# Jon Fitch, Nate Quarry and Cung Le file class-action lawsuit against UFC



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

Not surprised with these names although I figured Cung would discuss this behind closed doors first.



> Former UFC fighters Jon Fitch and Nate Quarry along with Cung Le, who is still under contract with the UFC, have filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the UFC and its parent company, Zuffa. Bloody Elbow was the first to report the news of the lawsuit's existence.
> 
> "It's been definitely a tough road. I'm just honored to be part of this lawsuit against UFC for all the past UFC fighters, like Carlos Newton, and Nate [Quarry] and so many names I'd need a list here," Le said at Tuesday's press conference. "For all the future fighters and potentially one day, if my kids want to pursue the same path as I do, they would have a better situation to be in. I'm just very excited to get this going."
> 
> ...


EDIT: Behold the TUF veteran and RNC specialist...Cody is all for the lawsuit.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Its about to go down!

The question is, will the UFC use the Chewbacca defence?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Lol, I literally laughed when I read the title. Really, I can't take this seriously. It might as well be Tito/Ken/Rampage filing the lawsuit.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> Lol, I literally laughed when I read the title. Really, I can't take this seriously. It might as well be Tito/Ken/Rampage filing the lawsuit.


So because you dont like those guys personally, whats that got to do with the seriousness of the lawsuit???


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

GSP / Jon Jones / Ronda Rousey filing for a lawsuit = People take notice.

Fitch / Quarry / Le filing for a lawsuit = No one cares.

I actually think these guys are hurting the potential of a fighters union with this. They have went in too deep too quickly.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> GSP / Jon Jones / Ronda Rousey filing for a lawsuit = People take notice.
> 
> Fitch / Quarry / Le filing for a lawsuit = No one cares.
> 
> I actually think these guys are hurting the potential of a fighters union with this. They have went in too deep too quickly.


No one cares? This is going to change MMA as we know it dude. 

People are way too fu**ing fickle these days! Oh its some guy who was world champion before but he's not there now so he doesn't matter. Quick lets check snapchat. Yeah, like I said because he is not current world champ he's not important. Quick check Facebook. 

Well I care you f******!!!!  And the law will care too I guarantee it.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> No one cares? This is going to change MMA as we know it dude.
> 
> People are way too fu**ing fickle these days! Oh its some guy who was world champion before but he's not there now so he doesn't matter. Quick lets check snapchat. Yeah, like I said because he is not current world champ he's not important. Quick check Facebook.
> 
> Well I care you f******!!!!  And the law will care too I guarantee it.


I'm willing to bet that this changes absolutely nothing. You KNOW these guys brought this situation to the likes of GSP and obviously he was just like "Eh, no thanks". These guys are in their situations because of their own decisions, and I'd bet the court will see it that way.

Who from that list was a world champion? If Renan Barao even becomes involved in this, I'd completely listen to his opinion.

I think all in all, the person you have to look at is Rich Franklin. A former world champion who wasn't stupid. He has commented before that he would have loved to have joined UFC at a later time. He would have loved the opportunity to earn the money current fighters are making, but he signed the contract and was fully aware of what his paycheque would be. He said he can't hold that against the UFC at all.

This lawsuit will probably sign Chris Leben in no time despite him basically being handed everything by UFC.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I'm willing to bet that this changes absolutely nothing. You KNOW these guys brought this situation to the likes of GSP and obviously he was just like "Eh, no thanks". These guys are in their situations because of their own decisions, and I'd bet the court will see it that way.
> 
> Who from that list was a world champion? If Renan Barao even becomes involved in this, I'd completely listen to his opinion.
> 
> ...


You do talk some nonsense sometimes Clyde. Despite this, I still like you. 

But your disregard for the guys that helped build the sport before you even knew it existed does not help you form a balanced opinion on matters like this. Personal opinion on fighter X Y and Z does not mean their achivements in the ring, or the wrongs that have been done to them are any different to fighter T, U and V who are still in the sport. 

We are dealing with the law here, not discriminatory opinions that have been formed on the basis of poison disseminated to the fans via the president of the organisation that is the defendant. 
Nor opinions that people form because they don;t like a guys particular fighting style in the ring. 
And nor opinions on people that have whined about injuries, or whined about not getting paid enough. This things that make you not respect people of the past, does not make their case even 1% less effective in a court of law.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

And Im willing to make a bet with you on this that it has major effect on the sport as we know it 
The bet will be a dozen cadburys cream eggs. Killz will moderate. Agreed?


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> And Im willing to make a bet with you on this that it has major effect on the sport as we know it
> The bet will be a dozen cadburys cream eggs. Killz will moderate. Agreed?


For a cut of said Creme eggs, yes. :thumb02:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> You do talk some nonsense sometimes Clyde. Despite this, I still like you.
> 
> But your disregard for the guys that helped build the sport before you even knew it existed does not help you form a balanced opinion on matters like this. Personal opinion on fighter X Y and Z does not mean their achivements in the ring, or the wrongs that have been done to them are any different to fighter T, U and V who are still in the sport.
> 
> ...


I think firstly that we have to stop pretending like either of us know what the "law" is regarding this situation. Both of us have absolutely no scooby if the UFC has done a single thing legally wrong here, and the closest we're even getting if links on BloodyElbow or something.

I don't disregard anyone's opinion based on their current relevance, but I think you have to take into account that if Ken Shamrock talks about UFC's business model, he has absolutely no idea what the behind the scenes are like in 2014 so he's not really qualified to judge it.

There are a group of guys that none of us listen to because they are disgruntled. Randy "You cut my son cause of me" Couture, Rampage "Bellator is amazing, oh wait no it's not" Jackson, Tito "Bellator is the best because I earn more than legit fighters" Ortiz, Ken "I could train CM Punk to be a champ even though I havent trained a champ in like 20 years" Shamrock, Chris "I spend all my money on painkillers" Leben...the lIst goes on.

When intelligent people who have NO reason to be "disgruntled" take action against the UFC, that's important. GSP's take on drug testing is huge. He has no reason to bash the UFC and made his points based on his care about fellow fighters.

Rich Franklin and George St. Pierre are the two guys I would listen to most in their knowledge of rights regarding their contracts. I'd also listen to successful current fighters.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Killz said:


> For a cut of said Creme eggs, yes. :thumb02:


Good enough. 3 cream eggs will get a detour to the Killzone!


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't even know what a cream egg is but I want one. Are we suing the cream egg industry for millions (of free eggs)?


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

No_Mercy said:


> EDIT: Behold the TUF veteran and *RNC specialist*...Cody is all for the lawsuit.


It's the Codytine goddammit! :angry07:


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)




----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I think firstly that we have to stop pretending like either of us know what the "law" is regarding this situation. Both of us have absolutely no scooby if the UFC has done a single thing legally wrong here, and the closest we're even getting if links on BloodyElbow or something.
> 
> I don't disregard anyone's opinion based on their current relevance, but I think you have to take into account that if Ken Shamrock talks about UFC's business model, he has absolutely no idea what the behind the scenes are like in 2014 so he's not really qualified to judge it.
> 
> ...


Well hang on a second there because there are a number of anti competitive practices that the UFC have done down through the years, so I have plenty of idea about what is going on here. I have been involved in a class action lawsuit to get money back off a development that never got built last year, so am familiar with how it all works, and from my business background I understand competition laws because I have had to deal with them personally. One of my businesses is a distribution company, and some of my products get rejected by stores despite being better alternatives because pharma companies pay the stores not to let anyone other competitive products get listed. Its stopping products that heal people better get to the market, and is wrong on so many levels. Totally illegal in the EU but very difficult to stop and prove. 

Your logic for not taking this seriously is nothing but a personal opinion that wouldn't have any foundation in a court of law, and aside from that this is not a case based on the characters of certain individuals, it is a case based on the business actions of a corporation which are black and white down through the years and very easy to prove because it will be all down on paper in the fighter contracts.
Where the UFC seriously dropped the ball this is they never thought they would get to this point where anti competition comes into play. They probably thought they had many more years to dominate the market and continue their dodgy practices. This is because it can be beneficial to have monopolies in the early growth stage of a business, but they misread when it would come to the point when the issue of being a Monopoly would become a problem for them. 

So you need to separate the two before consider dismissing the case based on propaganda that Dana White has conditioned you into thinking, and media reports from corporate shills like Ariel Helwani on fighters characters and personalities. 

You then say when people who have NO reason to sue the UFC sue the UFC that will be important. Do you see the contradiction in that statement? You understand what motive is right? People who take lawsuits are disgruntled, and they have motive, people who are not do not take cases because there is no motive to do so.


----------



## fan4life (Oct 4, 2007)

Actually it's more about who the law firm is more than the litigants. The law firm isn't getting money up front so they won't take a case unless they believe they can win. So thats where I would start and see the who the firm is and their power and history of fighting this type of suit. Other fighters will wait to see where this is going before they jump on the band wagon.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

ESPN is doing an "Outside the lines investigation" on this as well. You know ESPN is going to make the UFC look bad.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

M.C said:


> Lol, I literally laughed when I read the title. Really, I can't take this seriously. It might as well be Tito/Ken/Rampage filing the lawsuit.


You make no sense. Dana has really bred a massive amount of sheep over the years.



ClydebankBlitz said:


> GSP / Jon Jones / Ronda Rousey filing for a lawsuit = People take notice.
> 
> Fitch / Quarry / Le filing for a lawsuit = No one cares.
> 
> I actually think these guys are hurting the potential of a fighters union with this. They have went in too deep too quickly.


Hey Einstein, do you realize Jon Jones and Ronda are 2 of Dana's babies. DO you realize both of them see no financial burden or mistreatment. That Dana lines their pockets, especially Ronda....a chunky Judo star turned American celebrity. That they are the last 2 that would jump against the UFC?

Do you have any logic in that dome of yours at all? Because honestly 90% of the things you spew make no sense or have no logical base to it at all.

Why in hell would the 2 most set individuals make a stink and risk what they have? Do you realize that current fighters have had zero leverage to speak out. Afraid to get squashed by Dana....many who have...have absolutely been destroyed by Dana in a childish rant in front of rolling cameras 

You offer no logic to this forum. You might as well be from North Korea. You are brainwashed......BAD>


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

*Direct quote from lawsuit: Page 38 paragraph 118....*



> *"Additionally, following his victory over Matt Hughes in a welterweight title bout that had been promoted by the UFC, UFC fighter B.J. Penn informed the UFC that he planned to sign with an actual or potential rival promotion company for a much higher payday than UFC was then offering. In response, the UFC's Dana White called Penn and threatened that the UFC would ban Penn from fighting for the UFC forever if Penn worked with another promoter. White told Penn that Penn was 'fu***ing done! You'll never fight in the UFC again! You're finished! You're scorched earth, motherf***er. Scorched earth, don't call me crying saying you want to come back because your f***ing done!' White also threatened to remove or blur Penn's face from UFC videos and promotions and said he would remove his bout with Hughes from the UFC's DVD library so that Penn would be forgotten."*


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Well hang on a second there because there are a number of anti competitive practices that the UFC have done down through the years, so I have plenty of idea about what is going on here. I have been involved in a class action lawsuit to get money back off a development that never got built last year, so am familiar with how it all works, and from my business background I understand competition laws because I have had to deal with them personally. One of my businesses is a distribution company, and some of my products get rejected by stores despite being better alternatives because pharma companies pay the stores not to let anyone other competitive products get listed. Its stopping products that heal people better get to the market, and is wrong on so many levels. Totally illegal in the EU but very difficult to stop and prove.
> 
> Your logic for not taking this seriously is nothing but a personal opinion that wouldn't have any foundation in a court of law, and aside from that this is not a case based on the characters of certain individuals, it is a case based on the business actions of a corporation which are black and white down through the years and very easy to prove because it will be all down on paper in the fighter contracts.
> Where the UFC seriously dropped the ball this is they never thought they would get to this point where anti competition comes into play. They probably thought they had many more years to dominate the market and continue their dodgy practices. This is because it can be beneficial to have monopolies in the early growth stage of a business, but they misread when it would come to the point when the issue of being a Monopoly would become a problem for them.
> ...


I was in a fight once. I know exactly how the fighters feel.

Your situation has NOTHING to do with this. You don't understand the legality of this situation based on having your own legal situation once. You can't know, because no one does. If DonRifle, that dude that posts online, can crack the case because of his development deal a few years ago, I'm pretty sure UFC would be gone by now.

Lol that Dana has conditioned me into thinking. I dont know if I've ever really watched Dana speak outside of in events or in post fight pressers.

As I said, last bet went south but I'm willing to bet that nothing changes in the UFC and at best those guys MIGHT get an out of court settlement of a few grand.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I was in a fight once. I know exactly how the fighters feel.
> 
> Your situation has NOTHING to do with this. You don't understand the legality of this situation based on having your own legal situation once. You can't know, because no one does. If DonRifle, that dude that posts online, can crack the case because of his development deal a few years ago, I'm pretty sure UFC would be gone by now.
> 
> ...


Sorry Clyde in the nicest possible way don't assume others have the same level as ignorance as you when it comes to matters like this. Your a student, your starting out in life and have no business or legal experiences I believe I'm correct in saying. I have had a number of legal battles running companies over the last 15 years since university. I also studied economics for 4 years so I understand what the f*** a Monopoly is and what competition law is about. Suffice to say I think I have a pretty good grasp of whats going on here, and I highlighted for you a few simple examples of why I would, but of course you assume wrong again. It you choose not to listen to reason so be it. Listen to the press conference Oldfan posted and you'l get a better grasp of whats going on here. EDIT: and listen to how the fighters are introduced what they have achieved, and maybe you'll be able to give them at least a single drop of your respect!

I don't see how you can possibly stand behind your arguments; you dont seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of a case like this, but dismiss it with nonsense talk based on a skewed personal opinion on peoples characters which is totally irrelevant. These are emotional arguments your using not logical ones.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Sorry Clyde in the nicest possible way don't assume others have the same level as ignorance as you when it comes to matters like this. Your a student, your starting out in life and have no business or legal experiences I believe I'm correct in saying. I have had a number of legal battles running companies over the last 15 years since university. I also studied economics for 4 years so I understand what the f*** a Monopoly is and what competition law is about. Suffice to say I think I have a pretty good grasp of whats going on here, and I highlighted for you a few simple examples of why I would, but of course you assume wrong again. It you choose not to listen to reason so be it. Listen to the press conference Oldfan posted and you'l get a better grasp of whats going on here. EDIT: and listen to how the fighters are introduced what they have achieved, and maybe you'll be able to give them at least a single drop of your respect!
> 
> I don't see how you can possibly stand behind your arguments; you dont seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of a case like this, but dismiss it with nonsense talk based on a skewed personal opinion on peoples characters which is totally irrelevant. These are emotional arguments your using not logical ones.


Show me the source of information which shows that UFC is in violation of the law.

You know, that BloodyElbow link you clicked that has absolutely no convincing legal point for either side.

It's not ignorance. We haven't been gifted enough of the information to be able to decide if UFC has broken any laws or what.

You may have done sooooo much. But have you ever defended your MMA company against ex-employees in matters of fighter pay, unfair dismissal or whatever else is the situation? You can be in a billion legal battles. That doesnt give you experience to know what's going on here. This is a unique situation, as is almost every legal battle. If I go to court tomorrow for something, money loan or whatever, do you believe I'd be qualified to make a judgement on a legal matter of yours? No. Cause I haven't experienced the legal matter you're experiencing. It's the same with the UFC here. You haven't experienced the same court case they are. We don't have even a quarter of the information yet and you are guaranteeing that they are guilty.

Me dismissing the case is the EXACT same as you saying they are DEFO going down for it. I'm dismissing it because all the guys have had personal vendettas against UFC for a while and have nothing good to say about it. Maybe they have a case. My main point is that until some fighter who seems to have NO reason to go against UFC other than to help the future of the sport, then not a lot of people will care.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Sorry Clyde in the nicest possible way don't assume others have the same level as ignorance as you when it comes to matters like this. Your a student, your starting out in life and have no business or legal experiences I believe I'm correct in saying. I have had a number of legal battles running companies over the last 15 years since university. I also studied economics for 4 years so I understand what the f*** a Monopoly is and what competition law is about. Suffice to say I think I have a pretty good grasp of whats going on here, and I highlighted for you a few simple examples of why I would, but of course you assume wrong again. It you choose not to listen to reason so be it. Listen to the press conference Oldfan posted and you'l get a better grasp of whats going on here. EDIT: and listen to how the fighters are introduced what they have achieved, and maybe you'll be able to give them at least a single drop of your respect!
> 
> I don't see how you can possibly stand behind your arguments; you dont seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of a case like this, but dismiss it with nonsense talk based on a skewed personal opinion on peoples characters which is totally irrelevant. These are emotional arguments your using not logical ones.



Well, I am pretty interested in how this case will go down. So, would you mind posting all the info about what is being filed, the details of what will be brought up, what contract details/obligations there are going to be discussed, what defenses the UFC will have etc, just run down the court case for us who aren't as informed on this lawsuit as you are. 

You obviously know a lot about whats happening in this case, so break it down and please provide evidence to support your findings on the details of the case, that would be appreciated.

That's the easiest way to get everyone on the same page.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

I'm interested too. A lot of opinions being floated around on this topic without much substance.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Show me the source of information which shows that UFC is in violation of the law.
> 
> You know, that BloodyElbow link you clicked that has absolutely no convincing legal point for either side.
> 
> ...


Did you read the case linked in the first post? No you didn't. Its there in black and white for you Clyde, in point by point format so its easy for you to understand if you take the time to read it.

Then maybe you could do some reading on what a monopoly is, followed by what competition law is, and why it is implemented. Then you might come across like you had some semblance of a brain at least sometimes. I can't believe your still arguing this to be honest. 

Listed are all the complaints in the suit, much of it blatant anti competitive practice. Simply demanding a venue cannot be used by another promotion is breaking competition laws so on that alone they will win on never mind the other well over a dozen instances of blatantly as obvious as you can get breaking of competition laws. Maybe they won't win on all of them, but probably this will be settled out of court for a large amount of money, not a 'few grand' as you put it, and following it we'll start to see a change in landscape in the competition because all of those verdicts they get will set a precedent on how the industry is run from then on, and if its settled with no verdicts you can be damn sure they won't be making those $100-200m dollar mistakes again 
You see you dont understand Monopolies, or competition in the first place, but its not rocket science man. You go on like you need to be a highly educated person specifically in the area of Mixed martial arts legalities to understand basic economics and a simple enough case thats been put forward by the fighters. 
Ive done my best in this post not to just insult you to high heaven, because its started to get stupid now. Do some reading and stop trying to tell me I dont know what Im talking about because you have no idea, and can't even read the case in the first place.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> Well, I am pretty interested in how this case will go down. So, would you mind posting all the info about what is being filed, the details of what will be brought up, what contract details/obligations there are going to be discussed, what defenses the UFC will have etc, just run down the court case for us who aren't as informed on this lawsuit as you are.
> 
> You obviously know a lot about whats happening in this case, so break it down and please provide evidence to support your findings on the details of the case, that would be appreciated.
> 
> ...


I dont think getting everyone on the same page is going to happen lol

But like I said above read the case. Listen to the press conference and hear the credentials of the people taking this case. The top Anti Trust lawyers in the country. Guys who have taken the biggest and most powerful organisations for 100's of millions of dollars, organisations far more powerful then the UFC. If you think for a second these kinds of people are going to waste their time, and file almost 2 dozen separate things against the UFC with them being frivolous or just bullshit disgruntled employees stuff then I would think again!


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> I dont think getting everyone on the same page is going to happen lol
> 
> 
> 
> But like I said above read the case. Listen to the press conference and hear the credentials of the people taking this case. The top Anti Trust lawyers in the country. Guys who have taken the biggest and most powerful organisations for 100's of millions of dollars, organisations far more powerful then the UFC. If you think for a second these kinds of people are going to waste their time, and file almost 2 dozen separate things against the UFC with them being frivolous or just bullshit disgruntled employees stuff then I would think again!



Going by the article, it says no evidence has been given for any of the claims in the lawsuit, and I am not seeing anything regarding the quality of defense the UFC has or what the factual/crying-about-nothing-illegal ratio is regarding what is filed.

So again, can you post the details/evidence/what the UFC has factually done that is illegal, then the defense that the UFC has, and evidence to go with it all?

If you can't, then you are no more informed than anyone else on the matter. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

The Sherman Act " [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition"


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Have you read the case MC?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> The Sherman Act " [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition"



And? The UFC has had competition its entire existence. At times it wasn't even the best promotion, it came in second or even lower. There are multiple promotions out there right now where people can go and get work, many of them do, and get paid some nice change to boot.

Provide the evidence that the UFC is a monopoly, show me what the UFC is going down for. I am genuinely curious, the UFC could use a slap to the face, so show me the factual evidence to support the illegal activities the UFC has done. 




Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

_RIVAL_ said:


> *Direct quote from lawsuit: Page 38 paragraph 118....*



Here is the problem, it's not what you say it's what you do and Penn did fight outside the UFC and none of the other things happened. Bringing that up doesn't help there case it hurts it


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Wait, is this thread the actual courtroom now? I thought this was the place to simply post kneejerk uninformed opinions?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> And? The UFC has had competition its entire existence. At times it wasn't even the best promotion, it came in second or even lower. There are multiple promotions out there right now where people can go and get work, many of them do, and get paid some nice change to boot.
> 
> Provide the evidence that the UFC is a monopoly, show me what the UFC is going down for. I am genuinely curious, the UFC could use a slap to the face, so show me the factual evidence to support the illegal activities the UFC has done.
> 
> ...


Please read the case. Then you will know what Im talking about, if you dont read it theres no point having this conversation. Because you will be able to recall the exact incidents they are talking about and filing against. 

Then come back to me and have this discussion again. 

But remember my argument here is that they have broken the laws that have been filed in the case, and there are many instances and when you read each point you will remember them. Yours and Clydes argument is you dont like the fighters so they won't win
To name one simple obvious thing they have done: Buying up your only real competitors - Pride and Strikeforce are more examples of breaking these kinds of laws. Competition law for example prevents more then one premier league club being owned by one person. If someone tried to buy more then one club which people have tried to do, they get shut down by the body that overseas the sport and cannot do it. This is what the laws are in place to prevent. The UFC flew under the radar because it was small time for so many years. Its come to the boiling point simple as that.

Im not going to reply to anymore rebuttals until the people rebutting have read the case. Recess called for your honour!


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Woodenhead said:


> Wait, is this thread the actual courtroom now? I thought this was the place to simply post kneejerk uninformed opinions?


Not any longer. Now it's "I know more than you on this topic because I can copy and paste better than you."


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Woodenhead said:


> Wait, is this thread the actual courtroom now? I thought this was the place to simply post kneejerk uninformed opinions?


I think the UFC is going to lose every penny and go bankrupt.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> I think the UFC is going to lose every penny and go bankrupt.


The plaintiffs are suing for 3 times the decided loss of earnings each + legal expenses. If guys like Randy Couture join - and and more big ex stars their loss of earnings will be vastly higher so you could well be right. 

Its established that the UFC paid out between 17-20% of its total revenues to fighters whereas in established sports its 50% - NBA, NFL, and its 80% in boxing - this is what Bob Arum charges. 

So if you do the maths, and the court decided that they should have been paid 50% or more of the revenue, it could be a huge number. You can be pretty sure Tito is going to be in this and Rampage, the big earners. It talks about how Dana blocked Rampages deal with Reebok so he could sign a different deal with the UFC. Big loss of earnings for Rampage.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Scarecrow said:


> Not any longer. Now it's "I know more than you on this topic because I can copy and paste better than you."


I assume thats directed at me because I quoted the very law at the basis of the case. Shame on me :mistress01:


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

So... you're telling me my uninformed kneejerk reaction might not be so far away from the truth. :laugh:


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

https://mobile.twitter.com/danawhite/status/257622142416482304

Here is a fitting twitter response from good ol Dana. You know the people's Prez!

Here is a quote from back in the AKA banned days. Guess he didnt care for his Mexican Fedor then. Hmmm I guess if you mean little to Dana he doesnt really give a shit about you. Hmmm in other news the sky is blue. You mean to tell me Dana doesnt give a shit about his fighters

A. If they dont rake in the loot for him.

B. If they arent repped by who he wants tp deal with. Or if they try to negotiate for a fair shake.

Imagine that.

Fitch said he thought there should room to negotiate on these contracts but said the UFC would not budge.
He said he understood it was highly unlikely that another company would want to put him in a video game but said it was only reasonable that he not tie his rights up for life.
White said he flew to San Jose in the summer to talk with the AKA fighters, but Fitch said the discussion was about a merchandising agreement.
?He wanted us to sign that merchandising agreement, and it was not a very good agreement,? Fitch said. ?There was not really a reason for us to sign it. The first thing they brought to us was for us to sign all of our rights away for everything forever. It was for very small compensation, and there was no compensation for family members if we were to die.
?We could die and they could make memorial figurines and stuff and make thousands, millions of dollars, and our families wouldn?t see a penny of it. The way they bring the contracts and stuff to us, I don?t know, it?s just not how business is done.?
Zinkin also represents UFC light heavyweight Chuck Liddell, though Liddell does not fight for AKA. White said he has been ?beefing with Zinkin for years? and said he had to call Liddell, one of his closest friends, and tell him to get Zinkin to back off.
According to White, Liddell said Zinkin represented him on sponsorships and he would negotiate his own deals with the UFC.
Fitch said he has been a loyal UFC employee and said, ?I?d only like a little bit of respect for the blood I shed for this company.?
White said he has sacrificed more than anyone to build the UFC into the powerhouse it has become and that he?s tired of athletes who don?t want to ?get with the program.?
Velasquez, one of the sport?s rising stars, clearly is on the outs with White. White said Zinkin wanted standard language that is part of every UFC fighter?s contract removed from Velasquez?s deal.
?Can you believe that?? White said. ?Chuck Liddell has that language in his contract. Randy Couture has it. Anderson Silva has it. And Cain [expletive] Velasquez, with two [expletive] fights, wants us to change it for him? That?s [expletive] nuts. He can get the [expletive] out.
?I?m not a douche bag and I do a lot for these guys, a lot more than any of you will ever know. We?re in a horrible time in the economy now, and every guy with two nickels to rub together is making a run at us. We?ve worked too hard, given too much, to let certain guys come in and [expletive] with that.?
Fitch said he?s not trying to mess with anything and that he simply wants to fight. He said he always has been respectful in all his dealings with the UFC and said he can?t understand the position he finds himself in without ever having spoken to White.
He plans to call White to discuss the situation but wasn?t sure what move to make.
?I?m more than willing to work with them, but I don?t see why we have to give up our whole lives for this,? Fitch said. ?Why not a time limit? If we did a 10-year deal with them, is that that unreasonable? I don?t understand how this happened, honestly. It?s tough.?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> So... you're telling me my uninformed kneejerk reaction might not be so far away from the truth. :laugh:


Well they would probably reach a settlement before it got to that, unless the fighters are hell bent on a jury


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't know why so many people root against the UFC. I don't foresee Bellator or WSOF paving the way forward for the sport if something does negatively effect the UFC in a seriously, detrimental way. If the UFC goes, MMA basically dwindles down the line, or at least dramatically diminishes.

I don't think a bunch of forum members suddenly start posting in the Bellator section if there isn't a UFC to talk about here.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Corporatism, its whats for dinner!

This case is going to go the same way the rest of them have went, in favor of the cooperation..


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

VolcomX311 said:


> I don't know why so many people root against the UFC. I don't foresee Bellator or WSOF paving the way forward for the sport if something does negatively effect the UFC in a seriously, detrimental way. If the UFC goes, MMA basically dwindles down the line, or at least dramatically diminishes.
> 
> I don't think a bunch of forum members suddenly start posting in the Bellator section if there isn't a UFC to talk about here.


It is called lighting a fire under their ass to be better.

It is called the biggest company attracting thr best athletes to get into mma. No turning them off because their boss is a crazy person and the pay is minimal. 

Rooting for bettering the fighters doesnt mean you are rooting against the ufc. MY GOD. 

of course that is what dana wants people to think. If you are for fighter rights and the betterment of fighters in this sport then certainly you must want the ufc to fail!

Cant make this shit up. Cant believe how ignorant and blinded so many people are.


----------



## suffersystem (Feb 4, 2007)

jonnyg4508 said:


> It is called lighting a fire under their ass to be better.
> 
> It is called the biggest company attracting thr best athletes to get into mma. *No turning them off because their boss is a crazy person and the pay is minimal.*
> 
> ...




Wouldn't raising the minimum pay in turn create an even worse discrepency between the UFC pay and other orgs, in a sense making it impossible to even have another org compete on an even playing feild? 

Some people complain now because other org won't match the UFC pay most times, having the UFC pay them even more will just make that even worse. 

Bellator has Viacom that could be behind them, yet nobody is bitching at bellator to pay their fighters more, even though they matched one offer with a fighter already.

Also, if say UFC does go under, no way the other rogs could pick up all the fighters, so you end up with less fighters fighting, making less money for the ones that do get contracts, and who's to say the general public even likes this change of brands and follows fighters over to Bellator? What if the general public just stops watching and Bellator ends up going under since they can't keep up after the dust settles.

Say good bye to fighter health insurance more than likely as well.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

suffersystem said:


> Wouldn't raising the minimum pay in turn create an even worse discrepency between the UFC pay and other orgs, in a sense making it impossible to even have another org compete on an even playing feild?
> 
> Some people complain now because other org won't match the UFC pay most times, having the UFC pay them even more will just make that even worse.
> 
> ...


I would disagree. The very reason the likes of Bellator can't compete is because of the anti competitive practices which a good portion of the case is about. The UFC have exclusive deals with sponsors which does not allow them to work with anyone else in the MMA industry, therefore taking all the big sponsors for themselves, because the list of people wanting to sponsor MMA is not endless. They dont allow Bellator in the best venues, theres is a long list in the case of venues they have only they can use for MMA. 
They schedule bigger cards the same night at the same time as Bellator again making it very hard for them to get traction and viewer numbers and attract sponsors. 
These are the kinds of reasons they can't compete and the things they are going to be trying in this case. If the UFC lose the issues in this case and the landscape changes, competition will thrive.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

suffersystem said:


> jonnyg4508 said:
> 
> 
> > It is called lighting a fire under their ass to be better.
> ...


I dont think anyone anywhere is saying UFC is paying too much there for squashing competition. 

A lot of guys would be paid more right now by Bellator. 

Not sure what you are getting at? No one is blaming the ufc for being "too good of a place to work". They are blaming them for many practices they find unjust. For example threatening BJ's ufc career for simply going to K-1 after he won the belt BECAUSE HE WAS OFFERED MORE BY K-1!!!!

Of the example that tapouy was set to sign a 1 mill offer to sponsor Fedor. Of course st the time they did tons of ufc stuff. The claim states Dana went off and said if Tapout does business with Fedor and that crew then they would be banned from ufc sponsorship. Basically strong arming them since they were the bigger company. That is an example if true of monopolizing things. When a simple MMA sponor gets threatened by one promotion just because they found a good deal with another promotion. How dare tap out try and better thwir brand!!!! Ufc will have none of that!

One example that isnt good for the plantiffs is Gil situation where he became a FA Went to Bellator and got a better deal....but ufc "matched it". I think ufc's matching claims are not legit. But that was an example of the free market sort of sorting itself out. One of the few.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

You posted some actually relevant information Don so although I still think you have NO idea of how it will play out, you have gathered enough information to talk about it and as I have not, I won't try and refute anything.

What is confusing me is that the UFC is breaking the law by being the best? The UFC didn't break the law to get people to prefer them to Pride. They simply marketed their product member and made some intelligent moves. Pride started struggling financially and then UFC purchased them, as with every other organisation they have dealt with. Is this really breaking the law? And if so why? Isn't domination the key here? Don't they WANT to be the biggest company? Isn't that EVERY companies goal?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You posted some actually relevant information Don so although I still think you have NO idea of how it will play out, you have gathered enough information to talk about it and as I have not, I won't try and refute anything.
> 
> What is confusing me is that the UFC is breaking the law by being the best? The UFC didn't break the law to get people to prefer them to Pride. They simply marketed their product member and made some intelligent moves. Pride started struggling financially and then UFC purchased them, as with every other organisation they have dealt with. Is this really breaking the law? And if so why? Isn't domination the key here? Don't they WANT to be the biggest company? Isn't that EVERY companies goal?


Yes they do want to be the biggest. But big business has many restrictions and laws it has to abide by to make it a fair playing field not only for other businesses, but for the workers and for the consuming public. 

Remember if companies has the choice they would employ 5 year olds on production lines and pay them 10 cents an hour. It could be argued so what if people are willing to do it but at the end of the day its bad. 
The very nature of corporations is profit driven as the number one goal so with this in mind government has to keep them in line so they don't do unethical practices that ruin things for other people on their way to big profits.

The pharma example is the best. Imagine if one pharm. company bought all the other big ones in the world, so we only had one company making drugs for people and no competition. They set the price, they decide what products come to market, they control production and logistics, and they dont need to do any of it in an efficient fair way because they can't lose as people and companies have to buy from them they have no choice. They could charge you $100 for an aspirin and you would have to pay it.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Yes they do want to be the biggest. But big business has many restrictions and laws it has to abide by to make it a fair playing field not only for other businesses, but for the workers and for the consuming public.
> 
> Remember if companies has the choice they would employ 5 year olds on production lines and pay them 10 cents an hour. It could be argued so what if people are willing to do it but at the end of the day its bad.
> The very nature of corporations is profit driven as the number one goal so with this in mind government has to keep them in line so they don't do unethical practices that ruin things for other people on their way to big profits.
> ...


Is UFC breaking any laws though? In the way that hiring 5 year olds would be.

UFC doesn't pay fighters what Bellator can. It's arguable that Bellator has more money than UFC.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Is UFC breaking any laws though?


That's for the courts to decide. :]

Everything else is simply conjecture/opinions.
···
I, for one, am not rooting "against" the UFC; I _am_ hoping for a better future situation for middle-to-lower ranked fighters. I hope _something_ good will come of this, to that end.

Other than that, I'm just sitting back and watching events unfold, while not getting my panties in a bunch over any of it. Predicting outcomes of things like this is fun and all, but people should chill instead of getting super serious about it. Biased guess-timations and uninformed predictions don't mean squat (unless you can put real money on it!) - a broken clock is right twice a day! (unless it's digital. lol)


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Godamn, what is this "you don't know what is going to happen". Nobody knows, but the lawsuit is legit. Of course the attorney of a murderer will state along his client he is innocent before hand. That will be settled down the road.

DonRifle is absolutely spot on on everything and he brings solid arguments people would visualize right away if they were not so worried about losing an argument, as always.

Is UFC doing anything illegal? If they are, it's not up to posters in this forum to go after evidences on google to convince the usual skeptics, there will be massive investigation and court battles. This type of dispute is far from newsflashes in the business world and similar cases ended with victories being issued to different parties.

Point is. It is legit. Somebody is doing something. Make no mistake, if UFC (or any other company - can very well be WSOF in the future)can, they will take over everything. If they will bend rules, laws or spend extra to payoff for silence or veredicts, they will, so that is a great move to show them they are not entirely free to do whatever they want regarding athletes careers, sponsors and income.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Is UFC breaking any laws though? In the way that hiring 5 year olds would be.
> 
> UFC doesn't pay fighters what Bellator can. It's arguable that Bellator has more money than UFC.


Yes they are breaking many, i'll have a look for some cases that have covered some similar issues. They are not so obvious to the layman as employing a 5 year old on a production line, but they are laws nonetheless. 

The 'disclosure' point in this case is going to be very interesting, because in the press conference they were asked a lot about evidence but the lawyers weren't willing to disclose it yet (this would give the UFC extra time to prepare before disclosure). So we'll see what evidence they come up with. 

But basically the Sherman Act i quoted before its the basis for the law. - Did the UFC achieve Monopoly status in a fair way or did they do it by unfair practices. Historically buying the competition, enforcing terms that are deemed unfair in employee contracts, limiting their opportunities, manipulating the market by taking venues, sponsors and so on, each one of these things is breaking competition law. And like I said because its in the contracts in black and white, and there is a history of DW coming out in public and boasting about destroying the competition, this is why I believe such big law firms are involved, because they see it as a slam dunk. Normally companies try and hide these kind of practices but the UFC gloated about them, very naive of them and short sighted. 

DW is quoted in the lawsuit a number of times saying things like 'there is no fu****** competition" and so on. Hardly the stuff you want to be quoted on when asked in a court of law if the market is competitive and fair. 

With regards to Bellator, the question is not if their backers Viacom have enough money or more money to pay fighters, its whether they can do it and still make a profit, or whether the UFC have manipulated the market so much with sponsors, the competitive landscape for fighters to become the best and so on. By buying up any comparable organisation to themselves the UFC have manipulated the market so that in order for a fighter to be recognised as the best in the world he has to fight in that organisation and cannot fight in lower 'league competitors'. The is a very big part of the case to, but this point will more so come down to legal skill I think. Theres so many things to me that are obvious they've done wrong, but probably they will be able to get some good defence for some of them. 

If I had to bet on it Id say it will never go to court, UFC has too much to lose with a big public court case.

One other point is when companies grow they often replace the CEO with someone more experienced in handling multinational organisation that involves a variety of other business skills and knowledge such as things like competition, labour law and so on. It seems this is the logical step, to put someone in charge of the UFC who knows this side of business better then DW. If it was a public company on the stock market DW would be replaced immediately. But since its private and they are all good mates he will probably stay in charge.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Here is a simple case that happened in the computer industry with Intel the guys that make the processing chips for PC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel

You'll see they settled eventually for $1.6 billion dollars. 

"AMD launched the lawsuit against its rival Intel, the world's leading microprocessor manufacturer. AMD has claimed that Intel engaged in unfair competition by offering rebates to Japanese PC manufacturers who agreed to eliminate or limit purchases of microprocessors made by AMD or a smaller manufacturer"

So if you compare that to say the UFC going to sponsors and saying you cannot sponsor Bellator, its in the same ballpark of anti competitive practice.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Yes they are breaking many, i'll have a look for some cases that have covered some similar issues. They are not so obvious to the layman as employing a 5 year old on a production line, but they are laws nonetheless.
> 
> The 'disclosure' point in this case is going to be very interesting, because in the press conference they were asked a lot about evidence but the lawyers weren't willing to disclose it yet (this would give the UFC extra time to prepare before disclosure). So we'll see what evidence they come up with.
> 
> ...


I didnt mean are they breaking any laws in this case.

What I mean was like how you mentioned child labour. That is a direct "They are breaking the law" situation.

Good business imo shouldn't be illegal. UFC prevailed where others fell because they were smarter and were better at business. I wouldn't specifically say that they have a "monopoly". Like say UFC did what everyone says they want and paid eveyrone loads...wouldnt they be making it even harder for companies to compete because they couldnt afford the same amount?

I'm in NO way trying to pretend or imply I have ANY clue of the law here. Now that you are actually talking about actual legal matters that could be possible here instead of just saying "read the case" (which no one has conclusively decided yet), I'm not gonna fight against any of it cause I know fuk all about it all.

For the record I like Dana in UFC. I'm sick of the typical football manager / boxing promoter etc. responses where people are afraid to show any emotion. Dana is a fight fan. He talks like he's one of us. MMA is an in your face sport and I think that a swearing and honest dude like DW represents it well. You can saw what you want about Dana but he's not some intelligent politician who plans his words carefully to "poison" the masses. He's a regular dude who says stuff off the cuff when he's feeling it at that time.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Here's hoping the outcome of this lawsuit will be a satisfying settlement and a fighters union. :dunno:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I didnt mean are they breaking any laws in this case.
> 
> What I mean was like how you mentioned child labour. That is a direct "They are breaking the law" situation.
> 
> ...


Yes but the problem is your deeming certain things as good business, which in fact are not good business. Your just not aware of the laws that are in place for business. 

If you go back to the Sherman act, there is no problem creating a Monopoly from good business practice, its when you use unfair means to keep out the competition and create your Monopoly thats when your breaking the law. 
Good business for the UFC would have to consider competition law as they grew, and their lawyers should of been telling them this, so in my eyes they've been stupid with the gloating etc. 

And you should read the case. As an MMA enthusiast it will be 30 minutes of your time well invested, its very interesting and you will remember all the stuff they are talking about in the case.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

*deleted* - wrong thread


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Yes but the problem is your deeming certain things as good business, which in fact are not good business. Your just not aware of the laws that are in place for business.
> 
> If you go back to the Sherman act, there is no problem creating a Monopoly from good business practice, its when you use unfair means to keep out the competition and create your Monopoly thats when your breaking the law.
> Good business for the UFC would have to consider competition law as they grew, and their lawyers should of been telling them this, so in my eyes they've been stupid with the gloating etc.
> ...


I know you might not be an expert in it so apologies if I'm asking loads haha.

What "bad" business did the UFC do?

And why does a company have to allow competition?

Is WWE not HIGHLY liable to this also? Pride, Strikeforce, Bellator, UFC has always had competition but Bellator is soooooo much higher up than TNA ever was.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I've never heard of Vince McMahon threatening venues should they decide to have ROH or TNA there. I've never heard WWE wrestlers complain about pay either... or about having to sign over the rights to his likeness.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I know you might not be an expert in it so apologies if I'm asking loads haha.
> 
> What "bad" business did the UFC do?
> 
> ...


All the points raised in the case are considered bad for competition, therefore deemed bad business at this current point in time. 
Whether they can prove all of them remains to be seen but many as I have listed throughout this thread are black and white slam dunks because of boasting and fighter contracts

You'll need to read up on competition, just google it, Ive already explained it many times why it benefits the consumer and employees. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-so-bad-about-monopoly-power/

Have no idea on wrestling.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I can't read up on it because every single law ever is written is complete jargon. Like the Sherman law you posted, absolutely horrendous to read grammatically (I believe you just copied and pasted it so not an insult) and I couldnt understand a word of it.

Just in simple terms, what bad business does the UFC do?

Low fighter pay is subjective. With an average of 4 fights a year, all losses, a fighter will get 32k from UFC. It can be hardy to argue that isn't fair, the UFC's income or Dana White's pay won't really change that and I can't imagine that legally it's an issue. In people's first year in a job, say like a paid intern-ship, they'll be making around the same amount of money in a company that could well make millions. If it's not an issue for them, without any actual law implications and just a basic comparison (so not holding any argumentative weight, just my personal speculation), I imagine UFC can't REALLY be held to that.

As for buying the competition, there is always more competition. Again, a vague comparison, but WWE bought the only major wrestling company on the planet, WCW, and took all of it's talent. In fact, you can compare UFC taking Pride's greatest assess to those two companies too. I'm going to assume that if two people ever had the opportunity to sue each other and would have taken it with legal powerhouses behind them, that'd have been Ted Turner and Vince McMahon.

I'm clearly missing the point, but to me if just seems that UFC can be a bit rough on pay for a decent amount of fighters (although the internet even claims 200k to lose Gil is underpaid smh). The UFC purchased it's competitors through the normal methods because it was doing better business and as a result was able to convince several fighters away until they were able to buy them. Dana White says a lot of stupid shit but I can't imagine "stupid shit" can get the company in legal hot water.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I can't read up on it because every single law ever is written is complete jargon. Like the Sherman law you posted, absolutely horrendous to read grammatically (I believe you just copied and pasted it so not an insult) and I couldnt understand a word of it.
> 
> Just in simple terms, what bad business does the UFC do?
> 
> ...


Tap Tap Tap!!! I submit, you broke me Clyde  But seriously if you can't read the text and understand it I can't really help you. The law is simple enough if you ask me.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

German is simple enough if you ask me. Complex coding is easy enough if you ask me.

What I was saying is that that's just what it all appears to be. People say I'm like a UFC fanboy or whatever stupid statement there is, but I'm just not negative about everything. It seems that no matter what we are discussing; legalizing drugs, bosses in a business, the police or whatever, EVERYONE on the net is anti-authority, so I find it hard to just rag on everything.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

It's about time this thread be changed to Off-Topic.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Here is a simple case that happened in the computer industry with Intel the guys that make the processing chips for PC.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel
> 
> ...


 Customers/Suppliers wanting exclusive rights to a product happens all the time in every industry. The UFC is saying we don't want to be associated with out competition and to protect the identity of our product, our brand we spend millions went into debt to build.We don't want to hold our cards in the same venues as for example Bellator. For example I work in the oil and gas industry and we buy down hole tools from other companies but when we do so our company purchases exclusivity rights for North America preventing that company from selling there products to any other Service company. Its a standard procedure that happens in every company every day. As for sponsors the UFC has every right to ask they don't sponsor other MMA companies as by sponsoring the UFC they are starting a buisiness partnership where they are a brand synergy and for example the UFC and Harley Davidson have interwoven there brands so to say. The UFC again is merely protecting its brand identity and trying to prevent it from being watered down. If Harley started sponsoring Bellator as well then Harley is no longer a partner of the UFC its a partner of MMA which is no longer as mutually beneficial deal for the UFC they are merely selling advertisements instead of sponsorships. The deal with some sponsors extends beyond ad space, the UFC is attatching itself to the Harley band wagon as well and trying to attech itself to that Harley lifestyle so as to attract new viewers, its a mutually beneficial relationship much more complex than selling ads in a magazine. This case IMO will get tossed because the UFC will merel argue it is not trying to prevent there competitors from doing buisiness its trying to maintian its brand identity and prevent its competitors from becoming that Bellator UFC card or that World series of UFC show. They want to maintain the UFC as the preimier brand and to do so they have to maintain a unique atmosphere, look and feel and the sponsors become so closely associated with that look and feel that there participation or association with other brands could water down the UFC brand. While I don't really know how much fighters are or aren't over paid this case has no legs.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Toxic being able to spin that in what I imagine wasn't the longest thought process will tell me that UFC's lawyers might be able to handle this fairly easily.

But Rifle made a good point, UFC wants no part in this. UFC could well settle out of court to avoid having it's dirty laundry aired in public.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Customers/Suppliers wanting exclusive rights to a product happens all the time in every industry. .


Yes it does, but in most cases there are many competing products and alternative products that other companies can get instead, and if it comes to the point where there isn't this is when regulation comes into play. 

Take an example of a real estate agent who is going to sell a new property development - they will demand exclusivity as the only company allowed to do sales, but the other agents in the market can get other projects and sell them. If one real estate company got every development available in the market to sell and none of the competitors could get property on their books, a regulator would step in to free up the market so it would be competitive, and so the company that has all the properties to sell can't start pricing fixing with much higher commissions and so on. 

I think maybe the UFC will use arguments along the lines of what you say, but I don't think they are good enough to defend against their flagrant breaking of these laws.
I think you need to look at this case in a more black and white way - did they break the law in question on each point and there are over 20 if I remember right. In my opinion they did on almost all of them . 

I think your disagreeing with the laws more then anything. But we will see how it plays out. I dont see anything other then the UFC having to pay a 9 figure sum out in compensation of some sort.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

In your opinion Dana White is a master of poisoning all of us. Apologies if I doubt your opinion is down the middle.

UFC will just say "Gilbert Melendez was going to go to Bellator because they were offering him more money. We had to offer him twice as much as we had previously, a title shot and TUF". They had to do all of this because Bellator was competing with them to sign him.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Since your in oil the most important Anti Trust Case of them all that set the precedent for most of these cases in the US was the break up of Standard Oil. 

Heres the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Company_of_New_Jersey_v._United_States

Its explained nicely in this article http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2...urt-orders-standard-oil-to-be-broken-up/?_r=0 

Different industry but same issues being tackled. Standard oil was initially the innovator in the industry and therefore built a monopoly naturally, but then used unfair tactics to maintain it, very similar to what the UFC have done.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> In your opinion Dana White is a master of poisoning all of us. Apologies if I doubt your opinion is down the middle.
> 
> UFC will just say "Gilbert Melendez was going to go to Bellator because they were offering him more money. We had to offer him twice as much as we had previously, a title shot and TUF". They had to do all of this because Bellator was competing with them to sign him.


Yeah so what the UFC did which is a very clear example of acting like a Monopoly is they temporarily raised the amount they would pay for a fighter simply so a competitor would not sign him. Then he is signed and they go back to paying everyone else buttons. 
This particular instance you sight is a really clear cut anti competitive behaviour, It called Price Fixing

And I do believe DW poisons people, thats not to say I dont respect him for other things and bringing the sport to where it is today.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> *Yes it does, but in most cases there are many competing products and alternative products that other companies can get instead*, and if it comes to the point where there isn't this is when regulation comes into play.


 And yet Bellator and WSOF have events, hire fighters, have sponsors on there cages etc. The UFC isn't trying to prevent Bellator or WSOF from having sponsors or venues they are trying to stop them from using the UFC's sponsors and venues.



DonRifle said:


> Yeah so what the UFC did which is a very clear example of acting like a Monopoly is they temporarily raised the amount they would pay for a fighter simply so a competitor would not sign him. Then he is signed and they go back to paying everyone else buttons.
> This particular instance you sight is a really clear cut anti competitive behaviour, It called Price Fixing
> 
> And I do believe DW poisons people, thats not to say I dont respect him for other things and bringing the sport to where it is today.


So supply and demand can't exist? The UFC payed more for Gilbert because there was a higher demand for his services. If a fighter isn't in high demand it drives down the price. Its the entire principal of a free market.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Yeah so what the UFC did which is a very clear example of acting like a Monopoly is they temporarily raised the amount they would pay for a fighter simply so a competitor would not sign him. Then he is signed and they go back to paying everyone else buttons.
> This particular instance you sight is a really clear cut anti competitive behaviour, It called Price Fixing
> 
> And I do believe DW poisons people, thats not to say I dont respect him for other things and bringing the sport to where it is today.


I think this is gonna be a really tough court case cause it just seems to have so much perspective and I imagine the law will be vague in that respect (like a lot of laws are).

The way I view that, it's just a simple case of the UFC wanting to keep their fighter so a bidding war ensued. Gilbert Melendez, a person free to make his own decisions, decided that he would accept the UFC's contract. Bellator arguably played the UFC in this situation, offering Gil a staggering contract knowing the UFC would have the option to match it and would likely do so.

Cung Le has left the UFC because he doesn't care for them and might join Bellator. That is because it is a completely valid and viable option.

Ben Askren won't join the UFC because he gets a ridiculous amount more in fighting for One FC.

The competition is out there. I believe the thing that it all comes down to is that the best fighters are under UFC contracts, so everyone wants to fight them. UFC has enough cards to get to potential up and comers and stick them on the prelims while Bellator can't really get to those guys due to lesser cards being put on, a choice made by them for the sake of ratings.

I don't know man. I think it's simple; UFC has the best fighters so everyone wants to fight there. It offers the most opportunities and hosts all over the world.

By the logic of this whole point, UCMMA and BAMMA can sue Cage Warriors because they sign everyone in the UK, as far as I know they offer more money (at least to some guys) and they put on the most cards with the only major TV deal.

I know you said you don't know about wrestling, but you gave some non-fighting examples so I think WWE is a great example. Essentially, WWE can say "We want every single guy on the ROH roster" and they will get 99% of them. A team team of ROH world champions got a tryout match on WWE's developmental show and didnt even get signed. They have THAT much of a strangle hold on the wrestling world that they can turn away some of the best guys from other companies. They recently took away two top 5 guys from NJPW, have taken almost every top guy from ROH over the years. Then you've got the clusterfuk of backstabbing with WCW, which resulted in WWE purchasing their only competitor and signing all of their talent. WWE even sent a tank with wrestlers to the WCW show to persuade people not to enter the event. WCW revealed the results of a taped WWE(F) show before WWF even aired, I believing even announcing a world title change. If there was something that could have been done about all of this, I'm pretty damn sure it'd have been done.





Maybe UFC will get brought to it's knees but just from talking to you Don, and the idea of the case I've got from you, these are my non-legal comparisons.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> And yet Bellator and WSOF have events, hire fighters, have sponsors on there cages etc. The UFC isn't trying to prevent Bellator or WSOF from having sponsors or venues they are trying to stop them from using the UFC's sponsors and venues.
> 
> 
> 
> So supply and demand can't exist? The UFC payed more for Gilbert because there was a higher demand for his services. If a fighter isn't in high demand it drives down the price. Its the entire principal of a free market.


To point A, yes they are and that is not legal in a competitive marketplace, thats just the way it is. 

To point B, you could argue that, but to me its going to be the example they use for price fixing in the case, and I would agree with it. The quotes from Dana were we had to get him so Bellator didn't get him. Again anti competitive. If you take the NFL they have a draft so one team can't get all the good players. Dana has often compared the UFC to the NFL, but its not because players have choices and theres a free market for players. This is another point they make in their case.

You have to ask the question if the UFC buy up all the top talent in the world and only allow other organisations to have low level fighters or cut fighters, it does not allow for a competitive marketplace because it forces a situation where the smaller organisations cannot grow.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> To point A, yes they are and that is not legal in a competitive marketplace, thats just the way it is.


 Give me one example of how Dana tried to get anybody who does not sponsor the UFC to not sponsor another MMA organization. 



> To point B, you could argue that, but to me its going to be the example they use for price fixing in the case, and I would agree with it. The quotes from Dana were we had to get him so Bellator didn't get him. Again anti competitive. If you take the NFL they have a draft so one team can't get all the good players. Dana has often compared the UFC to the NFL, but its not because players have choices and theres a free market for players. This is another point they make in their case.


 But they all play in the NFL, the NFL doesn't let the CFL come to the draft? I must have missed when the Saskatchewan Rough Riders got to make there pick. The NFL is far more of a monopoly than the UFC is. Your comparing a team to a league, Don't think that the NFL has draft to avoid a monopoly they have a draft because its best for everybody as a whole and keeps the league alive. A team needs other teams to play against, the UFC is playing against Bellator they are entirely different entities. 


> You have to ask the question if the UFC buy up all the top talent in the world and only allow other organisations to have low level fighters or cut fighters, it does not allow for a competitive marketplace because it forces a situation where the smaller organisations cannot grow.


 Again the NFL buys up all the major foot ball players right? Because the NFL can afford to pay more should Arena football sue the NFL for having a monopoly?


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Toxic said:


> *Give me one example of how Dana tried to get anybody who does not sponsor the UFC to not sponsor another MMA organization.
> *


Remember the old Fedor/Tapout ordeal?

http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/06/26/tapout-cancels-fedor-shirt-after-ufc-plays-hardball


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Again the NFL buys up all the major foot ball players right? Because the NFL can afford to pay more should Arena football sue the NFL for having a monopoly?


Its not the same things, there are multiple different owners in the NFL, multiple different teams. Competition is healthy.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

LL said:


> Remember the old Fedor/Tapout ordeal?
> 
> http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/06/26/tapout-cancels-fedor-shirt-after-ufc-plays-hardball


That deal is listed in the case too


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

LL said:


> Remember the old Fedor/Tapout ordeal?
> 
> http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/06/26/tapout-cancels-fedor-shirt-after-ufc-plays-hardball


Not an example because as I posted earlier with Tap Out being a major sponsor of the UFC the UFC is merely protecting its brand. 



DonRifle said:


> Its not the same things, there are multiple different owners in the NFL, multiple different teams. Competition is healthy.


Competition is healthy for the NFL because when two teams play against each other they share profits. The mutual success is mutually beneficial. They are two pieces in the same puzzle but the UFC and Belltor are not they aren't even the close. Bellator's success does not help the UFC in any way.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I am thankful for Donrifle and the time he has spent kicking ass in this thread. 

He wanted to tap to the madness but he kept truckin.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Not an example because as I posted earlier with Tap Out being a major sponsor of the UFC the UFC is merely protecting its brand.
> 
> 
> 
> Competition is healthy for the NFL because when two teams play against each other they share profits. The mutual success is mutually beneficial. They are two pieces in the same puzzle but the UFC and Belltor are not they aren't even the close. Bellator's success does not help the UFC in any way.


Theres lots of teams in the NFL with dozens of players each, and Bellators success does not help the UFC your correct, it helps the industry because it makes it competitive. Employees, sponsors, fighters, venues will have more options, the only thing that won't benefit is the pockets of DW and the Fertitia's. Everyone else wins.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Theres lots of teams in the NFL with dozens of players each, and Bellators success does not help the UFC your correct, it helps the industry because it makes it competitive. Employees, sponsors, fighters, venues will have more options, the only thing that won't benefit is the pockets of DW and the Fertitia's. Everyone else wins.


I don't disagree with anything your saying but its not up the UFC, Dana the Fertita's to help there competitors thrive. I am not saying that Bellator succeeding would be bad for MMA but its not up to the UFC to make it happen and its not unfair or violating any laws for the UFC not to help them.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> I don't disagree with anything your saying but its not up the UFC, Dana the Fertita's to help there competitors thrive. I am not saying that Bellator succeeding would be bad for MMA but its not up to the UFC to make it happen and its not unfair or violating any laws for the UFC not to help them.


Its not up to them to let competition thrive, but they are not allowed to stop competition with practice deemed anti competitive. The cases down through the years on anti trust, it seems to me the UFC are doing the same things many other large corps have lost their cases on.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> Yeah so what the UFC did which is a very clear example of acting like a Monopoly is they temporarily raised the amount they would pay for a fighter simply so a competitor would not sign him.


Sounds like healthy competition to me.



> Then he is signed and they go back to paying everyone else buttons.
> This particular instance you sight is a really clear cut anti competitive behaviour, *It called Price Fixing*


Sorry, this is not true. Price fixing is the collusion of multiple players in the same industry to maintain a high value or price for a specific commodity. Basically, it would be akin to oil companies agreeing with each other not to drop the price of fuel below $1/£1/€1 per litre, to ensure huge profits all round. What seems to have happened in the Melendez case is free market bidding - exactly what people seem to want here.

Now i'm not sure on the rest of it, whether the UFC has unfairly hindered other organisations or not, but there must be a fine line between competing for the best fighters and allowing a fighter to go elsewhere for fear of being sued. It seems crazy to me.

I slightly alluded to the following in a different thread. Multiple high-end MMA organisations may not necessarily be a good thing. Are there even enough high level fighters for multiple high level organisations to exist? I don't think so. And even if there were, it would suck for the fans to see the 10 best fighters of each division separated between multiple organisations and never getting to compete against one another.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> Sounds like healthy competition to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Price fixing does not have to involve multiple companies. Your talking about Price Collusion in an Oligopoly with your example above


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> Price fixing does not have to involve multiple companies. Your talking about Price Collusion in an Oligopoly with your example above


Having two companies going head to head to sign a fighter sounds like legit business practice to me. How else are companies supposed to compete? Isn't this exactly what would happen if there were multiple companies with enough money to compete at the top?

I'm pretty sure that price fixing involves multiple "competitors" unlawfully agreeing set prices for their own benefits. I'm no whizz on the law, but thats how I always understood it and a quick google search seems to confirm. . . http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> Having two companies going head to head to sign a fighter sounds like legit business practice to me. How else are companies supposed to compete? Isn't this exactly what would happen if there were multiple companies with enough money to compete at the top?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that price fixing involves multiple "competitors" unlawfully agreeing set prices for their own benefits. I'm no whizz on the law, but thats how I always understood it and a quick google search seems to confirm. . . http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm


I'm pretty sure your wrong 

"Anti Trust legislation makes it illegal to change and fix prices under specific circumstances" UFC set a price for Melendez that DW as quoted as saying himself on the mic that he would not have paid if Bellator hadn't bid so much. Crystal clear breaking of this law. 

I would also suggest you get better sources for your definitions 

Price-fixing occurs when a company or companies within a given market artificially set or maintain the price of goods or services at a certain level, contrary to the workings of the free market

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/12

To quote the BJ Penn incident thats listed in the case - DW would f****** destroy BJ, if he went to another organisation to be paid a higher salary ie. market rates, in a free market. Clear anti competitive restraint of trade. Its almost like he handed the lawyers the noose to tie him in.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> I'm pretty sure your wrong
> 
> UFC set a price for Melendez


The UFC cannot set a price for Melendez when Melendez has free choice of who he signs with. The UFC were not selling or buying Melendez, they were merely offering him more money than Bellator. I don't see what is wrong with that at all.



> Price-fixing occurs when a company or companies within a given market artificially set or maintain the price of goods or services at a certain level, contrary to the workings of the free market



But this isn't happening. At least not the way I see it (which may be completely wrong of course). All I see is two organisations bidding for a fighter with offers and counter offers, competing against each other for his signature and services. Is there something wrong with what that? Should the UFC have allowed Melendez to sign for Bellator despite the fact that they were willing to offer him more money to join them?

Would it still be unlawful if it came to light that Bellator could have matched or even exceeded the UFC's offer financially but chose not to do so? Do we know that this wasn't the case?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> The UFC cannot set a price for Melendez when Melendez has free choice of who he signs with. The UFC were not selling or buying Melendez, they were merely offering him more money than Bellator. I don't see what is wrong with that at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You dont understand the big picture of competition in the marketplace from a purely economic and regulatory sense. Whether these regulations are fair or not is neither here nor there. The question is if they broke the laws they are accused of, the proof will be in the case, but I see it quite black and white for many of them.
Until you understand competition and how regulation works and why its done, any discussions of your opinion are pretty much futile because you will never be able to see the point being made, or understand the law behind it. 
Thats not having a go at you its just the reality.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> I'm pretty sure your wrong
> 
> "Anti Trust legislation makes it illegal to change and fix prices under specific circumstances" UFC set a price for Melendez that DW as quoted as saying himself on the mic that he would not have paid if Bellator hadn't bid so much. Crystal clear breaking of this law.
> 
> ...


Your absurd in your point of view on the Melendez thing because the one who inflated the cost was Melendez by increasing demand for his services. The UFC is killing competition and creating monopoly that is driving down fighter pay and there method of doing so is to allow there fighters to shop around I see what the competition is willing to pay then match its inflated deal. There master plan to underpay fighters involves overpaying them?

As for Dana saying he would have payed that much if Bellator wouldn't have been willing To of course not. Do you believe Kobe gets paid as much to pay basketball because he is really good at it or do you realize it's because there is a bidding war for his services?


You do realize Dana isn't actually the antichrist like he isn't hiding some horns and a burning pitchfork. no am sure the UFC has done a lot of questionable shit in the past and to agree with everything they have done is absurd, morally they have made a lot of wrongs but this is a legal case and none of the accusations have any merit from what I can see. 





Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Your absurd in your point of view on the Melendez thing because the one who inflated the cost was Melendez by increasing demand for his services. The UFC is killing competition and creating monopoly that is driving down fighter pay and there method of doing so is to allow there fighters to shop around I see what the competition is willing to pay then match its inflated deal. There master plan to underpay fighters involves overpaying them?
> 
> As for Dana saying he would have payed that much if Bellator wouldn't have been willing To of course not. Do you believe Kobe gets paid as much to pay basketball because he is really good at it or do you realize it's because there is a bidding war for his services?
> 
> ...


That opinion I gave is not absurd at all, nor is it to the people who have actually filed it, you can be sure they have gone through it with a fine tooth comb and have a much better understanding of it then me or you and how exactly it breaks the law. And as Ive said to the other guys your lack of understanding of the wider picture is what leads you to dismiss the hard evidence in relation to the specific laws being broken. 

We'll see how it plays out. Given that so many cases have been won on the basis of far less clearcut evidence, against companies who have not gloated to the world about their exact intention to break competition law, by crushing competition and having total domination of the market I feel you have the rose tinted glasses on when you are analysing this, or at least when it comes to the realities of past court decisions in anti trust cases. Its a bit naive. Dana White must have 100 quotes that you have all heard that are anti competitive. You just dont understand what anti-competitive is. He is going to get slaughtered, imagine putting this guy on the funking stand in court, he would get destroyed thats why it will be a big settlement. 
I'll be eating humble pie for weeks if this just gets dismissed, but I think its less then a 1 in a 100 chance it will


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> That opinion I gave is not absurd at all, nor is it to the people who have actually filed it, you can be sure they have gone through it with a fine tooth comb and have a much better understanding of it then me or you and how exactly it breaks the law. And as Ive said to the other guys your lack of understanding of the wider picture is what leads you to dismiss the hard evidence in relation to the specific laws being broken.
> 
> We'll see how it plays out. Given that so many cases have been won on the basis of far less clearcut evidence, against companies who have not gloated to the world about their exact intention to break competition law, by crushing competition and having total domination of the market I feel you have the rose tinted glasses on when you are analysing this, or at least when it comes to the realities of past court decisions in anti trust cases. Its a bit naive. Dana White must have 100 quotes that you have all heard that are anti competitive. You just dont understand what anti-competitive is. He is going to get slaughtered, imagine putting this guy on the funking stand in court, he would get destroyed thats why it will be a big settlement.
> I'll be eating humble pie for weeks if this just gets dismissed, but I think its less then a 1 in a 100 chance it will



There is a small chance it gets dismisses but imo just a small a chance it doesn't get destroyed in court. Getting something dismissed is gonna be difficult and I doubt it happens. 



As for why Dana has said in the past none of it matters, talk is cheap and they are not gonna get paid cause Dana says they are killing the competition. That's merely bravado and showmanship. Jon Jones said he was gonna kill Cornier but after the fight I bet they don't arrest Jones for attempted murder. 


I understand exactly how all this stuff works just as clearly as ever layman and have studied it since this was announced and frankly I don't see any merit to what they have shared publicly up to this point. They keep bringing up talk but talk is cheap and doesn't amount to intent to commit a felony. They may be sitting on a smoking gun but at this point I don't see much of a case to be made. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Since when is talk cheap in court? 

John Jones is not the CEO of a multinational organisation that dominates a global sport. He does not have the same corporate responsibility. 

Corporate responsibility is something the UFC have only started taking care of in the last couple of years. Previously DW was calling people ***gots and c**** in his interviews. He soon woke up and brought in various company policies when he realised the culinary union were suing him. 
Just like he will clean up his act when his company gets raped by these hot shot lawyers. 
DW and the Fertittas expanded their business so big and so well the went into the realm of big business which has a set of different rules they have to play by. They are obviously only learning those rules recently, for if they had been properly prepared DW wouldn't be taking pictures of other companies with gravestones in his hand and yapping in the press about breaking rules in this big business playing field.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Since when is talk cheap in court?
> 
> John Jones is not the CEO of a multinational organisation that dominates a global sport. He does not have the same corporate responsibility.
> 
> ...


 but Dana never said he broke the rules your inferring he broke laws based on a bunch of crap bravado he spewed. There are no outright admissions of guilt that I know of or have been mentioned in the suit





Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

I doubt these lawyers would have taken this case if they didn't legitimately see a win....

An intimidating legal team is one that has defeated Google, Apple and Dow Industrial.... and that's just what they've done.

This isn't going away easy and I see Zuffa on the losing end of this, especially as more fighters surface and get behind it.

The MMA landscape is changing right in front of our eyes with this and Viacoms entry into the business...

We are all going to witness MMA history over the next 36 months.... things will never be the same, I see a real rebirth in competition, pay, promotion and regulations.

It's going to grow in a different way.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

_RIVAL_ said:


> I doubt these lawyers would have taken this case if they didn't legitimately see a win....
> 
> An intimidating legal team is one that has defeated Google, Apple and Dow Industrial.... and that's just what they've done.
> 
> ...


They may see a win but based on what they have shown I don't see it. Admittedly they are unlikely to tip there hand to much before discovery as they would be allowing the UFC additional time to prepare its defense before the case even has a chance to get off the ground.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Come on, at least some of you must have seen some movies depicting lawyers, lawsuits and courthouses. Imagine Cormier coming to the public and listing every single detail of how he intends to defeat Jon Jones. These guys have lots of secret strategies readied to use at the right moment. People in this forum not seeing a case means zero, really.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^By that logic though, people on this site seeing a case means zero logic also.

DonRifle, if you ran the UFC and one of your fighters was going to go to your major competitors because they were going to give him more money, how would you legally keep him in yours?

Also, in mentioning the NFL; you're picking your examples 100% to support what you're saying. What about soccer? No draft there. A team like Man City can get handed money and buy all the big players they want. Teams outbid each other CONSTANTLY.

Also, explain to me how ONE FC paying Ben Askren more than UFC is prepared to offer is not the same thing as the Gil situation.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^By that logic though, people on this site seeing a case means zero logic also.
> 
> DonRifle, if you ran the UFC and one of your fighters was going to go to your major competitors because they were going to give him more money, how would you legally keep him in yours?
> 
> ...


Rampage Jackson also springs to mind as the UFC would have had matching rights on his contract and they obviously chose not to exercise those rights;


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^By that logic though, people on this site seeing a case means zero logic also.
> 
> DonRifle, if you ran the UFC and one of your fighters was going to go to your major competitors because they were going to give him more money, how would you legally keep him in yours?
> 
> ...


I would adhere to the rules of business. 

Premier league is an even better example then the NFL Have you not heard of financial fair play? :jaw:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The UFC recently allowed one of their fighters to go and fight for Bellator, Stephan Bonnar, despite the fact that Bonnar was completely not permitted to do so without their permission.

The UFC aren't being anti-competitive, they just arent being pro-competitive.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> I would adhere to the rules of business.
> 
> Premier league is an even better example then the NFL Have you not heard of financial fair play? :jaw:


I have. And yet Man City wasn't in violation.

And what a dodge on the question. "Who do you think will win this weekend?" "One of the fighters".


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I have. And yet Man City wasn't in violation.
> 
> And what a dodge on the question. "Who do you think will win this weekend?" "One of the fighters".


Im pretty tired of answering your questions on this to be honest Clyde. Your quoting the premier league at me, a HIGHLY regulated sport/league especially on competition. You couldnt come up with a comparison that contradicts your own opinion more if you sat down for a year and thought about it. 

Ive said all I can say on this thread, looking forward to see how it will play out now


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Manchester City is a football team that was purchased by wealthy investors and permitted to purchase some of the best players in the world without ever having to earn that ability or get good results first. Man City won the Premier League soon after, for the first time in how many years?

If a team can win one of the most prestigious titles in football as a result of strongarming their way to signings of talent through the means of money, how is your NFL draft comparison relevant in any way? You were quoting the that the draft was required to ensure that everything is competitive, yet in soccer this is completely non existent and a team can buy all the top players they want and not even have to earn the right. You are picking your examples PURELY because you think they will back up your point, when there are examples and examples of other sports that have none of this included.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Manchester City is a football team that was purchased by wealthy investors and permitted to purchase some of the best players in the world without ever having to earn that ability or get good results first. Man City won the Premier League soon after, for the first time in how many years?
> 
> If a team can win one of the most prestigious titles in football as a result of strongarming their way to signings of talent through the means of money, how is your NFL draft comparison relevant in any way? You were quoting the that the draft was required to ensure that everything is competitive, yet in soccer this is completely non existent and a team can buy all the top players they want and not even have to earn the right. You are picking your examples PURELY because you think they will back up your point, when there are examples and examples of other sports that have none of this included.


Not reading the news is not the best strategy for a person who likes to debate Clyde. 
Why do you think Financial Fair Play was introduced? Because wealthy owners like at Man City started buying football clubs and buying all the players. As soon as this started happening Uefa brought in play FFP. Clubs like Manchester city and PSG have had to strip back their squads, and they have to have X number of homegrown players in their squad otherwise they get find or points deductions, they can't spend beyond a certain amount compared to their income generated. 

When companies start abusing their power, regulations get made and it changes the landscape. What you are talking about is a perfect case to highlight what happens when you abuse power. Don't you think thats ironic? 


"At the beginning of 2012, Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini, faced with a number of injuries and players absent at the African Cup of Nations admitted for the first time that because of FFP he had been told by senior club management that he would be unable to buy any new players during the January transfer window unless he first moved on existing players, and perhaps not even then.[104]

Premiership spending in the 2012 January transfer window was down 70% compared to the same period the previous year. Across Europe a number of other clubs confirmed that they were not planning to buy players outright during the transfer window, preferring to rely on loan deals. The 2012 Deloitte report stated, "Financial fair play has definitely had an impact", while Arsène Wenger remarked; "it looks like economically the whole of Europe is being a bit more cautious."


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I honestly don't get the football/soccer comparisons. The UFC and Bellator are not teams in a league. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You seriously are trying to get me infracted? Did you forget about all of this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



end it Clyde or I will


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

_RIVAL_ said:


> I doubt these lawyers would have taken this case if they didn't legitimately see a win....
> 
> An intimidating legal team is one that has defeated Google, Apple and Dow Industrial.... and that's just what they've done.


Exactly this. The law firms that are on this case wouldn't have touched this with my 10 foot pole if the chances of winning [at least] a settlement were as low as many are writing this off to be. Keyboard warriors vs. major high-profile law firms? :confused02: I think I know which side I trust to know what they're doing more.

This will be a long drawn out process, I imagine. Just grab some popcorn.

http://saverilawfirm.com/
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/home.php
http://www.bergermontague.com/

^ The above are some of (all?) the firms involved. There's some info on this suit to be found on each site; I suggest taking a look.



> Berger & Montague represents a proposed class of similarly situated current and former UFC professional combatants, alleging that the plaintiffs are victims of the UFC’s illegal scheme to eliminate its competition in the sport of MMA and suppress compensation for UFC Fighters from bouts and fighter identities and likenesses.


The term "*monopsony*" comes up a lot; I just learned a new word today.  (google it) Seems it's a major point in this whole thing, and it's being confused with "*monopoly*" in the discussions here.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> DonRifle, AS Monacco got a major investment since then and did the same thing as City. It's not an easy to police thing, especially not in the perspective riddled conversation that we're having.


One nonsense point followed by another.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

Don,

I dont get it. If MMA organisations aren't allowed to compete with each other to sign a fighter, how is it supposed to work? Talk it over and agree to both offer the fighter the exact same contract and let him decide which company he wants to join? Should the larger company pretend they don't want to pay the fighter a high wage so as to not outprice smaller organisations? 


Scenario:
A fighter is a free agent. Company A, Company B and Company C are interested in signing him. Please explain how they "legally" go about competing for his signature, because at the moment youre telling a lot of people they don't understand, but youre not showing any understanding of the situation yourself. Youre simply throwing legal speak around but not offering an answer to any hypothetical scenario's.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> Don,
> 
> I dont get it. If MMA organisations aren't allowed to compete with each other to sign a fighter, how is it supposed to work? Talk it over and agree to both offer the fighter the exact same contract and let him decide which company he wants to join? Should the larger company pretend they don't want to pay the fighter a high wage so as to not outprice smaller organisations?
> 
> ...


They are allowed to compete, but one organisation cannot have all the best talent. Just like one NFL team can't, one premier league team can't. They are the rules. That is not legal speak. It is the rules of competition in business. Very simple. Tough luck if you dont agree or think its fair. Its the rules and that it period/full stop. 

In the UFC you cannot kick a downed opponent in the head. This is a rule. It is written in a rule book. Here is the rule book for Business Competition in the USA. http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

There is also another one for the European Union with some differences. 

They are the rules. Ive shown you the law. Ive shown you the previous cases of anti trust. Ive explained the scenarios whereby the UFC are breaking the rules. Dana White's quotes on how he wants to break the rules are all over the web and in the filed case. Ive explained why Monopolies are bad, and how they are broken up in different types of industries - sporting, pharma, technology, to benefit the consumer. 

If you dont believe or agree with me then do some proper research and refute the points with something solid. Theres information on competition and anti trust cases all over the web. Read the case, compare the accusations to the law. Understand it properly. Download an E-Book on economics and read the chapter about Monpoloies. Have a look at the graphs and charts that show in history how they benefit or don't benefit market equilibrium. 



Are you going to say that a fighter is allowed to kick a downed opponent in the head when it clearly states in the rule book you cannot do that? No you are not. . Why, why why, can't the UFC do X Y and Z. Because the rulebook says you can't. Its very simple.

Im off to get laid.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> ClydebankBlitz said:
> 
> 
> > Manchester City is a football team that was purchased by wealthy investors and permitted to purchase some of the best players in the world without ever having to earn that ability or get good results first. Man City won the Premier League soon after, for the first time in how many years?
> ...


More great posting. One guy trying to make a point for the ufc but finds himself making a point in favor of the other side. Lol. Cant make this shit up. 

"Not reading the news is not the best strategy for a person who likes to debate Clyde. "

Hilarious.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> Exactly this. The law firms that are on this case wouldn't have touched this with my 10 foot pole if the chances of winning [at least] a settlement were as low as many are writing this off to be. Keyboard warriors vs. major high-profile law firms? :confused02: I think I know which side I trust to know what they're doing more.
> 
> This will be a long drawn out process, I imagine. Just grab some popcorn.
> 
> ...


The reason multiple law firms take on big class action suites like this is actualyl because of the risk of losing. Multiple firms share the workload because of the time involved in seeing them through, losing a single case would stress the finances of a single firm. 

As for monopsony its basically the same as a monopoly. Only difference is that a monopoly means only one person is selling, a monopsony means only one person/company is buying. In this case the UFC is "buying fighters". 

the case boils down to the fighters are accusing the UFC of unfairly trying to keep outside MMA companies down so as to be the sole place for fighters to compete at the upper end meaning the UFC can set the price of contracts. 

IMO the UFC has done nothing differently than the NFL, NHL, NBA etc. They are the destination for the upper echelon of the sport not because of pay but because they have established themselves as the pinnacle of the sport. Football players come up dreaming of being in the NFL not the CFL. Fighters come up dreaming of being in the UFC not Bellator. The UFC has simply done it with a loud obnoxious abrassive personality at the helm.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> *They are allowed to compete, but one organisation cannot have all the best talent. Just like one NFL team can't, one premier league team can't.* They are the rules. That is not legal speak. It is the rules of competition in business. Very simple. Tough luck if you dont agree or think its fair. Its the rules and that it period/full stop.
> 
> In the UFC you cannot kick a downed opponent in the head. This is a rule. It is written in a rule book. Here is the rule book for Business Competition in the USA. http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
> 
> ...


I'd like to see a source for this, as a huge premier league fan i've never heard of this. I understand clubs must play within some financial boundaries, but to state that 1 club is not allowed to have "all the best players" is not true. The crowning reason being that deciding who the best players are is entirely subjective. The same goes for fighters.

I really would like you to give a straight answer to the posed scenario though, to see how I should be understanding things. :thumb02:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> They are allowed to compete, but one organisation cannot have all the best talent. Just like one NFL team can't, one premier league team can't. They are the rules. That is not legal speak. It is the rules of competition in business. Very simple. Tough luck if you dont agree or think its fair. Its the rules and that it period/full stop.
> 
> In the UFC you cannot kick a downed opponent in the head. This is a rule. It is written in a rule book. Here is the rule book for Business Competition in the USA. http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
> 
> ...


There isn't a law that says an NFL team can not have all the best players that is a rule instituted by the league. In this case the UFC is the league not a team. If the Jets went out an signed all the best players the NFL would kick them out of the league but nobody would be going to jail or getting sued.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Who is going to jail?

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/19/7423093/ufc-law-suit-nate-quarry-video-interview-carlos-newton

Three fighters and their lawyers walk into a bar...

That's not the set-up to a joke, that was the scene at the Hyatt Place in San Jose after two former and one currently-under-contract fighter announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against the UFC, accusing the promotion of "anticompetitive, illicit, and exclusionary acts."

The fighters ordering at the hotel bar included two of the plaintiffs, Cung Le and Nate Quarry, as well as former UFC welterweight champ Carlos Newton, who has been described as the initiator of the suit even though he wasn't named in the complaint. With them were a few of their lawyers, including Rob Maysey, the founder of the Mixed Martial Artists Fighters Association and a long time figure in the sport. The emotion's of the group seemed to be a mix of celebration and relief.

The only media member there was me, sitting in the corner trying to figure out what I had done wrong during my recordings of the proceedings (You can see what I managed to capture in the video posted). Everyone else had long since left.

I walked up to the group, introduced myself, and apologized for having harassed them for much of the previous year. They accepted my apology.

We shared a few pleasantries as they tried to answer the numerous congratulatory text messages from others, including apparently a number of fighters, that were pouring in. I talked a little about "Black Dynamite" with Nate Quarry, as well as his desire to speak up for the fighters that couldn't speak up. I asked the attorney several question which were answered with "on the record? Nothing. Off the record? Still nothing." And then I asked Carlos what's next? He answered "a fight."

And on that I went back to my table to see what I could salvage of my video


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

All I keep seeing is more opinions of armchair lawyers (which I deem as worth a fart in the wind). I prefer to wait and see. Win or lose predictions are right half of the time, and I've no interest in those. I'm only interested in actual direct news relating to what's going on. (like the above post)

*eats more popcorn*


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Keep your popcorn ready because I got more "stuff" and no im not acting like I know how it all shakes out in court.

Of course these fellas are probably just lying. Both are probably bitter. Heun? Who? He isnt a big name so obviously he doesnt matter. If it was GSP in that situation then we would have a story! Ill share if anyone cares anyway. They shouldnt though, these guys are whiners and nobodys. Who gives a shit about these bums?

Pete Spratt said UFC cut him because he declined to fight Hughes for 8k/8k. Story here
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/...-against-matt-hughes-low-fighter-pay-mma-news

Conor Heun says he made 16k off sponsorship a fight. Once UFC started the sponsor tax he came away with less than 3k in sponsorship per fight. Story here
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/...sor-tax-i-made-16k-fight-after-sponsor-tax-it


----------



## systemdnb (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm no Askren fan by any means but if you compare him to Cormier before he came into the UFC he only had 2 legit opponents IMO. I think Ben had that in at Hieron and Lima. I mean who else could he have fought over there?


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Keep your popcorn ready because I got more "stuff" and no im not acting like I know how it all shakes out in court.
> 
> Of course these fellas are probably just lying. Both are probably bitter. Heun? Who? He isnt a big name so obviously he doesnt matter. If it was GSP in that situation then we would have a story! Ill share if anyone cares anyway. They shouldnt though, these guys are whiners and nobodys. Who gives a shit about these bums?
> 
> ...


Both of these are only proof of guys getting shitty deals. 

The truth is Pete Spratt was signed to an 8/8 contract and was refusing to honor it. He got fired for it. If you went to work and told your boss you wanted to quadruple your wage or you weren't going to do any work and he fired you are you saying you should be able to sue? I am not saying what Spratt wanted wasn't fair but the fact remains the isn't a legal obligation to pay what ever he wants. Do you think if Cormier phoned Dana and told him he wanted 4X more money or he wasn't gonna fight Jones that the same thing would not happen? Spratt wanted more money or he would not take the fight the UFC chose not to pay him more money and instead allowed him to try and hit the market and find a new employer. 

As for Connor Huen here is the thing, nobody was paying 15K for Connor. Bottom line is they were paying for the exposure on strikeforce programming and Zuffa IMO are right to want a piece of that. Athletes in the NFL/NBA/NHL can't come out with who ever they want plastered all over themselves. The UFC saw people making money off there brand and decided they needed to be compensated. Again while its a shitty thing to do I don't see why he would be able to sue. Being a shitty company does not mean they owe people money. Every example you show are merely examples of the UFC being shitty not examples of anything justifying a lawsuit. The sponsorships are a secondary business for the fighter that they do themselves the UFC has merely instituted a tax on companies who want there advertisements seen on UFC cards. 


Again while I personally hate the policy I fail to see how one could sue over it.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Woodenhead said:


> All I keep seeing is more opinions of armchair lawyers (which I deem as worth a fart in the wind). I prefer to wait and see. Win or lose predictions are right half of the time, and I've no interest in those. I'm only interested in actual direct news relating to what's going on. (like the above post)
> 
> *eats more popcorn*


As opposed to all the REAL fighters and REAL coaches and fight Analaysts this forum has whose win and loss predictions are right more than half the time.

But yeah, should be fun.

*butters popcorn*


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Toxic said:


> jonnyg4508 said:
> 
> 
> > Keep your popcorn ready because I got more "stuff" and no im not acting like I know how it all shakes out in court.
> ...


Where did I say these 2 situations are what they are sueing for or that they should sue for it? 

Did Spratt flat out refuse the fight or did he counter for what he thought was fair to fight in a title fight and they disnt like it then just cut him. 

Woodley refused Lombard did he get cut?

Shogun refused Tex...did he get cut? 

There are countless times fighters have turned down fights and nothing happened to them.

If DC asked for 3 times his contract to fight Bones no I highly doubt he is cut. Spratt didnt even ask for 3 times. He countered with 25/8. Hughes wins and he is paid the same. If Spratt wins and becomes there world champion he then gets more than min wage for his accomplishment. 

Heun deal is the one that is sickening. So basically cripple lower tier fighters who have to pay for training. Pay to fly cornermen out to corner. He went from 16 to sub 3. Probably because sponsors werent going to pay the tax. Thats taking care of fighters right there! Guys cant survive without their win bonus then Dana goes and trashes fighters or cuts fighters who play it safe for the win. It is hilarious that in one post today you ask....what does the premier soccer have to do with the ufc? Then here you are trying to compare nfl nhl nba to the ufc. Will you make up your mind? Is it ok to compare ufc to stick and ball sports or isnt it? 

You know what those leagues have that the ufc doeant? Playees unions to fight for their rights. Not individual fighters scared to start a fight with no group backing. You know what else they have? Salaries much higher than min wage. You know what rlse they do? Pay for all training and expenses. You know what else they have? Guarenteed money so if a team just decides not to honor a contract the player still got a good chunk of money. Ive also rarely seen players straight dumped if they ask for a pay raise. Ive also never ever seen nfl nba nhl or mlb try and take players likeness without giving them a cent. Players in those leagues actually get paid for being on a video game. Should I go on? 

You seem to make up stuff like other postees that you claim I said. Then rant about it. I am posting articles of fighters coming out and speaking up this week. More and more will sharw their stories. I never said it was right to sue. We have already been over why ufx has been took to court. Have you just blacked out or something? Do we really need to rehash the reasons why this is in court? Or can you just take the time to read the case file once?

Perhaps I should have started a whole new thread. But I feel you would have came in claiming ufc did nothing legally wrong. When I never said they did in these 2 situations. I probably should have went to find the reebok thread and posted Heun. Then posted Spratt in Garza's thread.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Quit retaliating to each others comments and it'd diffuse quite quickly.

Knock it off guys!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> I'd like to see a source for this, as a huge premier league fan i've never heard of this. I understand clubs must play within some financial boundaries, but to state that 1 club is not allowed to have "all the best players" is not true. The crowning reason being that deciding who the best players are is entirely subjective. The same goes for fighters.
> 
> I really would like you to give a straight answer to the posed scenario though, to see how I should be understanding things. :thumb02:


A huge premier league fan and never heard of FFP! Have you heard of Michel Platini head of UEFA who talks about it every week? FFP has been a huge talking point for years, there are thousands of web articles about it. . It was introduced in 2008-9 with all the teams warned what they needed to do to prepare and this season was the first season it was fully operational. 
Man City, just opened a massive new youth facility, this is because they have to produce young homegrown players they can't just sign everyone up anymore. This is the kind of thing that results from breaking up monopolies or potential monopolies. Youth facilities, more spending in the local area and not some sheik coming in and using the sport as his toy. Good for the public, good for the sport

And your scenario is pretty simple. The 3 companies compete to buy the player as normal. But if one company wins all the time, and keeps on getting all the best players, a regulator is formed, and they stop this from happening and restrict the company that always wins, because they deem it unfair for one company to win all the time. That is competition law, and how it ends up coming into play. 

Finally Monopsony, simply means controlling wages, like a Monopoly would control price or sponsors or whatever. Its like wage fixing instead of price fixing. Maybe it more apt to use this in the case of Melendez, either way its manipulating the price/value or of someone on a once off so he doesn't sign for a competitor, breaking the rules.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> *A huge premier league fan and never heard of FFP!* Have you heard of Michel Platini head of UEFA who talks about it every week? FFP has been a huge talking point for years, there are thousands of web articles about it. . It was introduced in 2008-9 with all the teams warned what they needed to do to prepare and this season was the first season it was fully operational.
> Man City, just opened a massive new youth facility, this is because they have to produce young homegrown players they can't just sign everyone up anymore. This is the kind of thing that results from breaking up monopolies or potential monopolies. Youth facilities, more spending in the local area and not some sheik coming in and using the sport as his toy. Good for the public, good for the sport
> 
> And your scenario is pretty simple. The 3 companies compete to buy the player as normal. But if one company wins all the time, and keeps on getting all the best players, a regulator is formed, and they stop this from happening and restrict the company that always wins, because they deem it unfair for one company to win all the time. That is competition law, and how it ends up coming into play.
> ...


Of course I have, hence my comment about the clubs having financial restrictions now. But nowhere does it state that 1 team can't have all the best players. Again, one main reason is that its completely subjective as to who the best players are. All the FFP rule does is force clubs to spend within their means - its a financial restrictment, not a talent-sharing rule.

And regarding the scenario answer, surely the company would only be restricted if their means of acquiring the fighters was deemed underhand in any way. Otherwise such sanctions could now argue that the UFC cannot sign anymore fighters because Bellator does not have enough talent in their roster because the UFC keeps getting all the best fighters.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> Of course I have, hence my comment about the clubs having financial restrictions now. But nowhere does it state that 1 team can't have all the best players. Again, one main reason is that its completely subjective as to who the best players are. All the FFP rule does is force clubs to spend within their means - its a financial restrictment, not a talent-sharing rule.
> 
> And regarding the scenario answer, surely the company would only be restricted if their means of acquiring the fighters was deemed underhand in any way. Otherwise such sanctions could now argue that the UFC cannot sign anymore fighters because Bellator does not have enough talent in their roster because the UFC keeps getting all the best fighters.


No its not subjective. Because if Man City went out and said we'll pay everyone 2m euro a week and signed rooney RVP di maria, sanchez, wilshere, walcott, costa, fabregas, hazard and a couple of others then they would have all the best players in the league. And it wouldn't matter if your personally think Lee Catermole is a better player then Jack wilshere we all know that he's not, his salary and market value represent that. 

Subjectiveness aside Man City's squad is limited in number and must contain X homegrown players. They cannot buy all the best players by financial restraint, and because of squad restraints. They didn't decide that rule for themselves. If he could the Shiek would buy everyone available and ensure victory but he cannot. He as been restricted by the lawmakers. 

To your second point - just compare 'surely' to the actual rules and you'll have your answer!


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> No its not subjective. Because if Man City went out and said we'll pay everyone 2m euro a week and signed rooney RVP di maria, sanchez, wilshere, walcott, costa, fabregas, hazard and a couple of others then they would have all the best players in the league. And it wouldn't matter if your personally think Lee Catermole is a better player then Jack wilshere we all know that he's not, his salary and market value represent that.
> 
> Subjectiveness aside Man City's squad is limited in number and must contain X homegrown players. They cannot buy all the best players by financial restraint, and because of squad restraints. They didn't decide that rule for themselves. If he could the Shiek would buy everyone available and ensure victory but he cannot. He as been restricted by the lawmakers.
> 
> To your second point - just compare 'surely' to the actual rules and you'll have your answer!


To further our football (soccer) analogy, you list rooney, RVP, di maria, sanchez, wilshere, walcott, costa, fabregas, hazard. . . in your opinion the best players in the league. Well that's subjective - I'd rather consider Aguero, Sturridge, Yaya Toure, Sterling, David Silva, agreed on Hazard, but you can see where I'm coming from. These are only players in the BPL, so not factoring in La Liga there are even more players to consider as "the best" and it's entirely subjective. Sure, Lee Cattermole isn't going to be considered as one of the best, but theres fifty other guys who potentially could be.

Is it the UFC's fault that the talent pool isn't big enough to support multiple high profile organisations? They should allow some fighters they wish to sign to go to other organisations? What if they decided to sign Ben Askren, for example, and let Seth Baczynski go so he could sign for a rival company? Is that not allowed because Askren is deemed a better fighter than Baczynski? If Askren is deemed a better fighter than Baczynski and he's currently at ONE FC, doesnt that prove that Dana White and the UFC aren't taking all the "best players"?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

DeeJay said:


> To further our football (soccer) analogy, you list rooney, RVP, di maria, sanchez, wilshere, walcott, costa, fabregas, hazard. . . in your opinion the best players in the league. Well that's subjective - I'd rather consider Aguero, Sturridge, Yaya Toure, Sterling, David Silva, agreed on Hazard, but you can see where I'm coming from. These are only players in the BPL, so not factoring in La Liga there are even more players to consider as "the best" and it's entirely subjective. Sure, Lee Cattermole isn't going to be considered as one of the best, but theres fifty other guys who potentially could be.
> 
> Is it the UFC's fault that the talent pool isn't big enough to support multiple high profile organisations? They should allow some fighters they wish to sign to go to other organisations? What if they decided to sign Ben Askren, for example, and let Seth Baczynski go so he could sign for a rival company? Is that not allowed because Askren is deemed a better fighter than Baczynski? If Askren is deemed a better fighter than Baczynski and he's currently at ONE FC, doesnt that prove that Dana White and the UFC aren't taking all the "best players"?


No I can't see where your coming from naming players they already have in the funking team dude. Try and understand the analogy instead of trying to nitpick tiny things like that. I obviously meant all the top international players by anyones opinion. Man City can't buy them all because of competition regulation even though they can afford them. 

And before you ask me another question, Ask yourself WHY is FFP in place? Why are the regulations on squad numbers, why are there regulations on homegrown players? *Competition.* But as to 3 or 4 pages ago when I said without a basic understanding of competition and why these regulations are implemented the argument is futile, because it keeps coming back to your lack of understanding of the overall business landscape and regulations. You can argue about Seth Brickowski in the rooping division in the funking turkish baths MMA super showdown, but unless you understand the fundamentals of the law you will argue forever and ever without getting the point. I can only explain so much before I self destruct and implode.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> No I can't see where your coming from naming players they already have in the funking team dude. Try and understand the analogy instead of trying to nitpick tiny things like that. I obviously meant all the top international players by anyones opinion. Man City can't buy them all because of competition regulation even though they can afford them.
> 
> And before you ask me another question, Ask yourself WHY is FFP in place? Why are the regulations on squad numbers, why are there regulations on homegrown players? *Competition.* But as to 3 or 4 pages ago when I said without a basic understanding of competition and why these regulations are implemented the argument is futile, because it keeps coming back to your lack of understanding of the overall business landscape and regulations. You can argue about Seth Brickowski in the rooping division in the funking turkish baths MMA super showdown, but unless you understand the fundamentals of the law you will argue forever and ever without getting the point. I can only explain so much before I self destruct and implode.


Firstly it doesnt matter in the analogy whether Aguero and Yaya already are in City's squad. . .

But it seems you can't explain why when Askren is largely considered better than Bacynzki, you are implying that the UFC is not allowing good fighters to fight in other organisations. I personally think some of the Bellator fighters are heaps better than some in the UFC. If the fighters want to fight in the top organisation, and the UFC want them to fight there, I see no problem in that. But then, I dont understand anything about competition or price fixing. 

What it comes down to is my opinion based on whats been put infront of me, and I can't see what the UFC have done wrong in the Melendez scenario.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

With the Premier league, it's not that one team can't buy all the best players, it's that they can't be "given" up to a certain amount of money. Like I think Real Madrid broke records in the last two seasons with how much it spent on players. They're 100% allowed to buy all the best players on the planet, competitive or not.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> With the Premier league, it's not that one team can't buy all the best players, it's that they can't be "given" up to a certain amount of money. Like I think Real Madrid broke records in the last two seasons with how much it spent on players. They're 100% allowed to buy all the best players on the planet, competitive or not.


http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/LFP_financial_control_regulations.htm


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

DonRifle said:


> http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/LFP_financial_control_regulations.htm


:confused02: It just states what we already know, that clubs have financial regulations. . .


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

That's what DonRifle does. He thinks a link, no matter what it contains, proves he's right.



Real Madrid spent 85 million on Garath Bale. That seems very unfair considering Cardiff probably wanted him and they could only afford like 4 million. Isn't this anti-competitive by Real Madrid?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> That's what DonRifle does. He thinks a link, no matter what it contains, proves he's right.
> 
> 
> 
> Real Madrid spent 85 million on Garath Bale. That seems very unfair considering Cardiff probably wanted him and they could only afford like 4 million. Isn't this anti-competitive by Real Madrid?


Sorry Clyde i forgot you can't read. You dont understand the FFP laws either and how its a ratio of income generated to net spend. You think cardiff have the income from an 80,000 seat stadium and shirt sales from all over the world do you? if you did you wouldn't be coming up with another moronic answer like you have done for the last 4 days. 

You say 100% Real Madrid can do whatever they want. I send you the proof they can't and you just ignore it. True genius. 

Im not answering you anymore on this. I dont want to make you the Gary Goodridge of the forum. Last post.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Gary Goodridge was pretty solid?

Anyways, UFC makes enough money to easily sign Gil, just like RM easily can afford Bale. You linked it, I connected it.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Apparently there is another suit against the UFC with Dennis Hallman and Javier Vasquez as the plaintiffs.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

TanyaJade said:


> Apparently there is another suit against the UFC with Dennis Hallman and Javier Vasquez as the plaintiffs.



Same suit they have just signed on as plaintiffs. Awfully low of Hallman considering when he was having personal issues the UFC paid him his show and win money. Nothing like spitting in the hand that tries to help you up. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Hallman has always been a bit of a prick, like Fitch. 
Doesn't help that some of the guys signing on as plaintiffs aren't exactly the most well liked or respected guys.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

There will be more added to the plaintiff list as the case moves along.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Javier Vasquez is a guy I'd notice a little bit more. He won his last UFC fight and wasn't around long enough to really have a claim to money. So what is it that Vasquez has on UFC to put him with the other guys?

Hallman's an arsehole.

I wonder why we aren't hearing from the more high profile guys? Shamrock, Randy, Tito etc.? Why are these guys keeping quiet about the whole thing?

As I keep saying, these are all still guys who either have grudges or didnt work their way up to claim a huge steak of the money. Rich Franklin, Matt Hughes, Josh Koscheck, BJ Penn, Matt Serra....these are the guys who'd be notable to me. The kind of title contenders who haven't been overly critical of the UFC and don't seem to hold any personal grudges against the company or Dana White. I'm not sure on the pay these guys were getting but I can't imagine it's anything close to guys around them (GSP over Josh, Hughes, Serra and Penn, Anderson over Rich etc). Hughes I believe works for UFC and Kos is still fighting, but couldn't one of the most popular fighters of all time; BJ Penn, a still under contract current MMA investor Rich Franklin, the trainer of a UFC champ Matt Serra. Like it all just points to me that some way or another, the guys involved are pissed off that the career path they chose didn't work out financially or they had a personal rivalry with Dana.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I wonder why we aren't hearing from the more high profile guys? Shamrock, Randy, Tito etc.? Why are these guys keeping quiet about the whole thing?



I was thinking the same thing.... Frank Shamrock and Randy Couture would add a huge amount of momentum to this.... them being quiet for the time being is unexpected..


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Scarecrow said:


> There will be more added to the plaintiff list as the case moves along.


This is what I have said. Just because there was an initial 3...that doesn't mean the end of it. 

It is the holidays. Guys like Frank and Randy have things going on as well in the sport. Who is to say they won't join once the time is right?

This is just the start of all this. 

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Randy would not strengthen there case he went and joined Bellator instead of working for the UFC participated in there reality tv show, hell he is the perfect example of the UFC having competition. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Toxic said:


> Same suit they have just signed on as plaintiffs. Awfully low of Hallman considering when he was having personal issues the UFC paid him his show and win money. Nothing like spitting in the hand that tries to help you up.


I see his point, they cut him because he had difficulty making weight on a rescheduled event but then they sign Henry Cejudo, kept Charles Oliviera, brought back Anthony Johnson and are in the mix of giving John Lineker a title shot.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

John8204 said:


> I see his point, they cut him because he had difficulty making weight on a rescheduled event but then they sign Henry Cejudo, kept Charles Oliviera, brought back Anthony Johnson and are in the mix of giving John Lineker a title shot.



I see your point but all tour examples are surging fighters in there prime not fighters in there twilight 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Add Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza to the list.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Enter Brandon Vera...


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Just for the record, people are saying it needs to be popular fighters with a bigger name. This does not matter one cent. They are people who have been wronged. Whether they are despised by the public, loved, successful, unsuccessful it does not matter one Iota. 

One dude who is not going to be having a Merry Xmas is DW. Dont expect a Christmas Vlog!! 
This is going to be like a systematic beatdown with fighter after fighter joining. Randy will be the last, and he'll hold a press conference for the final epic boot into the unethical policies of the UFC!

Jingle Bells everybody!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

When I talk about popular fights, I mean fighters who have been wronged despite making it to the top of the game. Jon Fitch was wronged, but only in being released and not in any way from a legal stand point in that.

I feel like a lot of these guys are more annoyed that MMA didn't work out for them like they'd hoped. Not only did they not have the skills a lot of them thought they did, but when they made it to "the big show" they didn't get paid a fortune.

I'll give my usual WWE example. These guys sign to UFC, but essentially they are signing contracts for NXT. From there, the big show will assess their skills, their potential, see how they win and how fans view them. WWE wrestlers earn megabucks, NXT wrestlers earn next to nothing. A lot of these guys were low on the card or just not main attractions. I want to see guys who were main attractions (that weren't pissed that they were cut) actually speak about this. I want to see guys who's skills were completely undoubted, that have no grudges or gripes outside of the actual law suit before I personally take notice.

As I said though I reckon everyone will bomb in court bar a few (it's not all the same case) but UFC is likely to try and settle to maintain image. Would be a massive show of weakness on their part though.

Don, what do you think of Vasquez' claims about having to sign an anti-monopoly form or whatever?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

It means one of two things to me. Either A. when the culinary union started their case against the UFC the UFC hired a major PR firm or a MGT consultancy firm and they did a review and highlighted all the stupid shit the UFC were doing. Then we got the code of conduct in place, we got Matt hughes in his current job, and they did some crisis management with this thing Vasques is talking about because the advice would have been stop mouthing in the press like an idiot DW, stop calling people c***** and f**** and get with the modern era of business. Since then there hasn't been much or at least DW has toned himself down by about 500%. 

The other scenario is that this case has been two years in the making which is very likely as carlos newton alluded to. The UFC got wind of it and tried to get people to sign this doc to pre-empt the suit. Its probably the latter, but it stinks of panic to me by the UFC and a little ridiculous. In fact I would argue that its further proof of poor practice by a company attempting to strong-arm their fighters again. Fighters aren't going to know what a Monopoly is and the rules of business competition, maybe a few would but economics is not exactly their forte. In law this is called signing something 'under duress', Quite easy to prove if its the case that its a sign this or basically you will get cut, and quite easy to get thrown out of court.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

What's getting me is, why just Vasquez? Why isn't Nate Diaz bitching about this? What about Tito and every other former employee with an axe to grind? How many former employees of the UFC has there been over the past 2 years, and none of them have brought up this negative.

This is the first time however I'm seeing a major downside to Dana White. I was cool with him saying what he wants because I felt it was awesome to see a FAN in charge of the sport. A regular dude, none of this emotionless football manager bollox. But say Randy, Ken, Tito etc. all jump on this case. That's 100% because of their feuds with Dana, and perhaps some of the guys currently in the suit are the same. UFC comes out bad in this even if they win every single case. The entire situation is bad. If any of this is a result of the way Dana acts, that's a huge negative to the company. Perhaps UFC might need to replace Dana in speaking roles with Kenny Florian or something. That would satisfy a dude like me because I want to see a real and non-put on fan of the sport, and a dude like Florian put their heart in sole into it and are genuinely positive about the future, and he'd also satisfy people who want more regulation and professionalism.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Its a strategy by the law firms. If this suit has taken a long time, they have talked to a lot of people in confidence. I think they will ramp it up bit by bit, until it culminates with the likes of Randy, Tito etc. Maybe even there will be a shock addition. 

As I said before if the UFC was a publicly listed company his role as CEO would be totally untenable. He would be forced out of the company on the basis he doesn't understand corporate responsibility. DW has done an amazing job, but we have to remember he came from being a fight promoter, its not as if he has a masters degree in business management. The shit he has to deal with in terms of ethics, competition and monopoly is not his wheel house. The company has grown beyond his abilities. 
But saying that if they can get away with paying off a few hundred million on this case, and DW is smart enough (which I think he is) to tone down his shit permanently I think he can learn the ropes and move the company forward on the right footing. He won't be able to screw the fighters anymore though. 
I hope this is coherent after about 10 glasses of wine!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Its a strategy by the law firms. If this suit has taken a long time, they have talked to a lot of people in confidence. I think they will ramp it up bit by bit, until it culminates with the likes of Randy, Tito etc. Maybe even there will be a shock addition.
> 
> As I said before if the UFC was a publicly listed company his role as CEO would be totally untenable. He would be forced out of the company on the basis he doesn't understand corporate responsibility. DW has done an amazing job, but we have to remember he came from being a fight promoter, its not as if he has a masters degree in business management. The shit he has to deal with in terms of ethics, competition and monopoly is not his wheel house. The company has grown beyond his abilities.
> But saying that if they can get away with paying off a few hundred million on this case, and DW is smart enough (which I think he is) to tone down his shit permanently I think he can learn the ropes and move the company forward on the right footing. He won't be able to screw the fighters anymore though.
> I hope this is coherent after about 10 glasses of wine!


I don't reckon they will be paying a hundred million what so ever. Maybe in the long game if they're upping fighter pay but just from how I've been reading it, it doesn't seem like it's a big thing. UFC will be paying to remove the bad publicity, not to avoid getting crippled by these guys. From how it appears and from what I read, the reason these guys are bombarding UFC with individual cases is because it stresses UFC's defence team which I believe is a common enough tactic. From the people prosecuting, I take it that this generally means they are HOPING that they are the ones who get settled with.

That's from the little bit I've looked up anyways. Of course I'm not a lawyer by any stretch.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

If this case gets settled it will be for 9 figures. Your logic Clyde is all personal none of it legal. Its based on your personal opinions of fighters and comparisons to the WWE that are neither here nor there. Dennis Hallman is an asshole you say. Wow they will surely have the case thrown out because of that. Where is the foundation of your argument? 
I mean give one serious point with a proper basis of reason and logic that they won't win/settle this case for a very serious sum of money, because you have given one yet!


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Looking into the whole thing finally.
Some parts are fairly legitimate and should have the UFC worried. Other parts sound like sour grapes and butthurt.
I can't see any good coming of this one way or another. Even if the UFC wins this lawsuit it will still take a hit publicly.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> If this case gets settled it will be for 9 figures. Your logic Clyde is all personal none of it legal. Its based on your personal opinions of fighters and comparisons to the WWE that are neither here nor there. Dennis Hallman is an asshole you say. Wow they will surely have the case thrown out because of that. Where is the foundation of your argument?
> I mean give one serious point with a proper basis of reason and logic that they won't win/settle this case for a very serious sum of money, because you have given one yet!



I have posted a ton on this and I won't reiterate but 99% of the arguments about why the UFC will lose boil Down to "how can any fan not support the fighters" and "f*** Dana and his 38 ferrarris" none of which is exactly staggering legal precedents 


Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Clearly we need to hear DanTheJu's opinion on this matter.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Toxic said:


> I have posted a ton on this and I won't reiterate but 99% of the arguments about why the UFC will lose boil Down to "how can any fan not support the fighters" and "f*** Dana and his 38 ferrarris" none of which is exactly staggering legal precedents
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com App


Your logic Toxic is all personal none of it legal. Its based on your personal opinions of fighters.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Your logic Toxic is all personal none of it legal. Its based on your personal opinions of fighters.


I shared my personal feelings by if you read back you would have read how the UFC will easily defend itself against most of what has already been put on the table 





Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

The question at hand is really whether or not the UFC engaged in anticompetitive and monopsonous business practices, something I personally do not know, but am willing to bet they are guilty of in some form or fashion. 

Personally I just want to see the UFC lose for pure entertainment value on my end and because I think Dana White is a megalomaniacal, lying sociopath. I no longer have the attachment to MMA that I used to and honestly I haven't even been paying attention lately. Who is fighting next? I forgot about Machida and Dolloway and honestly I don't care. 

I'll keep following this case simply because I find it interesting.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

This case really lacks legitimacy at the moment.

There are no fighters involved who are anywhere near relevant to the MMA world so it does really come across as broke and bitter fighters trying it on!

Its beyond laughable that Brandon Vera has joined the case. He was always supportive of the UFC when he was working for them,he got pushed massively by the company at both HW and LHW and even got given headlining spots that he did not in anyway deserve (and for the last part of his tenure with UFC was on a 70k/70k contract!)

Now he has been cut and he is trying to get one last big and undeserved payday like 90% of the plaintiffs on the case.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

edlavis88 said:


> This case really lacks legitimacy at the moment.
> 
> There are no fighters involved who are anywhere near relevant to the MMA world





DonRifle said:


> Just for the record, people are saying it needs to be popular fighters with a bigger name. This does not matter one cent. Whether they are despised by the public, loved, successful, unsuccessful it does not matter one Iota.


That said, I'm amused at how many lawyers are on this forum. I don't know why we even bother having a justice system at all.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

edlavis88 said:


> This case really lacks legitimacy at the moment.
> 
> There are no fighters involved who are anywhere near relevant to the MMA world so it does really come across as broke and bitter fighters trying it on!
> 
> ...


If you'll recall correctly he earned a title shot and unlike Nate Diaz he refused a crappy contract and they made him sit for almost a year. He then went 5-7-1 with a number of controversy's in that run (guys that were juicing, questionable decisions from the judges, an iffy stoppage).


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

edlavis88 said:


> This case really lacks legitimacy at the moment.
> 
> There are no fighters involved who are anywhere near relevant to the MMA world so it does really come across as broke and bitter fighters trying it on!


This does not matter at all. Its your personal opinion whether they matter or not. Got nothing to do with the case. The fact is they mattered at a certain time in their careers and they are suing for the point in time they were wronged. 



Woodenhead said:


> That said, I'm amused at how many lawyers are on this forum. I don't know why we even bother having a justice system at all.


Theres only two people who have given legitimate opinions with some basis of a legal argument. Me and John. Toxic will disagree with that but we have agreed to disagree. 
I have been involved in many legal cases, and consider myself to have a pretty decent grasp of the law when it comes to business. You can choose not to believe that, no problem we are on an internet forum after all. I can't do JJ or wrestling but I can do business!
I honestly haven't seen an argument from anyone or even one anywhere on the net that gives me some consideration that the plaintiffs could actually lose this case. The proof goes down the street around the corner and up over the hill. They've broken so many laws its not funny. And this doc they tried to get the fighters to sign to say its not a Monopoly, surely that says it all to you guys that this problem was seen two years ago as being an issue for them in the future. 

The biggest argument from people is 'sour grapes'. Seriously why the funk do people think people take legal cases against each other!!! Its not because they got treated well. Jesus people are giving a reason that is a very reason for taking a case in the first place as their argument as to why it will fail!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Toxic said:


> I shared my personal feelings by if you read back you would have read how the UFC will easily defend itself against most of what has already been put on the table
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don replied to me with the thing I replied to you with


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Woodenhead said:


> That said, I'm amused at how many lawyers are on this forum. I don't know why we even bother having a justice system at all.


I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty familiar with business contracts and legal matters of finance as that is a big part of what I do for a living. All I'm saying about this is that there is a legitimate question as to whether the UFC engaged in improper business practices. I personally don't know for sure, but it's something I'd be willing to bet on.

The plaintiffs also make the case somewhat weak because they're guys that are butthurt that the UFC "did them wrong". The strongest guys on this case are Quarry and Vasquez IMO because they left the UFC on good terms. Fitch might have a claim due to the lisence issue with the UFC and THQ but I don't know enough about that particular situation.

All in all should be interesting. It would be hilarious if the UFC lost this case.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

TanyaJade said:


> The plaintiffs also make the case somewhat weak because they're guys that are butthurt that the UFC "did them wrong". The strongest guys on this case are Quarry and Vasquez IMO because they left the UFC on good terms. Fitch might have a claim due to the lisence issue with the UFC and THQ but I don't know enough about that particular situation.


That's what I've been saying. The guys who are doing this out of the right of the sport and the right of themselves are the ones who you know have some form of case.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Theres only two people who have given legitimate opinions with some basis of a legal argument. Me and John.


Actually, that's pretty much how I see it, as well. Just didn't wanna name names. :thumb02:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Again this 'butthurt' argument is bullshit if you ask me. It comes purely from personal dislike. 
Randy Couture who half the people here seem to write off as 'butthurt' simply stood up for his rights and these got him so much hate for really no reason at all. Just people bought into the DW bullshit poison.

Dennis Hallman is a was a brilliant fighter in his day, a pioneer. People didn't like him wearing his pink pants to the ring, DW publicly went after him because of that, and guess what he is now just 'butthurt'. 

Brandon Vera who they tried to bully into signing his rights over for free, is 'butthurt'. People dont like him why? Because he didn't fulfill his potential? 

John Fitch? Told to sign away his rights for the rest of his life for pretty much free? Oh yeah Fitch is butthurt. Nothing to do with people disliking his fighting style that they came to that conclusion, alongside his hammering by DW at numerous times. 

People need to read between the lines and try and engage their brain here and not come with these emotional responses based on thin air.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I'm pretty sure "butthurt" is not a legal condition so I doubt it'll have any influence.  And yeah, fighters are doing it for themselves. Obviously. Nobody ever does anything for someone else for free. I still don't see how that has any influence on the facts. This is not about low profile or high profile fighters. Sure there would be more press if GSP was part of it but legally it doesn't make a difference if they wronged GSP or Jon Fitch or Dustin Ortiz or Meg from Family Guy.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> People need to read between the lines and try and engage their brain here and not come with these emotional responses based on thin air.


But isn't it all based on thin air? How do you know Fitch was asked to sign his life away for nothing? Because he said so? Please. Same goes for anything any of them have said including Dana. You are being just as subjective as the pro ufc arguments. Like, everything that comes out of Danas mouth is lies and yet you assume all the fighters speak the truth. I don't buy it. I believe there's a lot of total bollocks coming out of both sides. Till it goes to court and the facts are presented and corroborated, I'm going to continue assuming many of these facts are bullshite.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> But isn't it all based on thin air? How do you know Fitch was asked to sign his life away for nothing? Because he said so? Please. Same goes for anything any of them have said including Dana. You are being just as subjective as the pro ufc arguments. Like, everything that comes out of Danas mouth is lies and yet you assume all the fighters speak the truth. I don't buy it. I believe there's a lot of total bollocks coming out of both sides. Till it goes to court and the facts are presented and corroborated, I'm going to continue assuming many of these facts are bullshite.


Dude its in black and white in the contracts, its on paper. They would not be stupid enough to make up stuff like that, nor would the lawyers the UFC would sue for defamation.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Dude its in black and white in the contracts, its on paper. They would not be stupid enough to make up stuff like that, nor would the lawyers the UFC would sue for defamation.


No matter, you are still speculating. Saying 'they would not be stupid enough to...' Doesn't prove a thing. I want evidence, which hopefully will come out in the courts.

It takes a special kind of ego to be a cage fighter. The kind of ego which I wouldn't trust to be objective. After listening to Aldo claim he can barely afford to live, I don't know what to believe any more from these guys. The whole industry is full of ego maniacs.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Butthurt isn't a legal term yes, Clyde and I are just saying this isn't going to look good to the public because of who most of these guys are. It's just a statement, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

I think it's funny how people act like law is the same for all businesses and its not, fighters are independent contractors.

If a fighter is suing the UFC but is still fighting in another MMA organization .. LOL.

Its just a bad attempt at a money grab and I dont think it goes anywhere. If Bellator or WSOF sued then I would be inclined to believe there was some merit, but they cant because there is none and this will all just go away very very slowly but with little impact if any.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

TanyaJade said:


> Butthurt isn't a legal term yes, Clyde and I are just saying this isn't going to look good to the public because of who most of these guys are. It's just a statement, nothing more nothing less.


True, it might look like that to the public. It just doesn't matter in a court of law. Hopefully.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> True, it might look like that to the public. It just doesn't matter in a court of law. Hopefully.


The problem is that if you are suing the UFC for having a monopoly wile at the same time working in that field for someone else you have a hard row to hoe.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> True, it might look like that to the public. It just doesn't matter in a court of law. Hopefully.


Right. I agree.
It was just a statement. Although it could hinder the case in the sense that some guys may not want to be involved but this is purely speculative.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> No matter, you are still speculating. Saying 'they would not be stupid enough to...' Doesn't prove a thing. I want evidence, which hopefully will come out in the courts.
> 
> It takes a special kind of ego to be a cage fighter. The kind of ego which I wouldn't trust to be objective. After listening to Aldo claim he can barely afford to live, I don't know what to believe any more from these guys. The whole industry is full of ego maniacs.


Im not speculating on whats in the contracts, because multiple guys have said exactly the same thing, its in the written accusations in the case filed.

These contracts would have been sent to the fighters for review before signing, reviewed by agents and managers, and they will have been see by the law firms otherwise they wouldn't be listed in the case. Excuse my' they wouldn't have been stupid enough' line. Its ain't speculation brah!

On the fighter pay, I dont think you understand the real amount these guys earn if you think he's an ego maniac. Calculate one third of his actual pay cause thats what he's getting. 2 fights a year, whats he on 100K a fight or something? So one of the best pound 4 pound guys in the world is making around $70,000 a year? Maybe a bit more with sponsors What an ego maniac!!!! People working in Mcdonalds in Norway earn more then that a year FFS. What is it 45,000 euro? Not even middle management salary for most of europe! Fu***** peanuts and you accuse him of being an ego maniac, he's the world champion!!!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

TanyaJade said:


> Right. I agree.
> It was just a statement. Although it could hinder the case in the sense that some guys may not want to be involved but this is purely speculative.


We'll see who comes on board over the next few weeks and it may remove this element anyway. You would have to think it would be very surprising if Randy and Tito didn't join in at some point. 
It will be interesting to see if they have a strategy in place for this adding of people to the case. ie. Xmas Eve, New Years Eve, day of Jones Vs Cormier!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DanTheJu already completely destroyed your one third argument.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

slapshot said:


> The problem is that if you are suing the UFC for having a monopoly wile at the same time working in that field for someone else you have a hard row to hoe.


Im not so sure thats a valid argument. Just because there are other companies, does not mean the UFC does not have a Monopoly, nor does it mean they did not brake any laws to get to their current powerful and dominant market position (monopoly or not) 
The UFC is clearly the only organisation left for top competition in the sport. They actively pursued this position and talked about it publicly but unfortunately for them that is not legal in business in the United States. 

It also doesn't negate the fact that the UFC has conducted many anti competitive strategies and broken competition law. Every which way you look in this case the evidence points to the UFC breaking rules. For me the fighters could be all empty faces with no names, as long as they were part of the organisation and wronged in terms of the rules of competitive business the laws can be applied to them.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Im not speculating on whats in the contracts, because multiple guys have said exactly the same thing, its in the written accusations in the case filed.
> 
> These contracts would have been sent to the fighters for review before signing, reviewed by agents and managers, and they will have been see by the law firms otherwise they wouldn't be listed in the case. Excuse my' they wouldn't have been stupid enough' line. Its ain't speculation brah!
> 
> On the fighter pay, I dont think you understand the real amount these guys earn if you think he's an ego maniac. Calculate one third of his actual pay cause thats what he's getting. 2 fights a year, whats he on 100K a fight or something? So one of the best pound 4 pound guys in the world is making around $70,000 a year? Maybe a bit more with sponsors What an ego maniac!!!! People working in Mcdonalds in Norway earn more then that a year FFS. What is it 45,000 euro? Not even middle management salary for most of europe! Fu***** peanuts and you accuse him of being an ego maniac, he's the world champion!!!


If the fecker was taking home $70k a year, I wouldn't have made the comment. But he isnt taking home $70k a year. So my comment stands.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> If the fecker was taking home $70k a year, I wouldn't have made the comment. But he isnt taking home $70k a year. So my comment stands.


Whats he getting a fight? How much do you think one of the best P4P fighters in the world - (top 3 at least) should earn in a year? Don't you think this kind of talent should be rewarded properly, or do you really think its fair people in the UFC marketing department should earn more then him?

Im quoting Rashad and Chael from his podcast on this one third of gross is what they actually earn. A couple of other fighters have confirmed this. Shame on you if you have not been listening to chaels podcasts!


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Whats he getting a fight? How much do you think one of the best P4P fighters in the world - (top 3 at least) should earn in a year? Don't you think this kind of talent should be rewarded properly, or do you really think its fair people in the UFC marketing department should earn more then him?
> 
> Im quoting Rashad and Chael from his podcast on this one third of gross is what they actually earn. A couple of other fighters have confirmed this. Shame on you if you have not been listening to chaels podcasts!


I would eager he took home at least $200k for his last fight alone.

So what if hes P4P. Hes P4P in a sport thats barely 15 years old. Something that makes in in-comparable to any other established sports. We don't know what percentage of UFC revenue is profit. As such, how can you, me or anybody know whats fair or not. We don't know how much money is generated when comparing Aldo to somebody like GSP. Only Dana, the brothers and their accountants do. So saying "why does Aldo earn a 3rd what fighter X does, its unfair" is fecking pointless.

Are you suggesting all champs should get the same, even though some fighters generate far more revenue then others? Its a nice ideal, but unrealistic for a fledgling sport.


----------



## TheAuger (Jun 30, 2011)

Here is an article from ESPN with legal analysis about this case.

Source


> I spoke to ESPN senior writer and legal analyst Lester Munson to obtain answers to questions I had while reading through the 63-page lawsuit.
> 
> *Brett Okamoto:* The next step regarding this lawsuit is for the California court to certify it as a class action, correct? What does that mean exactly, and is it more or less a rubber-stamp process in this case? However, if this somehow makes it in front of a jury in next 2-3 years, the UFC could very well lose.
> 
> ...


To me it seems like they have a long hurdle to overcome & the Melendez/Bellator deal could end up making this lawsuit go no where. I have to wonder if the UFC had planned the whole Melendez situation from the get go. Because it may be their golden ticket.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> So what if hes P4P. Hes P4P in a sport thats barely 15 years old. Something that makes in in-comparable to any other established sports. We don't know what percentage of UFC revenue is profit. As such, how can you, me or anybody know whats fair or not. We don't know how much money is generated when comparing Aldo to somebody like GSP. Only Dana, the brothers and their accountants do. So saying "why does Aldo earn a 3rd what fighter X does, its unfair" is fecking pointless.
> 
> Are you suggesting all champs should get the same, even though some fighters generate far more revenue then others? Its a nice ideal, but unrealistic for a fledgling sport.


Well I believe he should be earning enough while he is world champ to buy a decent house, a car, and put his kids through college. Fledgling sport perhaps but the UFC is worth $3.5 billion dollars, that ain't chump change. 

So the UFC would say ok Jose go fight for Bellator and get paid more money. But the legal argument is that Bellator A. dont have high enough level of competition to offer him, B. Bellator is not recognised as credible enough for the very best fighters to fight for nor is any other org, and C. Bellator cannot sustain to pay top salaries to high level fighters due to lack of sponsorship, venues and opportunities in the industry. (and I'm paraphrasing what they have said in the filed case)


----------



## TheAuger (Jun 30, 2011)

DonRifle said:


> Well I believe he should be earning enough while he is world champ to buy a decent house, a car, and put his kids through college. Fledgling sport perhaps but the UFC is worth $3.5 billion dollars, that ain't chump change.
> 
> So the UFC would say ok Jose go fight for Bellator and get paid more money. But the legal argument is that Bellator A. dont have high enough level of competition to offer him, B. Bellator is not recognised as credible enough for the very best fighters to fight for nor is any other org, and C. Bellator cannot sustain to pay top salaries to high level fighters due to lack of sponsorship, venues and opportunities in the industry. (and I'm paraphrasing what they have said in the filed case)


The UFC may be worth "on paper" $3.5 billion, but their yearly revenue is not anywhere near that. And it's no where near what any of the major sports leagues or boxing pulls in.

Aldo has at least a million dollars from just his fights over the last 2 years. He has earned plenty of money from fight purses alone. That is more than enough to own several houses in several countries & buy multiple vehicles. That's not even factoring all his other income.

As I previously stated, there are more than a few legal experts that contend that the Melendez/Bellator deal might make the plaintiff's assertions moot.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Im not so sure thats a valid argument. Just because there are other companies, does not mean the UFC does not have a Monopoly, nor does it mean they did not brake any laws to get to their current powerful and dominant market position (monopoly or not)
> The UFC is clearly the only organisation left for top competition in the sport. They actively pursued this position and talked about it publicly but unfortunately for them that is not legal in business in the United States.
> 
> It also doesn't negate the fact that the UFC has conducted many anti competitive strategies and broken competition law. Every which way you look in this case the evidence points to the UFC breaking rules. For me the fighters could be all empty faces with no names, as long as they were part of the organisation and wronged in terms of the rules of competitive business the laws can be applied to them.


I think you're hoping they squeeze blood out of a turnip, they can kneed it all they want but nothing is going to come of it. 

I dont think they'll prove anything illegal took place, and I dont think it did.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

TheAuger said:


> The UFC may be worth "on paper" $3.5 billion, but their yearly revenue is not anywhere near that. And it's no where near what any of the major sports leagues or boxing pulls in.
> 
> Aldo has at least a million dollars from just his fights over the last 2 years. He has earned plenty of money from fight purses alone. That is more than enough to own several houses in several countries & buy multiple vehicles. That's not even factoring all his other income.
> 
> As I previously stated, there are more than a few legal experts that contend that the Melendez/Bellator deal might make the plaintiff's assertions moot.


So if Aldo made $2m gross in two years, and took home $650,000 of that after paying taxes and expenses, you think he can buy multiple houses cars etc in many countries? You really believe that? (Going back to chaels podcast Leben and Nate have also confirmed take home is 1/3rd and Fitch broke down the figures too to show its 1/3rd if there are doubts on that)
I am building family houses right now bro and I sell each one for 600,000 euro and they are simple 4 bedroom houses in europe. Nothing extravagent at all. He could not afford one of those, nor could he get a mortgage because he does not have a monthly income and would be considered high risk for a loan so he has to buy it for cash. This makes quite a difference indeed. He cannot get a 20 year mortgage from a bank because he simply would not fulfil any of their criteria for a loan. 

Go to Sao Paolo and try and buy a 4 bedroom house in a nice area, and see how much it is. MMA Sportsmann can confirm it for us. its 2700 euro a square meter actually. I grew up in a middle class home of two floors that was 200 square meters and 4 beds. Thats 520,000 euro for a house in Sao Paolo $633,000 US. He can't buy too many of them or do you mean multiple Favella shacks? 

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=Brazil&city=Sao+Paulo

Sure he could be a small house, in a an average area, not much for the World Champion and a sports hero is it? Not really the stuff dreams are made of. He might as well be an amateur athlete because Gaelic footballers in Ireland can do better then Jose Aldo can and they are amateurs with full time jobs. 

The UFC pay its fighters 17-22% of its revenue per event. That has been established. Bob Arum pays fighters 80% of the revenues. NBA and NFL pay over 50%. Fact. 

The Melendez issue which I personally believe strengthen the case if its presented in the right way, lets say that part gets ignored. Its one of only 15 or 20 points they bring up, points that are going in multiple directions pointing out different tiers of alleged crimes, the case can't fall apart on that one issue. If it was the only evidence it could be argued but there is too much other damning stuff that is not debatable. 

As this ESPN guy Munson (who is by the way really sitting on the fence with his personal opinion and giving a very general overview of the case probably for ESPN PR reasons) pointed out only a couple of years ago an anti trust case was won because of public statements which I dont believe anyone on this forum would disagree DW is slam dunk guilty of. Such things set precedent in the US. Toxic you can't say talk is cheap, when cases are won and lost on such things

So lets say your the UFC lawyers. you say to DW look dude, you can settle this now, for 1 years revenue, or half a years revenue in a good year. Or you can take the chance of being put up on the stand, having your finances poured through, your contracts all your 'sharp' (i would call illegal) practices put under scrutiny in front of a jury. We know DW has balls, but is he really going to allow all the secrets to come out? If they are ordered to show their finances to the world the whole jar of beans will be spilled. every dodgy thing they ever did would come out. In my opinion its impossible they would allow this to go to court. The plaintiffs lawyers know this, and will use it to drive up the settlement to the kind of figure they are used to settle for.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

slapshot said:


> I think you're hoping they squeeze blood out of a turnip, they can kneed it all they want but nothing is going to come of it.
> 
> I dont think they'll prove anything illegal took place, and I dont think it did.


Why do you think its blood from a turnip though? You think their net profits are crap? I mean look at it this way - lets say they make 10 mil an event in revenue. 2 mil goes out in money to the fighters. Thats a lot of money left in the pot, and the reason their company is now so valuable.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> The UFC pay its fighters 17-22% of its revenue per event. That has been established. Bob Arum pays fighters 80% of the revenues. NBA and NFL pay over 50%. Fact


What kind of comparison is that? Did boxing pay 80% when the sport was 15 years old? Or the NBA/NFL? These sports are totally established with very little need for growth anymore. Much like the premiership in the uk. All the legwork has been done and popularity is nailed down. Expecting the UFC to match these sports revenue/wages ratio is absurd.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> What kind of comparison is that? Did boxing pay 80% when the sport was 15 years old? Or the NBA/NFL? These sports are totally established with very little need for growth anymore. Much like the premiership in the uk. All the legwork has been done and popularity is nailed down. Expecting the UFC to match these sports revenue/wages ratio is absurd.


Fun story when boxing was 15 years old the winner got the prize of living while the loser died. Because it was in Roman times, they were slaves and they fought with things called myrmex otherwise known as limb piercers










Now a couple things...yes those are likely safer than Jon Jones eye pokes but don't you think we should have slightly higher standards than Ancient Rome. Ofcourse it could be said fighting to the death in an Roman Amphitheatre is more enjoyable than the slow death at the hands of poverty, post traumatic stress, and chemical dependencies.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

John8204 said:


> Fun story when boxing was 15 years old the winner got the prize of living while the loser died. Because it was in Roman times, they were slaves and they fought with things called myrmex otherwise known as limb piercers
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes yes, very clever but not my point and you know it. There is no way a sports organisation can give its athletes 50% of revenue within 15 years of birth, unless they plan to remain regional with no intentions of expanding.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Yes yes, very clever but not my point and you know it. There is no way a sports organisation can give its athletes 50% of revenue within 15 years of birth, unless they plan to remain regional with no intentions of expanding.


I would actually argue that while the sport is expanding and growing the actual fighters are making significantly less money. And the root of fighters making less money is the UFC's business practices. I mean can you really say fighters or the sport is better off now than it was five years ago?


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

John8204 said:


> I would actually argue that while the sport is expanding and growing the actual fighters are making significantly less money. And the root of fighters making less money is the UFC's business practices. I mean can you really say fighters or the sport is better off now than it was five years ago?


In my opinion, yes. The sport and fighters are better off now. More divisions. More spots on the roster. Higher base salaries. More fights. More competitive title fights. Subjectively, I've never enjoyed mma as much as I do now.


----------



## DeeJay (Dec 5, 2014)

John8204 said:


> I would actually argue that while the sport is expanding and growing the actual fighters are making significantly less money. And the root of fighters making less money is the UFC's business practices. I mean can you really say fighters or the sport is better off now than it was five years ago?


Fighters are making less money? Really? And the sport of MMA, in my opinion, has never been better. We have amazing talent coming through, a sh!t ton more fight cards (albeit some of them fairly weak) - but as an MMA fan i'm stoked for this coming year!

And c'mon DonRifle, just because people have a differing opinion to you doesn't mean that they don't understand or that they're wrong. Some of us actually think the fighters are earning enough money in what is a young sport.

Why is it the fighters are taking on the UFC for illegal monopoly practices and not Bellator, for example?

In the interview article on the other page, it states that the UFC used sharp practices which are technically legal - so I'm not entirely sure if the UFC has done anything wrong. . .


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Ive said it before many times - This idea that the UFC brass ( mainly the Fertittas and Dana ) take a huge slice of the profits for themselves whilst paying the fighters a pittance, simply doesn't make any sense. They own casinos and are worth a shitload of money. Why would they put so much effort into growing a sport and then skim the profits when their other revenue streams are higher then anything the UFC could possibly earn them? Why would they even bother with the UFC if their motive was making money? It doesn't add up.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> What kind of comparison is that? Did boxing pay 80% when the sport was 15 years old? Or the NBA/NFL? These sports are totally established with very little need for growth anymore. Much like the premiership in the uk. All the legwork has been done and popularity is nailed down. Expecting the UFC to match these sports revenue/wages ratio is absurd.


Do you have any facts or figures about boxing and the NFL when they were 15 years old? UFC is older than that but lets use 15 years because you wants too. Do you have any numbers or at least facts that may in some way support this? Or are you just assuming because it sounds nice? :thumb02: 

Lol at boxing has been around and established. Does boxing have a FOX Deal? You know what else is established? Horse racing. Or fencing. Or bowling. How does (been around a long time) = (able to pay their fighters appropriately? or bring in enough cash to do so). UFC for a time had multiplied so fast for the peanuts these guys bought it for. Dana can import snow to Vegas every Christmas and waste jet fuel to go fly around the country a few times. But the UFC isn't ready to make these athletes well paid. hahahaha. But the UFC is ready to make a broke guy from Boston headed for a billionaire in a matter of a little more than a decade. hahahahaha. Ok. Funny how that works. 

This was the fastest growing sport in the world remember? 

Your hollow opinions are absurd. Doesn't take 100 years to be able to pay employees a respectable amount. We have champs saying they are paid like ass. Media who says it. Retired guys. Fringe guys. But they are all just lumped in as bitter never was guys. It is hilarious. Until GSP who has made the most out of any fighter most likely comes out and complains you are others won't seem to take note. :confused05:



Soojooko said:


> Ive said it before many times - This idea that the UFC brass ( mainly the Fertittas and Dana ) take a huge slice of the profits for themselves whilst paying the fighters a pittance, simply doesn't make any sense. They own casinos and are worth a shitload of money. Why would they put so much effort into growing a sport and then skim the profits when their other revenue streams are higher then anything the UFC could possibly earn them? Why would they even bother with the UFC if their motive was making money? It doesn't add up.


Did Bill Gates just quit when he made enough money? What are you even talking about?


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Do you have any facts or figures about boxing and the NFL when they were 15 years old? UFC is older than that but lets use 15 years because you wants too. Do you have any numbers or at least facts that may in some way support this? Or are you just assuming because it sounds nice? :thumb02:
> 
> Lol at boxing has been around and established. Does boxing have a FOX Deal? You know what else is established? Horse racing. Or fencing. Or bowling. How does (been around a long time) = (able to pay their fighters appropriately? or bring in enough cash to do so). UFC for a time had multiplied so fast for the peanuts these guys bought it for. Dana can import snow to Vegas every Christmas and waste jet fuel to go fly around the country a few times. But the UFC isn't ready to make these athletes well paid. hahahaha. But the UFC is ready to make a broke guy from Boston headed for a billionaire in a matter of a little more than a decade. hahahahaha. Ok. Funny how that works.
> 
> ...


Really? You can't see the connection between sports that have already grown and established thier fan base and athlete salaries? I don't know what to say to that.

Plus your bill gates analogy has got feck all to do with what I'm talking about. The equivalent would be if gates main drive was making money, would he put a lot of effort into something that earns peanuts compared to his other endeavours, only to leech money out of it, effectively slowing its growth? Makes no sense at all.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle, why didn't you reply to that post with the legal annalist saying that there might well not be a case here after the Gil situation?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Really? You can't see the connection between sports that have already grown and established thier fan base and athlete salaries? I don't know what to say to that.
> 
> Plus your bill gates analogy has got feck all to do with what I'm talking about. The equivalent would be if gates main drive was making money, would he put a lot of effort into something that earns peanuts compared to his other endeavours, only to leech money out of it, effectively slowing its growth? Makes no sense at all.


Um no I don't. If you think the UFC is anywhere as big AS THEY SAY THEY ARE then they should have already established a fanbase. Hell seems like they are actually losing their fanbase now with the PPV numbers and the seemingly waning interest of older hardcore fans. 

Or the lack of interest in TUF all the way up until this season when they had to put a belt on the line for it. 

My point is do you have any facts as to what NFL or Boxing was 15 years into existence? Or are you just making a claim that sounds good to you? NFL players were paid no where near what theya re today...as well, the NFL wasn't that big, they coudn;t fill stadiums like they do today, there was no real TV nor deals from TV in that day either like there is today.

UFC isn't starting up in the 20s when there was no viewership on TV. No sponsors. No GREAT DEPRESSION. They are starting in the age of the internet, TV, internet subs, mass amount of eyeballs seeing ads that sponsors pay to run. NFL or Boxing had none of that. 

But do you have any real numbers that they paid out in relation to what they make? Probably more accessible actually since UFC refuses to show any numbers....hmmm as if they have something to hide....?

The Bill Gates analogy wasn't spot on at all. But what is your point? People that have a great company/product that supposedly are making cash hand over foot and is the "fastest growing sport" would just give it up one they are set? What are you getting at? That if Dana didn't care about the sport he would have bailed? Lol. You don't think he loves his position? You don't think he loves wasting money by the millions each year on his leisurely activities or vices like gambling anytime he is in Vegas, throwing 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars on the line? Or being in power to tell Randy Couture to fock off? Or play match maker. 

You think Mayweather is staying in the sport because he loves it or for his legacy or for the fans? You don't think he sticks around for 30mil paydays to afford his lifestyle or throwing a mill on an NFL game? Or to "be the man". 

You are saying UFC brass is doing it for the sport? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. So much to learn little one. I was once ignorant to the world too. Yea it sure is nice to believe that. Good ol Dana stays in power making money hand over foot because he loves the sport. Hahahahahahaahaha:thumb02:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

So johnny and Don will reply all day to Sooj, but none of them have an opinion on the legal annalist's opinion that was interviewed like 2 pages back that kind of goes against what they think? Brilliant.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

jonnyg4508 said:


> POST DELETED by: Toxic


I'm not the legal annalist. How is him being done with me relevant? I didn't even post the interview.

The interview was just posted yesterday. You say you don't care but you're willing to spit your vague knowledge of law with Sooj while you have the opinion of a professional just 2 pages back.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Got a right headache reading every post. Have to say though, Jonnyg and particularly Don Rifle win this thread. Easily.

Edit. What the hell is an annalist Clyde? :wink01:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Dr Gonzo said:


> Got a right headache reading every post. Have to say though, Jonnyg and particularly Don Rifle win this thread. Easily.
> 
> Edit. What the hell is an annalist Clyde? ��


That is the ******* autocorrect on this laptop which I can't turn off. Shit's doing my nut in.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Guys keep it civil or infractions will be handed out.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Toxic is such an annalist!


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> That is the ******* autocorrect on this laptop which I can't turn off. Shit's doing my nut in.


Haha, that is some retarded autocorrect if it think annalist is a more common word than analyst.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

This thread has turned into "your just posting opinion, no your just posting opinion" Has there been a legal argument from either side in almost a week?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Toxic said:


> This thread has turned into "your just posting opinion, no your just posting opinion" Has there been a legal argument from either side in almost a week?


As I was saying, someone posted a legal ANALYST's interview with ESPN just yesterday but the "legal" guys johnny and Don won't reply to it.


----------



## Dr Gonzo (May 27, 2010)

Toxic said:


> This thread has turned into "your just posting opinion, no your just posting opinion" Has there been a legal argument from either side in almost a week?


Toxic, if you want to be deleting posts and hading out infractions you should check out the last page on the Jon Jones hate thread.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Um no I don't. If you think the UFC is anywhere as big AS THEY SAY THEY ARE then they should have already established a fanbase. Hell seems like they are actually losing their fanbase now with the PPV numbers and the seemingly waning interest of older hardcore fans.
> 
> Or the lack of interest in TUF all the way up until this season when they had to put a belt on the line for it.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I can't be arsed with your bollocks. I don't need the numbers to say with 100% confidence that no sport is paying out 50% of revenue on salaries 15 years after conception. You think it's bullshit? I don't care. Prove me wrong.

You don't seem to know how to debate anything without typing up a wall of angry God knows what.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Why do you think its blood from a turnip though? You think their net profits are crap? I mean look at it this way - lets say they make 10 mil an event in revenue. 2 mil goes out in money to the fighters. Thats a lot of money left in the pot, and the reason their company is now so valuable.


Blood out of a turnip was a reference to the lack of ability to prove antitrust, hoping for evidence where there is none.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> DonRifle, why didn't you reply to that post with the legal annalist saying that there might well not be a case here after the Gil situation?


Key word: "might"

The rest of that interview backed up what you're arguing against. What you're clinging onto is 1 sentence which amounts to "might". It's a typical human reaction, though - in a wall of text going against what one believes, cling onto the lone tidbit that gives you hope to still be right. It's that kind of psychological failing that drives internet forum arguments everywhere. Fascinating stuff. 

But hey let's keep on predicting the future, fellow time travelling opinionists! I bet we see a settlement out of this, after the case is severed. (identity class)


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> Key word: "might"
> 
> The rest of that interview backed up what you're arguing against. What you're clinging onto is 1 sentence which amounts to "might". It's a typical human reaction, though - in a wall of text going against what one believes, cling onto the lone tidbit that gives you hope to still be right. It's that kind of psychological failing that drives internet forum arguments everywhere. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But hey let's keep on predicting the future, fellow time travelling opinionists! I bet we see a settlement out of this, after the case is severed. (identity class)


See I honestly don't see a settlement here, thing is there are to many hurt feelings former UFC fighters. The UFC's strength will be how many hate them. There are likely gonna be some parts of the case that have some merit but it will all get buried under the load of bitter hate. I really don't see this case hurting the UFC financiall but it will be the court of public opinion that stings them the worst.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Woodenhead said:


> Key word: "might"
> 
> The rest of that interview backed up what you're arguing against. What you're clinging onto is 1 sentence which amounts to "might". It's a typical human reaction, though - in a wall of text going against what one believes, cling onto the lone tidbit that gives you hope to still be right. It's that kind of psychological failing that drives internet forum arguments everywhere. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> But hey let's keep on predicting the future, fellow time travelling opinionists! I bet we see a settlement out of this, after the case is severed. (identity class)


My point isn;t in ANY way that there isn't a case. I've said time and time again that I essentially have NO idea about the legal situation.

The point I'm making is that a legal analyst thinks there MIGHT not be a case. So how can DonRifle and johnny be POSITIVE that this is the UFC being fuked if even someone who does this for a living has some doubt?


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Unless you're a judge, nobody can be positive about anything.

I find it hilarious how vehemently people are defending whatever side they're on here, and shifting their goalposts. That's all.

I'll be happy when this is over, because a lot of this crud should stabilize thereafter; in the meantime I'll just watch & learn, and also attempt to not be annoyed while skimming through threads like this.


----------



## gigogreco (Nov 10, 2010)

Woodenhead said:


> Unless you're a judge, nobody can be positive about anything.
> 
> I find it hilarious how vehemently people are defending whatever side they're on here, and shifting their goalposts. That's all.
> 
> I'll be happy when this is over, because a lot of this crud should stabilize thereafter; in the meantime I'll just watch & learn, and also attempt to not be annoyed while skimming through threads like this.


I havent got a clue about how this plays out, but anyone who has studied just a bit of marketing/competetion within business knows, that just because yuo have competetion, it doesnt mean you cant have a monopoly.

Its like, but theres bellator, wsof, pride, wec, strikeforce, cage warriors and so forth, but that is besides the point. The point here and thats the only point:

Has the ufc exploited their positition as top dogs, nothing more and nothing less.

We can all argue back and forth, but how about facts then???

The entire AKA, fitch, cain and everyone else was threathened, either they´d sign over their rights or never fight for the again. Like i said, i dont know where this case is going, but telling a gym, that they have to sign over their rights or never fight in the wolrds premiere organisation again, is definetly in the region of "exploiting your position in the market", as the top dog.

we have an arena/business being told not use other companies in their location.

Thats 2 no´s no´s!

I dont know why,that johnny or don should reply to a LEGAL ANALYST, why the hell would they? 

On one side, we have the ufc lawyers saying they are innocent, we have the opposition, they say the ufc are guilty. No legal analysts there, but top legal lawyers. Why would a analysts words be of imnportance? 

what if oprah said - with dana crying on the show - this is nothing dana, should she be qouted too?

some people are just too desperate. I´ve read the thread and i have to say, that johnny and don comes of the only ones. who have actually read the case and the charges.

like i started out by saying, it seems like people cant grasp the monopoly thing. It is - without a doubt - possible to have a monopoly, even with competetion.

Fx if red bull energi decide to tell all the ones they sell too, if you sell another energy drink, we wont sell to you. That is illegal and that is what the ufc did with that arena. We dont know how it will play out. I´ve read aboyt people drying their animals in microwaves, suing the produces as the animal died and winning the case, as it wasnt on the warning label "your cat</dog will die if you do dry them in the oven". We might see the same stupid idea of justice in this case, but should i bet my salary on it, i´d say that forcing guys to sign over their rigths for free, seems like mafia methods and using "your position" and the same goes for the use of that location. 

Head on block moment:

feel free to qoute this if im wrong, but the ufc are gonna take a hit.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

gigogreco said:


> I´ve read aboyt people drying their animals in microwaves, suing the produces as the animal died and winning the case, as it wasnt on the warning label "your cat</dog will die if you do dry them in the oven".


What in the actual ****?


----------



## gigogreco (Nov 10, 2010)

Rygu said:


> What in the actual ****?


i´ll just add, that i´m from denmark and many many years ago, i read a newspaper about the most insane and weird US court cases, cases where people actually won and was compensated.

A woman - of course  - put her cat in the microwave, after she´d bathed it and thought a spin in there would quickly dry it. The cat obviously died, and the owner sued, as the manual and warning labels didnt mention anything about it. She won.

another one was a mcdonalds customer burning himself or herself on the morning coffee, sued and won. Another mcdonalds - albeit a bit more normal - a customer slipping on the newly washed floor, sued and won. 

My stairs are washed weekly, should a fall and try to sue here in denmark, they´d just laugh me and tell me to open my eyes. So even that is to me far fetched.

the last mcd story, is the one about a guy getting fat, as he ate their food. He sued mcd for getting fat and he won.

of topic, but those were just of the top of my head.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

gigogreco said:


> i´ll just add, that i´m from denmark and many many years ago, i read a newspaper about the most insane and weird US court cases, cases where people actually won and was compensated.
> 
> A woman - of course  - put her cat in the microwave, after she´d bathed it and thought a spin in there would quickly dry it. The cat obviously died, and the owner sued, as the manual and warning labels didnt mention anything about it. She won.
> 
> ...


The cat story is just ridiculous but I do believe you there are some complete retards out there. The woman who burnt her leg, although a lot of people were calling her stupid etc, what actually happened there was the coffee was a lot hotter then, compared to now. She ended up with a nasty green rotted hole in her leg and it was almost fatal. Due to that whole thing they made a new law that coffee had to be made at a lower temperature in places like Mcds and so on. It wasn't even close either it was made to go down like 15 degrees or something like that. Borderline boiling I think it was before they made the change.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Woodenhead said:


> Unless you're a judge, nobody can be positive about anything.
> 
> I find it hilarious how vehemently people are defending whatever side they're on here, and shifting their goalposts. That's all.
> 
> I'll be happy when this is over, because a lot of this crud should stabilize thereafter; in the meantime I'll just watch & learn, and also attempt to not be annoyed while skimming through threads like this.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

I did give my opinion on the ESPN analysts interview already, pretty clear it was too.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Damn. Seems half the posters on here are on too high a dose of TRT. Chill folks! :hug:

Really can't see this going all the way but will be interesting to see how it goes.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> I did give my opinion on the ESPN analysts interview already, pretty clear it was too.


Sorry mate it got buried in a big ass post at the bottom.

What I disagree with is you saying "the case can't fall apart on that one point". Cases fall apart on one point all the time. Murders caught in the act have got away with it because they didn't receive their Miranda rights.

All I'm saying is that you are positive that the UFC will lose when legal analysts are not.


----------



## suffersystem (Feb 4, 2007)

gigogreco said:


> i´ll just add, that i´m from denmark and many many years ago, i read a newspaper about the most insane and weird US court cases, cases where people actually won and was compensated.
> 
> A woman - of course  - put her cat in the microwave, after she´d bathed it and thought a spin in there would quickly dry it. The cat obviously died, and the owner sued, as the manual and warning labels didnt mention anything about it. She won.
> 
> ...


You would have to actually go and read about each individual story for these though, as they are not in fact just as clear cut as what is being said like this. 

As someone else sais, that poor old lady who burnt herself on McD's coffee was in fact like serious 3rd degree burns. Not just some oh this coffee is a little warm. Not quite black and white my friend.



http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-hot-coffee-McDonalds-lawsuit-The-truth.html


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Sorry mate it got buried in a big ass post at the bottom.
> 
> What I disagree with is you saying "the case can't fall apart on that one point". Cases fall apart on one point all the time. Murders caught in the act have got away with it because they didn't receive their Miranda rights.
> 
> All I'm saying is that you are positive that the UFC will lose when legal analysts are not.


Wrong again Clyde lol. You will set a record in this thread of all time wrongness!  Im not just trying to be a prick either but, this is a case with multiple charges. It is not one charge like a murder case. They are liable for each individual charge, and they all mount up together to create one extremely large liability which is why I think there will be a large settlement.
For example trying to force fighters to sign away image rights forever, is a different issue to Melendez, If this case went to court each individual charge filed in the case would be read out, and a guilty/not guilty decision would be declared for each one, and a monetary settlement would be determined for each charge they were found guilty on, be it 1 out of 15 or 10 out of 15. Gilbert is a small piece of the pie in this case. 

The ESPN analyst sat on the fence and gave a very general overview of things. He really did not give a decisive opinion at all. Theres reasons for that, because of history between the UFC and ESPN and news organisations trying to influence the decision of the court. If ESPN came out and said the UFC is guilty and started hammering them the UFC would file for a dismissal because of unfair influence on the jury by the largest sports news org in the country. Whether they would get it or not I dont know but ESPN given their dislike for the UFC are not going to give them potential ways to get out.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Wrong again Clyde lol. You will set a record in this thread of all time wrongness!  Im not just trying to be a prick either but, this is a case with multiple charges. It is not one charge like a murder case. They are liable for each individual charge, and they all mount up together to create one extremely large liability which is why I think there will be a large settlement.
> For example trying to force fighters to sign away image rights forever, is a different issue to Melendez, If this case went to court each individual charge filed in the case would be read out, and a guilty/not guilty decision would be declared for each one, and a monetary settlement would be determined for each charge they were found guilty on, be it 1 out of 15 or 10 out of 15. Gilbert is a small piece of the pie in this case.
> 
> The ESPN analyst sat on the fence and gave a very general overview of things. He really did not give a decisive opinion at all. Theres reasons for that, because of history between the UFC and ESPN and news organisations trying to influence the decision of the court. If ESPN came out and said the UFC is guilty and started hammering them the UFC would file for a dismissal because of unfair influence on the jury by the largest sports news org in the country. Whether they would get it or not I dont know but ESPN given their dislike for the UFC are not going to give them potential ways to get out.


Espn has long been overly overly critical of mma in general that has been discussed in the past and they have a poor relationship with the UFC due to the fact Dana is a loud mouth who has called them on it. I don't feel the piece in question is any less unbiased. Unbiased journalism isn't necessarily a requirement to be a journalist but if somebody writes a piece and it spends 80% of the article giving one viewpoint with a foot note at the bottom examine the other side then they are merely trying to create an illusion of impartiality which IMO merely shows cowardice on the part of either the author or the news source. either be impartial or take a side don't hide behind your foot notes




Sent from Verticalsports.com App


----------



## rezin (May 28, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Wrong again Clyde lol. You will set a record in this thread of all time wrongness!  Im not just trying to be a prick either but, this is a case with multiple charges. It is not one charge like a murder case. They are liable for each individual charge, and they all mount up together to create one extremely large liability which is why I think there will be a large settlement.
> For example trying to force fighters to sign away image rights forever, is a different issue to Melendez, If this case went to court each individual charge filed in the case would be read out, and a guilty/not guilty decision would be declared for each one, and a monetary settlement would be determined for each charge they were found guilty on, be it 1 out of 15 or 10 out of 15. Gilbert is a small piece of the pie in this case.
> 
> The ESPN analyst sat on the fence and gave a very general overview of things. He really did not give a decisive opinion at all. Theres reasons for that, because of history between the UFC and ESPN and news organisations trying to influence the decision of the court. If ESPN came out and said the UFC is guilty and started hammering them the UFC would file for a dismissal because of unfair influence on the jury by the largest sports news org in the country. Whether they would get it or not I dont know but ESPN given their dislike for the UFC are not going to give them potential ways to get out.


This is so accurate. So far the most factual points have been raised by you DonRifle. Some other good points by others.

I don't think anyone says its slam dunk UFC is toast. These cases are very complex and many layers to peel. Does the UFC have some arguments. Yes. Like Melendez, like Bellator, etc. However, anyone that thinks the suit filed is complete rubbish and will be thrown out is fooling themselves.

I will say its quite entertaining when a very negative article comes out, with one mitigating point, how every pro-UFC person jumps on it and completely disregards everything else. Case in point this article as well as the S & P article on profits dropping like a hammer where they said its partly due to high start up costs abroad and everyone starts saying oh yeah its just an investment.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Wrong again Clyde lol. You will set a record in this thread of all time wrongness!  Im not just trying to be a prick either but, this is a case with multiple charges. It is not one charge like a murder case. They are liable for each individual charge, and they all mount up together to create one extremely large liability which is why I think there will be a large settlement.
> For example trying to force fighters to sign away image rights forever, is a different issue to Melendez, If this case went to court each individual charge filed in the case would be read out, and a guilty/not guilty decision would be declared for each one, and a monetary settlement would be determined for each charge they were found guilty on, be it 1 out of 15 or 10 out of 15. Gilbert is a small piece of the pie in this case.
> 
> The ESPN analyst sat on the fence and gave a very general overview of things. He really did not give a decisive opinion at all. Theres reasons for that, because of history between the UFC and ESPN and news organisations trying to influence the decision of the court. If ESPN came out and said the UFC is guilty and started hammering them the UFC would file for a dismissal because of unfair influence on the jury by the largest sports news org in the country. Whether they would get it or not I dont know but ESPN given their dislike for the UFC are not going to give them potential ways to get out.


I didn't even post an opinion and you reply with "wrong". That's the kind of person you are when it comes to discussing things.

I said that cases can fall apart on one thing. That's true. I didn't say this case will, I simply said that it's possible in a lot of scenarios. This isn't a right or wrong thing it's just a factual statement.

I'm done discussing it anyways. Obviously you've watched Jerry McGuire a few too many times and think it makes you a complete expert on the law. I haven't once said how I think the case will go but for you to be POSITIVE of how it'll turn out when even the prosecution probably aren't that sure, it says it all. I suppose it's nice to have belief in something. Keep reaching for the stars Don.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> if somebody writes a piece and it spends 80% of the article giving one viewpoint with a foot note at the bottom examine the other side then they are merely trying to create an illusion of impartiality which IMO merely shows cowardice on the part of either the author or the news source. either be impartial or take a side don't hide behind your foot notes


True indeed. I didn't think much of the article at all. 



rezin said:


> This is so accurate. So far the most factual points have been raised by you DonRifle. Some other good points by others.
> 
> I don't think anyone says its slam dunk UFC is toast.


I do think its a slam dunk but will admit that no one is in a position to know that for sure. 



ClydebankBlitz said:


> I didn't even post an opinion and you reply with "wrong". That's the kind of person you are when it comes to discussing things.
> 
> .



To be honest with you Clyde I would have hoped you would have more respect for yourself sometimes. I can't remember a thread on this forum before that someone has posted so much nonsense and just general drivel then yourself in this thread. I mean do you have an pride in yourself at all? You dont read the news, you can't read a legal document, you constantly give opinions based on thin air, and then you stand behind them. its mind boggling to me. You will say the sky is pink, and I will show you the fact that it is in fact blue, and then you will go on some other tangent and just forget the idiocy of your previous statement. 

To be honest I rarely read your other posts on other threads the last few weeks and mostly skip over them. I hope you dont go on like this in real life, with belligerent unintelligible logic. I think sometimes that maybe your just being a troll because you want to build up as many posts as possible and simply do not care to show yourself as any sort of intelligent person. I mean I really dont want to be arguing like this with you, but I can't see that you give me a choice. You've dismissed the correct answer i gave you in the previous point simply because I have said your wrong and you dont like that. You don't leave me a choice really because you keep coming back. Like that episode of the Simpsons where bart keeps getting the electric shock going after the cupcake.

If we were discussing who is the best fighter in the world or the best song ever its subjective and purely opinion based. But saying a case might get thrown out because its like a murder case is simply not true and I gave you a very clear reason why it is not.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I didn't give my opinion on the court case or if the UFC is or isn't breaking the law. I gave my opinion as someone hearing about it and which fighters would interest me to be involved.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to have any clue what I'm talking about here.

It's pretty hilarious that you said "you dismissed the CORRECT answer". Why doesn't Fitch just hire you? Seems like you've got this wrapped up mate.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I didn't give my opinion on the court case or if the UFC is or isn't breaking the law. I gave my opinion as someone hearing about it and which fighters would interest me to be involved.
> 
> Unlike you, I don't pretend to have any clue what I'm talking about here.
> 
> It's pretty hilarious that you said "you dismissed the CORRECT answer". Why doesn't Fitch just hire you? Seems like you've got this wrapped up mate.


Why is it hilarious that I said a business case is not the same as a murder case? Please explain it to me. My post was in direct response to that specific point you made. 

I simply said that you were not correct in saying a case like this can get thrown out over a technicality as per the miranda rights example you gave. That cannot happen in this case, and yes that is 100% correct whatever way you look at it. Dont need to be a lawyer to know that!!
If you came on here and said Rooney plays for Hull City, what would you expect me to say? "Maybe he doesn't"?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

DonRifle said:


> Why is it hilarious that I said a business case is not the same as a murder case? Please explain it to me. My post was in direct response to that specific point you made.
> 
> I simply said that you were not correct in saying a case like this can get thrown out over a technicality as per the miranda rights example you gave. That cannot happen in this case, and yes that is 100% correct whatever way you look at it. Dont need to be a lawyer to know that!!
> If you came on here and said Rooney plays for Hull City, what would you expect me to say? "Maybe he doesn't"?


It COULD happen that UFC is able to spin the Melendez situation which could make it seem like they have legitimate competition. I'm not saying they WILL, I'm not predicting in ANY capacity what will happen, but it's not an open and shut case. That's why hundreds of people are discussing this including some actual professionals out there.

All I was saying that you saying the UFC are going to lose isn't entirely accurate because you can't possibly KNOW they are going to lose. You can make a PREDICTION, but that's as far as it can go.

I'll give you this in terms that you of all people will get . It's like me saying Dennis Siver WILL beat Conor McGregor. You'd be like "You can't know that" and me replying "Yes I do, you're wrong, Siver is going to win 100%". (For the record, Siver won't make it out of the first. Don't steal my credits again  haha).


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

OK guys that's enough, lets keep this civil, on topic, and not so personal.


BTW, this never happened, I never shock my predators...


DonRifle said:


> Like that episode of the Simpsons where bart keeps getting the electric shock *going after the cupcake*.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

CupCake said:


> BTW, this never happened, I never shock my predators...


And I really appreciate that about you.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

CupCake said:


> OK guys that's enough, lets keep this civil, on topic, and not so personal.
> 
> 
> BTW, this never happened, I never shock my predators...


Well seeing how you are usually the predator I can see why.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Here is an article explaining an aspect that makes it shakey for the fighters argument. I didnt quote the whole article as it didnt format correctly.


http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/30/7465287/mma-ufc-antitrust-lawsuit-fighter-career-length



> Two weeks ago, I dissected the details of the lawsuit filed against the UFC (here and here) from the perspective of someone who used to provide expert witness support in these exact types of antitrust cases. The intent was to translate the plaintiffs' legal arguments into everyday English and cover the likely ways the UFC will rebut and attack the claims.
> 
> The length of the UFC's exclusive contracts was an important issue and I've since received feedback that UFC contracts may not be long term from a business perspective but are a lifetime in the typical career of an elite, professional MMA fighter - thus benefiting the plaintiffs' position and hurting the UFC. While it feels important, short fighter careers would actually either be benign or help the UFC. The reason has to do with the raising rivals' cost claim the plaintiffs are making and the way economics and antitrust view harm to competition.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> It COULD happen that UFC is able to spin the Melendez situation which could make it seem like they have legitimate competition. I'm not saying they WILL, I'm not predicting in ANY capacity what will happen, but it's not an open and shut case. That's why hundreds of people are discussing this including some actual professionals out there.
> 
> All I was saying that you saying the UFC are going to lose isn't entirely accurate because you can't possibly KNOW they are going to lose. You can make a PREDICTION, but that's as far as it can go.
> 
> I'll give you this in terms that you of all people will get . It's like me saying Dennis Siver WILL beat Conor McGregor. You'd be like "You can't know that" and me replying "Yes I do, you're wrong, Siver is going to win 100%". (For the record, Siver won't make it out of the first. Don't steal my credits again  haha).


The UFC could well convince a jury that the Melendez issue is a grey area or they are guilt free when it comes to that. But they cannot convince a jury that its fair and equitable to ask someone like Randy Couture to sign away his image rights perpetually for free. Or standing in front of the cameras telling everyone you are running a Monopoly. The recent case the ESPN guy highlights that perfectly from a case as recently as 2011. 

So two different issues that have been filed in the case, with two whole different sets of evidence and verdicts its just filed in the same lawsuit.If you read the case you'll see there are over a dozen of these, can't remember how many exactly. 
Companies file business lawsuits exactly like this with multiple different angles for the very reasons of silly technicalities in the law, that can get people who are obviously guilty off by simply having really clever lawyers who find loopholes. Or just like the murderer who had his place searched without a warrant so evidence can't be submitted in court. 

I think thats a pretty straightforward thing to understand. So when your saying that this can happen and Im saying its wrong, giving the clear reasons of why it is so, Id expect you to be able to process that which I think is fair enough!

I think we should go back to the cream egg bet Clyde. Im willing to wager 12 cream eggs that there will be a settlement of at least 100,000,000 dollars. So you will win if it goes to court, gets dismissed or gets settled for anything less then that!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Here is an article explaining an aspect that makes it shakey for the fighters argument. I didnt quote the whole article as it didnt format correctly.
> 
> 
> http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/30/7465287/mma-ufc-antitrust-lawsuit-fighter-career-length


Well this is quite interesting, because in the press conference Fitch was saying they wanted him to sign contracts that even continued after he died so they could use his image forever and his family wouldn't get a cent. 

This will all come out in the disclosure period which will be quite intriguing. I wonder will we get to see any of these fighter contracts at some point.

EDIT: just read that whole article. From what Ive read the contracts regarding image rights were separate contracts to the actual fighters contract where it details his pay, the UFC came to fighters who had existing contracts and said we need you to sign this for your image rights. We'll see in discovery.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

This is an interesting interpretation by a commentor on that article

Paul, I think you missed one important detail in the complaint
which is that it isn’t the length of any UFC fighters exclusive contract that gives the UFC control over the market but instead the long term contracts they have with the key fighters. Several times they make this distinction:
the UFC’s exclusive contracts foreclose would-be rival promoters from vital inputs—namely Elite Professional MMA Fighter services with the notoriety needed to sustain successful live Elite Professional MMA promotion

The successful promotion of a live Elite Professional MMA event requires Elite Professional MMA Fighters—i.e., those Fighters who have reputations for winning professional bouts or who have gained notoriety with the MMA fan base and thus who can attract a wide audience.
The fact that they cite boxing as an example time and time again leads me to believe they are going to use the examples provided by the USA v The International Boxing Club of New York . *The IBC was ruled by the Supreme Court of having a monopoly over "professional championship boxing contests" with championship distinguished from other bouts by the amount of money they brought in*. The complaint against the UFC reads almost identical to what the IBC was charged with:
The defendants have allegedly sought to maintain and effectuate this conspiracy by the following means: by eliminating the "leading competing promoter" of championship matches; by acquiring the exclusive right to promote professional boxing contests in all the "principal arenas" where championship matches can be successfully presented; and by requiring each title contender to agree, as a condition of fighting for the championship, that if he wins he would, for a period of three (and sometimes five) years, take part only in title contests promoted by the defendants.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> We'll see in discovery.


Yep. No matter what any of us think, discovery will make for some mighty interesting reading. Im not sure how it works with cases like this. Will we ( the fans ) get to read everything that's uncovered or does it stay in the courtroom?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Yep. No matter what any of us think, discovery will make for some mighty interesting reading. Im not sure how it works with cases like this. Will we ( the fans ) get to read everything that's uncovered or does it stay in the courtroom?


A judge can decide if there is good enough reason to exclude the press from the courtroom. National security, sexual offences, case involving celebrities, underage cases. 

I can't think of a reason why they would be excluded in a case like this, but I'm sure the UFC lawyers could think up one or two!


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> A judge can decide if there is good enough reason to exclude the press from the courtroom. National security, sexual offences, case involving celebrities, underage cases.
> 
> I can't think of a reason why they would be excluded in a case like this, but I'm sure the UFC lawyers could think up one or two!


If the court rules in favour of the fighters, I guess it doesn't matter if we don't know the details of the case, as its pretty obvious what's happened. Be good to know the settlement amount. If, however, the UFC come out of it unscathed and the details are hidden, that would suck hard. It would mean yet more shit in the shadows and the speculation goes on and on = more threads like this one.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> If the court rules in favour of the fighters, I guess it doesn't matter if we don't know the details of the case, as its pretty obvious what's happened. Be good to know the settlement amount. If, however, the UFC come out of it unscathed and the details are hidden, that would suck hard. It would mean yet more shit in the shadows and the speculation goes on and on = more threads like this one.


i think worst case scenario after the case we would get to see all of this information as there would be a transcript of the case available to the public, and once the jury has made their decision it doesn't matter if its public information.Media can't influence their decision. 
No one is at risk of dieing being blown up, or having their reputation ruined unfairly for the future ie. a minor. If the UFC is truly an honourable organisation and not breaking any rules surely it would be a contradiction not to be transparent with all their contracts, finances and so on?

All part of the reason I think they'll settle so this doesn't get dragged through the courts airing the dirty laundry. Imagine the media coverage of DW on the witness stand, it would be a media circus. A very entertaining one too!


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> If the UFC is truly an honourable organisation and not breaking any rules surely it would be a contradiction not to be transparent with all their contracts, finances and so on?


I think the UFC would request to keep this information hidden so competitors (ie. Bellator, ONE FC) are not privy to the UFC's business model. They may argue that releasing this information could give their competitors an unfair advantage themselves.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I think the UFC would request to keep this information hidden so competitors (ie. Bellator, ONE FC) are not privy to the UFC's business model. They may argue that releasing this information could give their competitors an unfair advantage themselves.


Yeah I considered that, but I mean thinking about it, is there a secret recipe behind the business model of MMA promotion? There's no patents or intellectual property. I can't think of anything secret that the UFC would know in the industry that say Scott Coker wouldn't know or any other promoter for that matter. 

I think your right and they would argue what your saying, but don't think it has any teeth to stick.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> All part of the reason I think they'll settle so this doesn't get dragged through the courts airing the dirty laundry. Imagine the media coverage of DW on the witness stand, it would be a media circus. A very entertaining one too!


Indeed. Where we differ in opinion is I dont think their laundry is as dirty as many think. As I said earlier, I don't trust the fighters to be any more honest then the UFC. Getting slapped across the face with a fat slab of evidence will certainly shut me up. No matter what, I just want this whole thing to finish conclusively and be done with it. I love this sport and the speculation is frustrating to say the least.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> A judge can decide if there is good enough reason to exclude the press from the courtroom. National security, sexual offences, case involving celebrities, underage cases.
> 
> I can't think of a reason why they would be excluded in a case like this, but I'm sure the UFC lawyers could think up one or two!


Trade secrets. I am sure the UFC will use it to block them and will easily do it as they have sued Bellator in the past for stealing confidential contracts and copying them.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> Trade secrets. I am sure the UFC will use it to block them and will easily do it as they have sued Bellator in the past for stealing confidential contracts and copying them.


I find it hard to believe there would be enough secrets in contracts to justify a judge doing that. Something magical in the contracts that makes the UFC tick, I dunno. It will be very disappointing though if they manage to get a ruling like that. 

Just read up on the Bellator case you mentioned. It was an agent giving them the contracts that got sued. In any contracts I do there is always a confidentiality clause almost as standard, it could easily be this they were suing him for - giving confidential information to the competition. He would be breaking contract with them by doing this. If he had not contract with the UFC and gave a contract in his position to the Bellator without being under any constraint I dont think he could have been sued.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> I find it hard to believe there would be enough secrets in contracts to justify a judge doing that. Something magical in the contracts that makes the UFC tick, I dunno. It will be very disappointing though if they manage to get a ruling like that.
> 
> Just read up on the Bellator case you mentioned. It was an agent giving them the contracts that got sued. In any contracts I do there is always a confidentiality clause almost as standard, it could easily be this they were suing him for - giving confidential information to the competition. He would be breaking contract with them by doing this. If he had not contract with the UFC and gave a contract in his position to the Bellator without being under any constraint I dont think he could have been sued.


knowing how UFC contracts are structured would give Bellator an unfair advantage when they are negotiating with UFC talent as it would allow them to alter the structure enough to avoid the UFC's matching clause. If I can argue that a decent lawyer will have that shit sealed up in no time. Also the UFC sued both the agent and Bellator. Either way Belltor requested and received confidential information and I would be shocked if the UFC had an ounce of difficulty using the example to get shit sealed.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Toxic said:


> knowing how UFC contracts are structured would give Bellator an unfair advantage when they are negotiating with UFC talent as it would allow them to alter the structure enough to avoid the UFC's matching clause. If I can argue that a decent lawyer will have that shit sealed up in no time. Also the UFC sued both the agent and Bellator. Either way Belltor requested and received confidential information and I would be shocked if the UFC had an ounce of difficulty using the example to get shit sealed.


Well you may be right. Its quite intricate though. This whole public access scenario may very well come down to the pure skill of the lawyers involved or the grumpiness of a judge! 

By the way its new years eve, surely its time for a few more guys to join the case!!


----------

