys heard of Jesse Vargas. He’d make a good lawyer.

Perseus wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 21:12 boxer sues promoter over contract?????

That's never happened before

Terrible situation really. I’ve only recently started to appreciate Canelo and believe he is looking quite special.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 00:55

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 15:17

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 14:09 knowing dazn, they'll pay 2 billion to hire the law school janitor to defend them

You boys heard of Jesse Vargas. He’d make a good lawyer.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 00:53

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 06:24

lazboy wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 06:02 Suing an entity with no money. Good luck.

DAZN has just recently agreed a new contract worth $1.5 billion with the Bundesliga and have also committed to extending their contract with the J-League, which will cost them $2.1 billion over twelve years.

So DAZN cannot pretend they don’t have sufficient funds to fulfil their $35m per bout contract guarantee with Canelo, if they literally continue to spend billions of dollars on other sports.

Canelo has placed DAZN in a tricky situation, because if they are reneging on their contractual obligations, then that streaming service may find it trickier expanding its portfolio with other business partners dealing with other sports, because they’ll lack credibility.

So for instance, if DAZN are trying to win the rights to cover one sporting event, they might not be able to acquire them (even if they outbid their rivals), if there’s a suspicion they’ll fail (at some point) to fulfil their contractual obligations (such as coughing up any money they owe).

It’s a bit like a bank manager refusing to issue a loan if they think the debtor won’t repay the monies they owe (based on their track-record), even if the person attempting to borrow the money is willing to sign a contract stating they would.

I’m not really sure what you arguments means - perhaps you don’t either as you have edited it 6 times.

It’s a good sign Dazn were able to secure billion-dollar contracts but that doesn’t mean it has any liquid money or ability to pay Canelo. Those contracts are most likely paid by way of loans...therefore increasing Dazns liabilities. The loans were probably okayed as there is an actual asset, that of j-league broadcast rights. If Dazn default on payments, the bank will most likely take possession of those rights similar to a mortgage foreclosure. The situation is different for Canelo. Would anyone lend Dazn 30 plus million for one Canelo fight? Probably not, especially if he’s going to fight someone unheard of and unwanted. Therefore Dazn need to use there own money rather than a loan.

To sum it up. It may not matter that Dazn has secured those other contracts. That doesn’t mean they have money to pay for Canelo as you believe. They are just adding to their debt.

The edits were due to a browser issue [Firefox], where an attempted update wasn’t being reflected on the BoxRec page, so I kept trying to reapply it. It happens.

Also, the opinion I’ve conveyed in the post of mine you’ve quoted are crystal clear for anyone to understand. Put it this way, you’d need to attend adult literacy classes if you don’t understand the meaning of the following sentence of mine you quoted:

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Sep 2020, 06:24So DAZN cannot pretend they don’t have sufficient funds to fulfil their $35m per bout contract guarantee with Canelo, if they literally continue to spend billions of dollars on other sports.

And my stance about DAZN’s inability to use a lack of cash as a suitable defence when they were also spending billions of dollars at the same time on other sports was conveyed to the forum several weeks ago. And I can easily quote my post to prove it, which means there's never been any ambiguity about my opinion of this matter.

Think about it, if someone owed you $100 and then they refused to pay you back because they claimed had no money (despite them signing a contract promising they would), but they also told everyone you know they’ve just purchased a brand new Bentley car worth $290K, would you willingly accept that excuse and forget about the debt?

If so, will you loan me $100?

Anyway, assuming the claims detailed in Canelo’s 24-page lawsuit documentation are accurate, DAZN either needs to honour their contract or cease trading, if they have no money to compensate him.

That’s what happens when businesses fail to pay the debts they owe, due to running out of cash – they either go into administration/liquidation, or they’re acquired for pennies, with the new owners taking ownership of all existing debts.

Your analogy only applies to your own simple interpretation of the facts. It certainly doesn’t explain whether Dazn has any money. That matter is speculative.

I’m not here you educate you on loans and business in general. If you believe Dazn has money and can afford Canelo, It doesn’t matter to me. I’m more sceptical and believe they don’t.

Looks like a large majority of the Golden Boy roster is getting shelved

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:38 Your analogy only applies to your own simple interpretation of the facts. It certainly doesn’t explain whether Dazn has any money. That matter is speculative.

I’m not here you educate you on loans and business in general. If you believe Dazn has money and can afford Canelo, It doesn’t matter to me. I’m more sceptical and believe they don’t.

John Skipper is worth $26 billion. And DAZN has spent billions of dollars within the last few weeks investing in other sports.

If DAZN had no cash and your claims are true about them obtaining loans to perform these very recent multi-billion-dollar investments, then John Skipper (or one of the other very wealthy owners) would have had to sign a director’s personal guarantee to secure those loans, making them personally liable for the debt if the company is unable to pay.

Regardless, DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo. They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

It's not a complicated issue.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:58

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:38 Your analogy only applies to your own simple interpretation of the facts. It certainly doesn’t explain whether Dazn has any money. That matter is speculative.

I’m not here you educate you on loans and business in general. If you believe Dazn has money and can afford Canelo, It doesn’t matter to me. I’m more sceptical and believe they don’t.

John Skipper is worth $26 billion. And DAZN has spent billions of dollars within the last few weeks investing in other sports.

If DAZN had no cash and your claims are true about them obtaining loans to perform these very recent multi-billion-dollar investments, then John Skipper (or one of the other very wealthy owners) would have had to sign a director’s personal guarantee to secure those loans, making them personally liable for the debt if the company is unable to pay.

Regardless, DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo. They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

It's not a complicated issue.

Cut the bs. No that person didn’t have to sign a personal guarantee. No such obligation exists. Perhaps the bank would have required it OR they could have a strong arrangement in which they acquire the asset (as in the broadcast rights) as soon as there is a default. I imagine that asset is worth a lot and could easily be sold, I’m sure the banks have done their research. So if Dazn default they don’t risk losing much as they can acquire the asset and sell it. This however is speculative. I’m sure you don’t know any of the details as I don’t.

I’m basing this on. 1 they are in dispute with Canelo, 2 haven’t been active with fights lately. 3 trying to raise money through a float, and other news reports plus I assume subscriber numbers aren’t generating a revenue and have dropped.

You think they have billions stored somewhere. Based on what? You didn’t consider loans?

It’s clearly a complicated issue you just don’t know what you don’t know.

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:41 Looks like a large majority of the Golden Boy roster is getting shelved

Apart from Ryan Garcia vs. Luke Campbell, which hasn't been officially confirmed yet, that's the only event in GBP's schedule I'm aware of... and I've done quite a bit of research.

Also, I don't believe Matchroom US has any fight cards scheduled yet either. They've even started dropping fighters from their roster due to DAZN's scheduling issues (i.e. Michael Hunter).

Matchroom UK does have events in their calendar, which DAZN will cover, but they'll be funded by the UK's Sky Sports.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:08

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:58

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:38 Your analogy only applies to your own simple interpretation of the facts. It certainly doesn’t explain whether Dazn has any money. That matter is speculative.

I’m not here you educate you on loans and business in general. If you believe Dazn has money and can afford Canelo, It doesn’t matter to me. I’m more sceptical and believe they don’t.

John Skipper is worth $26 billion. And DAZN has spent billions of dollars within the last few weeks investing in other sports.

If DAZN had no cash and your claims are true about them obtaining loans to perform these very recent multi-billion-dollar investments, then John Skipper (or one of the other very wealthy owners) would have had to sign a director’s personal guarantee to secure those loans, making them personally liable for the debt if the company is unable to pay.

Regardless, DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo. They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

It's not a complicated issue.

Cut the bs. No that person didn’t have to sign a personal guarantee. No such obligation exists. Perhaps the bank would have required it OR they could have a strong arrangement in which they acquire the asset (as in the broadcast rights) as soon as there is a default. I imagine that asset is worth a lot and could easily be sold, I’m sure the banks have done their research. So if Dazn default they don’t risk losing much as they can acquire the asset and sell it. This however is speculative. I’m sure you don’t know any of the details as I don’t.

I’m basing this on. 1 they are in dispute with Canelo, 2 haven’t been active with fights lately. 3 trying to raise money through a float, and other news reports plus I assume subscriber numbers aren’t generating a revenue and have dropped.

You think they have billions stored somewhere. Based on what? You didn’t consider loans?

It’s clearly a complicated issue you just don’t know what you don’t know.

I've already commented on the potential existence of the loans you've mentioned and I'm reluctant to repeat myself. It's irrelevant to our discussion.

Taking out new loans (if what you say happened is true), whilst refusing to repay other debts, doesn’t excuse DAZN from fulfilling the terms of the contract they agreed with Canelo.

And like I already said before, DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo. They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

God your so dumb to talk to. Typical Google lawyer.

I never said that they didn’t owe Canelo contractual obligations, I’m just sceptical that they will be able to repay him.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:09

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:41 Looks like a large majority of the Golden Boy roster is getting shelved

Apart from Ryan Garcia vs. Luke Campbell, which hasn't been officially confirmed yet, that's the only event in GBP's schedule I'm aware of... and I've done quite a bit of research.

Also, I don't believe Matchroom US has any fight cards scheduled yet either. They've even started dropping fighters from their roster due to DAZN's scheduling issues (i.e. Michael Hunter).

Matchroom UK does have events in their calendar, which DAZN will cover, but they'll be funded by the UK's Sky Sports.

Munguia vs Tureano Johnson was/is supposed to take place next month.

Here's a BS article.

https://www.BS.com/de-la-hoya- ... ct--151604

EO thinks Dazn has a big ol pile of gold just sitting there. Lol. Jesse Vargas is probably guarding it right now,

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:21EO thinks Dazn has a big ol pile of gold just sitting there. Lol.

EO thinks DAZN is owned by John Skipper, who is worth $26 billion.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:23

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:21EO thinks Dazn has a big ol pile of gold just sitting there. Lol.

EO thinks DAZN is owned by John Skipper, who is worth $26 billion.

They are seperate legal identities. Dazn and John Skipper. Just because John Skipper has that money doesn’t mean Dazn have it, skipper probably has multiple companies. If Dazn go bust or owe money he doesn’t have to pay a cent.

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:19

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:09

Rgoodwin wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 01:41 Looks like a large majority of the Golden Boy roster is getting shelved

Apart from Ryan Garcia vs. Luke Campbell, which hasn't been officially confirmed yet, that's the only event in GBP's schedule I'm aware of... and I've done quite a bit of research.

Also, I don't believe Matchroom US has any fight cards scheduled yet either. They've even started dropping fighters from their roster due to DAZN's scheduling issues (i.e. Michael Hunter).

Matchroom UK does have events in their calendar, which DAZN will cover, but they'll be funded by the UK's Sky Sports.

Munguia vs Tureano Johnson was/is supposed to take place next month.

Here's a BS article.

https://www.BS.com/de-la-hoya-on-dazn-f ... ct--151604

It was announced five days ago by the boxing media that it was "in the works" for October, but nothing has been officially confirmed yet.

It might come to fruition, but I could be wrong, I've interpreted things as being at the discussion stage at the moment, hence the reason it's not listed in DAZN's or GBP's schedule.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:26

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:23

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:21EO thinks Dazn has a big ol pile of gold just sitting there. Lol.

EO thinks DAZN is owned by John Skipper, who is worth $26 billion.

They are seperate legal identities. Dazn and John Skipper. Just because John Skipper has that money doesn’t mean Dazn have it, skipper probably has multiple companies. If Dazn go bust or owe money he doesn’t have to pay a cent.

You dishonestly claimed that I believed that "Dazn has a big ol pile of gold just sitting there", but I never said those words or anything like them.

I only said (at least three times on this thread) that John Skipper was worth $26 billion.

Why are you doing this? Why don't you quote my words and attack them head-on? Why do you feel the need to either lie or grossly misrepresent my actual thoughts, which are very easy to comprehend?

How many times do I need to say that DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo? They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

An extension on the J-League deal did come with an interesting caveat, there's a revenue sharing side to it as well as the extension (at a lower cost per season).

One thing I am curious about is whether the different "brands" of DAZN are all independent of each other (I know from an affiliate advertising stance separate requests had to be made for DAZN USA and DAZN JPN), or whether they are intrinsically tied together. If separate regional rights may come from regional profits, which means those deals are irrelevant to the Bundesliga and J-League deals.

As for John Skipper's wealth, he's worth about $20mil, not billion, and is an employee of the company. Would seem odd to have him needing to act as a personal guarantor of a contract worth significantly more than he has.

Would assume Leonard Blavatnik may have something of his personal wealth tied up in it, but DAZN Group and it's parent companies all cause more confusion.

Interesting to note that DAZN has a lot of PLC's according to companies house, which could back up the idea they can be viewed as independent entities (not looked into them as I'm lazy but here's the list https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=DAZN).

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:34 An extension on the J-League deal did come with an interesting caveat, there's a revenue sharing side to it as well as the extension (at a lower cost per season).

One thing I am curious about is whether the different "brands" of DAZN are all independent of each other (I know from an affiliate advertising stance separate requests had to be made for DAZN USA and DAZN JPN), or whether they are intrinsically tied together. If separate regional rights may come from regional profits, which means those deals are irrelevant to the Bundesliga and J-League deals.

As for John Skipper's wealth, he's worth about $20mil, not billion, and is an employee of the company. Would seem odd to have him needing to act as a personal guarantor of a contract worth significantly more than he has.

Would assume Leonard Blavatnik may have something of his personal wealth tied up in it, but DAZN Group and it's parent companies all cause more confusion.

Interesting to note that DAZN has a lot of PLC's according to companies house, which could back up the idea they can be viewed as independent entities (not looked into them as I'm lazy but here's the list https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=DAZN).

I'm not too sure about the company structure but by the sounds of it, the Japanese branch might be a separate business entity, because recent media reports claim DAZN Group are considering selling it to help raise money, in addition to the $1+ billion IPO that is in the pipeline.

It’s funny, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about but you are the most vocal person on these issues. I see you quickly typing concepts into google trying to understand.

It’s ok if people don’t know - especially if it’s not their area. I don’t know things about building for example. But it’s funny when it’s you. The forum google lawyer. You think because the founder of a company has billions, that company then in turn has billions and you also said that a personal guarantee was mandated. That goes against the very essence of a pty Ltd company.

Again I don’t hold it against anyone who Doesn’t know this as this is not a measure of intelligence, but I do hold it against EO who pretends to know what he doesn’t and is very vocal about it. The loudest one in the room is generally the weakest - quote from American Gangster.

Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:34 An extension on the J-League deal did come with an interesting caveat, there's a revenue sharing side to it as well as the extension (at a lower cost per season).

One thing I am curious about is whether the different "brands" of DAZN are all independent of each other (I know from an affiliate advertising stance separate requests had to be made for DAZN USA and DAZN JPN), or whether they are intrinsically tied together. If separate regional rights may come from regional profits, which means those deals are irrelevant to the Bundesliga and J-League deals.

As for John Skipper's wealth, he's worth about $20mil, not billion, and is an employee of the company. Would seem odd to have him needing to act as a personal guarantor of a contract worth significantly more than he has.

Would assume Leonard Blavatnik may have something of his personal wealth tied up in it, but DAZN Group and it's parent companies all cause more confusion.

Interesting to note that DAZN has a lot of PLC's according to companies house, which could back up the idea they can be viewed as independent entities (not looked into them as I'm lazy but here's the list https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=DAZN).

Thank you, and there you go it gets more complicated. If those companies are subsidiaries then they are seperate legal entities and May (May in some circumstances) not be liable to the Dazn company that is relevant to Canelo. It’s obviously very complicated.

lazboy wrote: ↑10 Sep 2020, 02:41

It’s funny, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about but you are the most vocal person on these issues. I see you quickly typing concepts into google trying to understand.

It’s ok if people don’t know - especially if it’s not their area. I don’t know things about building for example. But it’s funny when it’s you. The forum google lawyer. You think because the founder of a company has billions, that company then in turn has billions and you also said that a personal guarantee was mandated. That goes against the very essence of a pty Ltd company.

Again I don’t hold it against anyone who Doesn’t know this as this is not a measure of intelligence, but I do hold it against EO who pretends to know what he doesn’t and is very vocal about it. The loudest one in the room is generally the weakest - quote from American Gangster.

You keep ignoring the main point I’ve repeatedly conveyed:

DAZN have contractual obligations to Canelo. They have to either fulfil its terms or compensate him. And doing neither could force them to go out of business if they've run out of money.

Is that the reason why you refuse to quote my actual words and attack them head-on?

Take a step back, read my posts again and challenge my claims head-on by quoting some of my claims you disagree with.