Refresh | Add To Favorites | Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs
 


Melendez/ Rockhold/ Rousey blocked from UFC


«« Prev 1 2 3 4 [ 5 ] 6
From: crumbs 1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 9:15 PM
Member Since: 3/14/11
Posts: 230
 
I can't believe so many idiots in this thread bought that a life time contract that shady could be real

From: 3 Sided Square 403 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 9:30 PM
Member Since: 5/22/12
Posts: 412
 
SHOWWWWWTIIIIIIMMMMMMEEEEEE

-Swizz Beatz

From: BaraoKix Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 9:30 PM
Member Since: 3/20/12
Posts: 4644
 


LOL, ummm ya?

From: Ew0k187 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 9:36 PM
Member Since: 4/20/09
Posts: 2637
 
I don't believe this shit will work for a second

-ewok Phone Post

From: mendelson 106 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 9:48 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3525
 
TheParrot -  Doesn't make any sense.  If strikeforce folds and no one purchases the assets (contracts) how could they possibly be bound to no promotion?  Seems like an unenforceable clause if it even exists.
It is. It unjustly bars these men and women from earning a living in their chosen trade- a completely legal enterprise. Phone Post

From: TheMessiah Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 10:09 PM
Member Since: 6/22/10
Posts: 360
 
Sounds like some managers and Dana dropped the ball a little on allowing this to happen Phone Post

From: MTH 148 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 10:34 PM
Member Since: 6/28/11
Posts: 362
 
 I actually am a lawyer folks, and this sounds perfectly fine to me. 
 
It's not a non-compete and it's not restricting their employment. 
 
Look at it this way. Zuffa has two MMA brands, one of which (Strikeforce) is broadcast on Showtime. The other (the UFC) is not. 
 
Zuffa signed a deal with Showtime that said "We, Zuffa, will not allow our other brand, the UFC, to hire these X number of folks unless and until Showtime ceases broadcasting MMA." There's no reason I can think of why that's unlawful. Zuffa is perfectly within its rights to agree not to hire somebody under certain conditions. 
 
It doesn't prevent these fighters from going to Bellator. It doesn't even prevent them from asking the UFC to hire them, or even offering their services to the UFC for free. All it prevents is the UFC from hiring them. It's a restriction on the UFC, not the fighters. 
 
As the saying goes, "this is a free country." Zuffa has every right in the world to decide NOT to hire somebody. Rockhold isn't entitled to a job with the UFC, even if he does deserve it. 
 
All that's happened here is Zuffa has agreed not to hire certain folks unless Showtime is no longer in the MMA business. Crappy as it may be, there's nothing wrong with that. 
 
Rockhold's chances of succeeding in a legal challenge that essentially says "I have an affirmative right to be hired by the UFC, the UFC MUST hire me," is in my opinion extraordinarily low. 

From: clintboxe 16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 11:41 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1182
 
This is what Dave said on his forum to clarify earlier today (before this thread)
http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=147967&start=0

QUOTE:

I was told by one of the fighters who got it straight from Stephen Espinosa that certain guys are Showtime fighters as long as the Zuffa/Showtime contract is in effect. The fighter was a main guy on a list agreed to be Showtime and Zuffa when the new deal went down and the agreement was all fighters on the list are Showtime fighters as long as they are under contract to Zuffa and as long as Showtime airs Strikeforce.

Zuffa and Showtime can sign a new contract that changes the stips between Zuffa and Showtime now or when this deal expires, but he was told he can't transfer to UFC as long as the current deal is in place and could not fight on a UFC card unless Showtime gives the okay.

The fighter was told by Espinosa that in specifics because they insisted on the deal after what happened with Dan Henderson where his Strikeforce contract expired and they signed him to a new deal but brought him to UFC at a time when nobody knew the future of Strikeforce. This stip was insisted on by Showtime so something like that couldn't happen with their however many exclusive stars.

From: clintboxe 16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 11:41 PM
Edited: 07/15/12 11:42 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1183
 
More from Meltzer on his forum (http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=147967&start=0):

It wouldn't keep anyone from working. If their deal expires they can sign a new deal or go anywhere else. If they sign, then they'll be booked on SF shows instead of UFC shows, that's all.

Hopefully Showtime doesn't insist on keeping it when the next deal comes up.

I don't know what the deal was that caused Dana to wash his hands of the show, but boy was there a lack of interest in last night's show.

From: clintboxe 16 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 11:48 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1184
 
I'm guessing Cindy didn't listen to his radio show or read these posts. I did both. I am pretty sure Dave simply misspoke on his radio show when he said something to the effect of the guys can't find in the UFC as long as MMA is on Showtime. I believe he meant to say as long as Strikeforce is on Showtime.

Bloody Elbow updated their post:

I said as long as Zuffa and Showtime have a deal, they can't fight on a UFC show unless Showtime gives the okay. It's in the Zuffa/Showtime contract. (Ed. note: actually, he said "as long as Showtime broadcasts MMA." but that's unimportant)

From: shootfightermike 738 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 11:48 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 131071
 
Chomas - WOW

 

From: smoogy 100 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/15/12 11:52 PM
Member Since: 1/7/08
Posts: 11088
 
Gee I wonder if UG News gave Meltzer a chance to respond before they printed an accusation that he was making shit up? I'm gonna guess no.

Dana has no credibility when it comes to the veracity of reports that touch upon aspects of Zuffa that he would rather not be made public. He's a carny.

From: WikiTheWalrus 7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 12:46 AM
Member Since: 3/12/07
Posts: 6919
 
There are a couple of interesting legal issues.

Fighters are independent contractors, so if Zuffa and Showtime have an agreement that the UFC won't contract with fighters it seems like tortious interference with business relations. However, as the parent company, Zuffa is essentially agreeing that they won't contract with fighters, so there is an argument that if there is interference in the UFC/fighter relationship it's only the company interfering with itself. There could be a counterpoint that, as separate entities with independent interests, Zuffa, Strikeforce, UFC, and Showtime are conspiring to keep fighters locked out of contracts with the largest MMA organization for the benefit of the second largest MMA organization, which may then bring in some antitrust and unfair business practice violations.

From: SmackyBear 27 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:01 AM
Member Since: 1/10/12
Posts: 78
 
MTH -  <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: '.Helvetica NeueUI'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">I actually am a lawyer folks, and this sounds perfectly fine to me. <div> </div><div>It's not a non-compete and it's not restricting their employment. </div><div> </div><div>Look at it this way. Zuffa has two MMA brands, one of which (Strikeforce) is broadcast on Showtime. The other (the UFC) is not. </div><div> </div><div>Zuffa signed a deal with Showtime that said "We, Zuffa, will not allow our other brand, the UFC, to hire these X number of folks unless and until Showtime ceases broadcasting MMA." There's no reason I can think of why that's unlawful. Zuffa is perfectly within its rights to agree not to hire somebody under certain conditions. </div><div> </div><div>It doesn't prevent these fighters from going to Bellator. It doesn't even prevent them from asking the UFC to hire them, or even offering their services to the UFC for free. All it prevents is the UFC from hiring them. It's a restriction on the UFC, not the fighters. </div><div> </div><div>As the saying goes, "this is a free country." Zuffa has every right in the world to decide NOT to hire somebody. Rockhold isn't entitled to a job with the UFC, even if he does deserve it. </div><div> </div><div>All that's happened here is Zuffa has agreed not to hire certain folks unless Showtime is no longer in the MMA business. Crappy as it may be, there's nothing wrong with that. </div><div> </div><div>Rockhold's chances of succeeding in a legal challenge that essentially says "I have an affirmative right to be hired by the UFC, the UFC MUST hire me," is in my opinion extraordinarily low. </div></span>


Agreements by businesses not to hire people are subject to similar restrictions as an employee's non compete clause. No hire clauses get challenged quite a bit and if they are found to be too broad they get thrown out.

A restriction on an employer from being able to hire an employee is a huge restriction on said employee. They may not have the right to make the UFC hire them, but they do have the right to offer their services on a free market. Indefinitely removing by far the biggest potential buyer of their chosen talents from the market injures them.

Not that it matters too much since Meltzer has now said it's only good for the length of Showtime's current contract to air SF, not as long as they show MMA as he first said. That's quite a bit more reasonable.

From: stonepony Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:18 AM
Member Since: 9/1/11
Posts: 2838
 
MTH -  <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: '.Helvetica NeueUI'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">I actually am a lawyer folks, and this sounds perfectly fine to me. <div> </div><div>It's not a non-compete and it's not restricting their employment. </div><div> </div><div>Look at it this way. Zuffa has two MMA brands, one of which (Strikeforce) is broadcast on Showtime. The other (the UFC) is not. </div><div> </div><div>Zuffa signed a deal with Showtime that said "We, Zuffa, will not allow our other brand, the UFC, to hire these X number of folks unless and until Showtime ceases broadcasting MMA." There's no reason I can think of why that's unlawful. Zuffa is perfectly within its rights to agree not to hire somebody under certain conditions. </div><div> </div><div>It doesn't prevent these fighters from going to Bellator. It doesn't even prevent them from asking the UFC to hire them, or even offering their services to the UFC for free. All it prevents is the UFC from hiring them. It's a restriction on the UFC, not the fighters. </div><div> </div><div>As the saying goes, "this is a free country." Zuffa has every right in the world to decide NOT to hire somebody. Rockhold isn't entitled to a job with the UFC, even if he does deserve it. </div><div> </div><div>All that's happened here is Zuffa has agreed not to hire certain folks unless Showtime is no longer in the MMA business. Crappy as it may be, there's nothing wrong with that. </div><div> </div><div>Rockhold's chances of succeeding in a legal challenge that essentially says "I have an affirmative right to be hired by the UFC, the UFC MUST hire me," is in my opinion extraordinarily low. </div></span>
Everything you've said sounds fine. The biggest reason to believe it's bullshit, is not because it isn't legally possible, but because Zuffa would never agree to something so ridiculous. Why would they buy SF, if that were the case? They bought SF to have better access to fighters. Not to guarantee that they have NO access to those fighters. Makes zero sense.

From: sirjoshua Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:25 AM
Member Since: 5/30/05
Posts: 2789
 
Hey fucktards..... you missed where Dana posted!

From: WikiTheWalrus 7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:28 AM
Member Since: 3/12/07
Posts: 6922
 
Hmmm... so Zuffa and Showtime are the only entities. UFC and Strikeforce are brands. So ZUffa would only be contracting to keep certain fighter in certain brands. The argument is then that Zuffa is merely preventing fighters for contracting with what is essentially a different department. I don't know if a court would find that the brands effectively act as separate entities and should then be treated as such.

From: ChaosOverkill 522 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:39 AM
Member Since: 3/2/11
Posts: 7005
 
How kind of nazi slave labour denies you freedom to sign wherever you want when your contract expires???

From: MMALOGIC Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:47 AM
Member Since: 8/17/08
Posts: 5496
 
clintboxe - This is what Dave said on his forum to clarify earlier today (before this thread)
http://theboard.f4wonline.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=147967&start=0

QUOTE:

I was told by one of the fighters who got it straight from Stephen Espinosa that certain guys are Showtime fighters as long as the Zuffa/Showtime contract is in effect. The fighter was a main guy on a list agreed to be Showtime and Zuffa when the new deal went down and the agreement was all fighters on the list are Showtime fighters as long as they are under contract to Zuffa and as long as Showtime airs Strikeforce.

Zuffa and Showtime can sign a new contract that changes the stips between Zuffa and Showtime now or when this deal expires, but he was told he can't transfer to UFC as long as the current deal is in place and could not fight on a UFC card unless Showtime gives the okay.

The fighter was told by Espinosa that in specifics because they insisted on the deal after what happened with Dan Henderson where his Strikeforce contract expired and they signed him to a new deal but brought him to UFC at a time when nobody knew the future of Strikeforce. This stip was insisted on by Showtime so something like that couldn't happen with their however many exclusive stars.

 this clears ewerything up... "AS LONG AS SHOWTIME AIRS STRIKEFORCE"...

so as long as SF is on showtime  (not any MMA) these fighters cant fight in the UFC.

Meltzer misspoke initially.

the Showtime deal runs til 2014 with an option to exit out by 2013 so these fighters can eventually be in the UFC.

It made no sense that they would be tied to showtime even without SF being on the network.

From: MMALOGIC Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:55 AM
Member Since: 8/17/08
Posts: 5497
 
 Zuffa is just using SF as leverage to get a better deal with Fox... as soon as Fox decides it wants more domestic events and female mma, Zuffa will fold SF up like a cheap suit and bring everyone over.

Sf in general is a money loser for Zuffa. 

I estimate Lorenzo wants 15 to 20 million more plus better time slots and more ad inventory on FX and fox to absorb SF into the UFC.

From: WikiTheWalrus 7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:56 AM
Member Since: 3/12/07
Posts: 6925
 
nobones - Strikeforce is owned by Forza LLC. Not Zuffa. Technically different companies. It gets confusing I know. <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


The Strikeforce website lists Zuffa LLC as the copyright owner.

Things are looking very strange. If one company owns the business, but is licensing the product to another and the same people own both companies, something smells a little funny.

From: MMALOGIC Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:01 AM
Edited: 07/16/12 2:02 AM
Member Since: 8/17/08
Posts: 5498
 
WikiTheWalrus - 
nobones - Strikeforce is owned by Forza LLC. Not Zuffa. Technically different companies. It gets confusing I know. <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


The Strikeforce website lists Zuffa LLC as the copyright owner.

Things are looking very strange. If one company owns the business, but is licensing the product to another and the same people own both companies, something smells a little funny.
Strikeforce is owned by Forza...  but Forza is owned by Zuffa.
  

From: WikiTheWalrus 7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:07 AM
Member Since: 3/12/07
Posts: 6927
 
MMALOGIC - 
WikiTheWalrus - 
nobones - Strikeforce is owned by Forza LLC. Not Zuffa. Technically different companies. It gets confusing I know. <img src="/images/phone/droid.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>


The Strikeforce website lists Zuffa LLC as the copyright owner.

Things are looking very strange. If one company owns the business, but is licensing the product to another and the same people own both companies, something smells a little funny.
Strikeforce is owned by Forza...  but Forza is owned by Zuffa.
  


lol, awesome.

From: Jive Turkey Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:28 AM
Member Since: 2/7/11
Posts: 33
 
What kind of leverage could Showtime possibly have over the UFC to get them to sign this kind of deal? And only after losing Diaz, Overeem, etc? So presumably they could just decide to add clauses to the contract whenever they please and get UFC to sign? How does that make any sense whatsoever? No way

From: UGCTT_Fraser_Finlay 224 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 7:33 AM
Member Since: 8/14/11
Posts: 8492
 
dfw jr - Dave has lost his mind!! Now he is just making shit up. Phone Post
I think everyone missed this... Phone Post

Refresh | Add To Favorites | Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs
 

«« Prev 1 2 3 4 [ 5 ] 6

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.

Shop | Contact Us | Advertising | Create Account | Links