BoxRec

.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:IKSRTFO -

arum wants to do showtime, but he can't. he's tried.

haymon is able to get his guys on HBO when he wants because HBO is desperate.

HBO isn't desperate for boxing.

They cut the budget for a reason. Only reason Gayman can get his fighters on HBO is because he's desperate. Lots of his fighters are inactive. If the numbers are still low, Showtime is going to be in a bad position coming up. They're ratings are taking for boxing because of Gayman. HBO was smart to kick his ass out.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:Juji -

But Al Haymon does represent his clients. He does negotiate with promoters to get the best deal possible for his clients. He does take a percentage of his clients' purses.

His clients not signing longterm promotional contracts is in the best interest of his clients. His clients keeping a larger share of revenue by hiring promoters on a fight by fight basis and capping how much the promoter makes isi n the best interest of his clients.

The client is not working for the manager. The promoter is working for the client. Which is how things work in the concert industry now with the top acts. The power of the promoter has been greatly reduced. Which is why Haymon got out of that industry and applied that paradigm to boxing.

He saw how music managers had turned things upside down, resulting in the acts getting the lion's share instead of the promoter and decided to do the same thing in boxing. None of which violates the Ali act.

PBC's investors are not suing them. PBC's investors are being sued. Very different.

Wait a second. You have to explain this to me. If Haymon still collects on a percentage of his clients purses, which are still paid by the promoter, then the flow of money looks like this:

Network -> Haymon -> Promoter -> Athlete -> Haymon

Whereas the traditional arrangement was:

Network -> Promoter -> Athlete -> Manager

Surely you can see how these 2 arrangements are very different in practice. The manager's primary revenue stream is now the network, not the client. Also you can see how the top arrangement is strangely circular.

Yes, you're correct, Waddell & Reed is being sued, not Haymon Sports, but you'd have to be crazy to claim it doesn't reflect very poorly on Haymon. W&R are being sued because their investors claim the portfolio manager who made the investments in PBC (which so far have lost a lot of money) was negligent and later went to work for Haymon, indicating the investment was made for personal gain rather than the financial benefit of the fund.

Just out of interest...

• 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

If it cannot be proven that Al Haymon is a promoter (as he's a licensed manager), can any of his stable of fighters prove that they would be better off financially if their career’s weren’t managed by the PBC boss? Doesn’t harm have to be proven?

.

Wait a second. The client's revenue stream is the broadcast? You're telling me that Showtime is cutting checks directly to guys like Carl Frampton?

Does Haymon Sports contract with broadcasters to sell them the "PBC" product or not?

.

If when you say "the fighter's revenue stream is the broadcast", you don't mean the network is paying the fighter directly, then the statement is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

In the traditional arrangement, the network pays the promoter, who pays the fighter.

In the PBC arrangement, the network pays Haymon Sports, who pays both the fighter and the promoter.

Is this correct or not?

.

Intellectually dishonest? WTF are you talking about? Are you losing your mind? I did not put quotes around something you never said. This is a direct quote from you:

"The client's primary revenue stream is the broadcast."

You wrote it. Go read your own posts.

At this point you aren't offering any specifics, you're just weakly asserting that I don't know what I'm talking about and that "arrangements are different" without actually saying what those arrangements are.

The traditional arrangement has the promoter taking money from the network, and paying money to the fighters. As far as I can tell, that is exactly what Haymon Sports does right now. So surely you can understand how someone would think they are taking the role of the promoter, for all intents and purposes? If you want to correct my understanding of the facts, do so. Otherwise, you are adding nothing to this discussion.

.

i'm well aware of what i said. but the quote in your most recent post and the quote in your previous post are not the same. you falsified the quote to improve your position, which is very lame.

So you're back to being pedantic now. Maybe I got 1 word wrong quoting from memory, but you are quite literally insane if you think I intentionally falsified the quote to "improve my position". I quoted this:

"The fighter's revenue stream is the broadcast"

Your actual quote was:

"The client's primary revenue stream is the broadcast."

In what way are those 2 statements materially different? You still won't even clarify what you meant, considering that the fighters do NOT get a check from the broadcaster.

you have no idea what haymon sports does right now.

Do they sell the PBC product to networks or not? Do they pay the fighters or not? What the fornicate is the point of you claiming first-hand knowledge and carrying on this argument if you're not going to bother providing any information?

no i don't understand how someone would think they are taking the role of the promoter when the role of the promoter is to stage the event, which is what the PBC promoters do.

Except that totally ignores the purpose of the manager/promoter firewall. What creates the conflict of interest is not who stages the event, but who cuts the checks. How the money flows. And in those respects, Haymon takes the role of a traditional promoter:

Traditional Model: Network -> Promoter -> Fighter

PBC Model: Network -> Haymon Sports -> Fighter

Again, if there is something factually incorrect about this, tell me what it is. If you're just gonna say I'm wrong and that I don't know anything for the 100th time, without actually providing any facts of your own, don't bother.

.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean I'm being pedantic. Huge difference between the Showtime license fee being the primary source of the funds used to pay the fighter's purses and being the only source. Don't quote me from memory if your memory is that poor.

That's gibberish. Broadcast license fees are never the "only" source of revenue, neither for Haymon Sports, or any traditional promotional arrangement. The distinction you're making is utterly meaningless with respect to this discussion or the point I was making.

Who cuts the check is irrelevant. Even in the traditional model you list, it's very common for the promoter to cut the check to the management company, who then cuts the check to the fighter.

What separates a manager from a promoter is how they profit. A promoter profits from paying as little as possible to maximize their share. A manager profits from making sure their fighter is paid as much as possible to maximize the manger's cut of the fighter's share.

Agreed.

But Haymon negotiating, on behalf of his fighter, for the promoter's cut to be limited, it increases the fighter's share, and therefore the value of Haymon's percentage of the fighter's share.

Except, in the traditional arrangement, the manager's revenue stream comes entirely from the fighter's purses. In the PBC arrangement, the manager is selling the product and receiving revenues directly from the networks. So if he limits the fighter's share, he does profit. Unless you have knowledge that all the revenue Haymon Sports gets from license fees somehow flows directly to the fighters, with Haymon only taking a percentage.

.

Lol, this is why quoting penny bloggers is so funny.

mistersaintlaurent wrote:What Haymon does with Showtime is no different than what he did with HBO. Capping how much the promoter can make to maximize the purses of his fighters, and thus, how much his cut is worth. But Haymon is not pocketing "profit" from the fights.

Now the time buy shows are a little different, BUT, he doesn't take a commission on those fights and those shows are loss leaders. So there is no "profit" for him regardless.

You are trying to suggest that Haymon is negotiating the fighter's purse, paying the promoter a flat fee, and then keeping the profit for himself. But you have absolutely no evidence to support that position and therefore absolutely no evidence that he's violating the letter and/or spirit of the Ali act.

So let's say Showtime pays Haymon Sports $1m for the rights to televise a PBC card. Haymon Sports then negotiates a fee with the promoter, and pays the promoter some of that money to produce the card. Are you telling me that the remainder flows directly to the fighters, with Haymon Sports only keeping a set percentage? Or do the fighters still have fixed purses just like they do in a traditional arrangement, with Haymon Sports keeping any additional revenues?

.

Oh please. I never said I knew for a fact they violate the Ali Act. I said they seem to act as a promoter in that they negotiate deals with broadcasters and pay the fighters from those proceeds. Which they do.

I see you've completely stopped attempting to add any factual information to the conversation, and are just saying "you don't know" over and over again now.

.

You look at the English model, it's the biggest buzz it's commentary and build up are world class.
What have we got out here, no one goes at it there's no edge or excitement.

It's kind of interesting that the original post in this thread listed all of the free-to-air PBC fight cards and then asked for a comparison of HBO's non-PPV bouts for 2017 and none of the subsequent posts managed to stick to the subject matter.

.

Pfft. What do federal judges know?

.