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


Melendez/ Rockhold/ Rousey blocked from UFC


«« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [ 6 ]
From: dabigchet Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 8:59 AM
Member Since: 9/10/07
Posts: 10077
 
this doesn't surprise me. the real question is why the fuck does showtime want to keep its own brand at this point? its not like rockhold or melendez, etc are such big stars, not like they have this tremendous winning formula with their production, promotion, etc.

just get a new deal with zuffa, fold the talent in, and have proper UFC shows on strikeforce. hell, having a series of UFC v Strikeforce cards on Showtime would be awesome, where every fight was brand vs brand.

From: MTH 150 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 9:13 AM
Edited: 07/16/12 9:34 AM
Member Since: 6/28/11
Posts: 363
 
SmackyBear -
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.
Are you actually a lawyer that has litigated these types of agreements? Because I'm dubious.

I've been a business litigator for almost a decade now, and I've heard of very little about "no-hire" contracts, quite a bit less than non-compete agreements. 

And I think that's because it's a tenuous connection. Particularly here, where the agreement isn't between competitors (e.g., "you don't hire my best guys, and I won't hire your best guys")--it's between a primary company and a servicer. 

The big gorilla in the room bottom line is that Zuffa, in general, is going to be able to just decline to hire whomever it wants. Nothing stops these fighters from offering their services on the open market, but Zuffa needn't hire them. Zuffa could decide not to hire them for any number of reasons--their public personality, management issues, perception of skills, etc. 

I'm not even sure procedurally how the fighters could bring a challenge. Who do they sue? Zuffa? What do they claim? "You were wrong to agree not to hire me, and now I'm getting a court order that you do hire me"? No way is a court going to order a company to hire somebody--courts can't make contracts for people.

Maybe the fighters argue instead that "You were wrong to agree not to hire me, and now I want a court order that you'll just consider hiring me"? Okay, but then Zuffa says "Fine. We're considering it, and we decline because it's bad for our relationship with out affiliated companies and that's the conclusion we would've reached even without the contract you're challenging." At that point, their suit is moot.

I don't see any real likelihood of a win here. Phone Post  

From: Chris27 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 9:35 AM
Member Since: 10/24/11
Posts: 4017
 
It doesnt take a genius to know Meltzer was wrong, its for as long as Showtime airs SF not mma and thats completely understandable they dont want more talent being plucked from their roster.

As for the fighters whats the problem? These guys have signed contracts with SF they have to honor it, sucks that other guys got to leave but they signed deals with SF they have to honor them.

When SF folds they will come to the UFC, no big deal.

From: clintboxe 18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 10:02 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 1185
 
Haole - Exactly how many times has Dave 'clarified' his report?

and if you completely change what you said, is that a 'clarification'?
He simply misspoke, that's it. I thought it was very clear that he meant Strikeforce and not MMA period. Phone Post

From: Steve4192 228 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 10:24 AM
Member Since: 6/1/07
Posts: 7290
 
dabigchet - this doesn't surprise me. the real question is why the fuck does showtime want to keep its own brand at this point? its not like rockhold or melendez, etc are such big stars, not like they have this tremendous winning formula with their production, promotion, etc.

It's pretty simple.  Strikeforce brings a decent number of subscribers to Showtime for very little cost.  Strikeforce is dirt cheap programming content, way cheaper than what they pay for original programming like Dexter & Weeds.
 
just get a new deal with zuffa, fold the talent in, and have proper UFC shows on strikeforce. hell, having a series of UFC v Strikeforce cards on Showtime would be awesome, where every fight was brand vs brand.

 I'm pretty sure FOX would pitch a major fit if the UFC brand started showing up on a Viacom channel. 

From: kevsh 18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 12:55 PM
Member Since: 11/11/11
Posts: 453
 
What bothers me about this whole thing is that it doesn't seem as if Meltzer - who's been an, ahem, journalist for a long time - got any sort of confirmation regarding this story.

Sounds like an anonymous fighter told him something and he put out a Podcast asap. No calling Zuffa/UFC/Strikeforce or Showtime to confirm or deny, nothing. This is basically tabloid journalism.

I would suggest that if Mr. Meltzer wants his stories to be considered credible he as least act like a real journalist.

From: UGCTT_Fillthy 163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 1:01 PM
Member Since: 1/8/09
Posts: 624
 
kevsh - I would suggest that if Mr. Meltzer wants his stories to be considered credible he as least act like a real journalist.



at that point, he would cease to be an MMA journalist.

From: Silverball 27 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:29 PM
Member Since: 12/6/10
Posts: 1097
 
Luke Rockhold just told Helwani on the MMA Hour that there is a list, but he didn't seem to know (or didn't want to discuss) specifics.

From: lifeaftrprison 27 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:41 PM
Member Since: 3/27/06
Posts: 3448
 
A bailie -
lifeaftrprison -
dfw jr - Dave has lost his mind!! Now he is just making shit up. Phone Post
Source ?! Phone Post
Awesome Phone Post
. Phone Post

From: D241 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:47 PM
Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 9957
 
 Logical thinking-

Think of what fighters you want from SF to UFC.
Melendez, Rockhold, Roger Gracie, Jacare, Thomson, Healy

Interview one of them, or their managers.

Ask these questions-
What are the specifics of your contract with SF?
How man fights are on the contract?
Is there a stipulation that says you are required to remain a SF fighter for a certain time period, and if so what is that time period?
According to your knowledge, why can't you sign to UFC and how can you overcome that?
What is the stipulations of a champions clause?


When fighters like Gilbert complain about being locked up, these should be easy follow up questions to get some understanding.

From: UGCTT_Winnson 57 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 2:50 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9212
 
Strikeforce seems much more exciting to watch recently. I can even stand Mauro now. I think it's because Pat slaps him down when need be.

If Diaz/Condit happened in a hexagon instead of an octagon, Carlos wouldn't have been able to run away so much FTW.

Sharper corners are better, methinks.

From: SmackyBear 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:09 PM
Member Since: 1/10/12
Posts: 79
 
MTH - 
SmackyBear -
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.
Are you actually a lawyer that has litigated these types of agreements? Because I'm dubious.

I've been a business litigator for almost a decade now, and I've heard of very little about "no-hire" contracts, quite a bit less than non-compete agreements. 

And I think that's because it's a tenuous connection. Particularly here, where the agreement isn't between competitors (e.g., "you don't hire my best guys, and I won't hire your best guys")--it's between a primary company and a servicer. 

The big gorilla in the room bottom line is that Zuffa, in general, is going to be able to just decline to hire whomever it wants. Nothing stops these fighters from offering their services on the open market, but Zuffa needn't hire them. Zuffa could decide not to hire them for any number of reasons--their public personality, management issues, perception of skills, etc. 

I'm not even sure procedurally how the fighters could bring a challenge. Who do they sue? Zuffa? What do they claim? "You were wrong to agree not to hire me, and now I'm getting a court order that you do hire me"? No way is a court going to order a company to hire somebody--courts can't make contracts for people.

Maybe the fighters argue instead that "You were wrong to agree not to hire me, and now I want a court order that you'll just consider hiring me"? Okay, but then Zuffa says "Fine. We're considering it, and we decline because it's bad for our relationship with out affiliated companies and that's the conclusion we would've reached even without the contract you're challenging." At that point, their suit is moot.

I don't see any real likelihood of a win here. <img style="vertical-align: middle" border="0" alt="Phone Post" src="/images/phone/apple.png" />  


No, I'm not. I have had to study this, but I never said I had first hand experience litigating one of these cases.

In the cases I've seen, almost all have been one company challenging the clause, but a couple have been the employees making an anti-trust claim.

A number of these clauses have been successfully challenged. I don't recall the names, but there was a Wisconsin case involving nurses and a California case involving computer consultants where specific no hire clauses were struck down as being unreasonable restrictions on trade.

Obviously, the facts of those cases are significantly different than here, where we don't even have the wording of the clause. So I wouldn't say that this clause is definitely illegal like others did, or that it's almost certainly enforceable. Just that agreements between companies to not hire specific people certainly can be illegal.

From: Thacommish 46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:13 PM
Edited: 07/16/12 3:15 PM
Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 476
 
Its kind of pointless to write an article where you say they are showtime fighters for life then clearly explain how its only for the foreseeable future, and that its really not for life.

From: D241 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:16 PM
Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 9958
 
Stea1th - 

The initial term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of this Agreement is signed by Fighter (Effective Commencement Date”) and shall expire two years from the date that Fight er signs this Agreement or two years from the first bout in which Fight er fights hereunder whichever is the later date, unless terminated or unless extended or suspended in which case this Agreement shall expire no later than seven years from the Effective commencement date hereof. Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement (“extended term”) upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for an additional one year if Fight er at any time during the term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title.

this is the only thing holding Ronda, Luke and Gilbert in strikeforce.
where did you get that from Stea1th?
 
Reason I ask is because Melendez has been in SF for 4 years. Did he resign with them, and if so when, and what are the stipulations with that, and is there a championship stiuplation clause in there?

From: Chris27 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:18 PM
Member Since: 10/24/11
Posts: 4024
 
the head of Showtime was just on the MMA Hour.

Just heard the last few minutes so I didnt hear what he said about this situation.

he did say they have someone in mind for DC in Sept but that fighter isnt signed yet.

To me it has to be Tim.

From: MTH 150 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 3:25 PM
Edited: 07/16/12 3:27 PM
Member Since: 6/28/11
Posts: 367
 
D241 - 
Stea1th - 

The initial term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of this Agreement is signed by Fighter (Effective Commencement Date”) and shall expire two years from the date that Fight er signs this Agreement or two years from the first bout in which Fight er fights hereunder whichever is the later date, unless terminated or unless extended or suspended in which case this Agreement shall expire no later than seven years from the Effective commencement date hereof. Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement (“extended term”) upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for an additional one year if Fight er at any time during the term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title.

this is the only thing holding Ronda, Luke and Gilbert in strikeforce.
where did you get that from Stea1th?
 
Reason I ask is because Melendez has been in SF for 4 years. Did he resign with them, and if so when, and what are the stipulations with that, and is there a championship stiuplation clause in there?
x2.

I haven't bothered to follow all the nuances here as this develops, but isn't what appears to be shaking out here that there is in fact an agreement between Zuffa and Showtime that the UFC will not hire certain fighters until Showtime is no longer broadcasting Strikeforce? 

In other words, there is in fact something other than the fighters' own contracts keeping them out of the UFC?  Namely, a separate contract between Zuffa and Showtime that the fighters are not parties too?  Or have I missed the fact somewhere along the line here that even this aspect of the report has been discredited?

SmackyBear - No, I'm not. I have had to study this, but I never said I had first hand experience litigating one of these cases.

In the cases I've seen, almost all have been one company challenging the clause, but a couple have been the employees making an anti-trust claim.

A number of these clauses have been successfully challenged. I don't recall the names, but there was a Wisconsin case involving nurses and a California case involving computer consultants where specific no hire clauses were struck down as being unreasonable restrictions on trade.

Obviously, the facts of those cases are significantly different than here, where we don't even have the wording of the clause. So I wouldn't say that this clause is definitely illegal like others did, or that it's almost certainly enforceable. Just that agreements between companies to not hire specific people certainly can be illegal.
Interesting input, thanks.    

From: SmackyBear 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 4:20 PM
Member Since: 1/10/12
Posts: 80
 
D241 - 
Stea1th - 
<p>The initial term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of this Agreement is signed by Fighter (Effective Commencement Date”) and shall expire two years from the date that Fight er signs this Agreement or two years from the first bout in which Fight er fights hereunder whichever is the later date, unless terminated or unless extended or suspended in which case this Agreement shall expire no later than seven years from the Effective commencement date hereof. Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement (“extended term”) upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for an additional one year if Fight er at any time during the term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title.</p>
this is the only thing holding Ronda, Luke and Gilbert in strikeforce.
where did you get that from Stea1th?
 
Reason I ask is because Melendez has been in SF for 4 years. Did he resign with them, and if so when, and what are the stipulations with that, and is there a championship stiuplation clause in there?


I've seen that before on MMApayout. Supposedly, that's the SF championship clause. I'm not sure if all their contracts are for two years or if that was just one specific contract.

http://mmapayout.com/2009/09/the-champions-clause-an-mma-comparative/

And Gil signed an extension with SF right before the UFC purchase. He supposedly still has three fights left.

However, as he prepares to fight Josh Thomson - the last man to beat him - on May 19, Melendez warned people not to expect him to move to the UFC after his next bout. He still has another three fights left on his contract and expects to honour them.

"I'm going to be with Strikeforce for a while, or at least until my contract is up," Melendez told Heavy.com.

"I have this fight plus three more, and I respect that."


http://www.espn.co.uk/ufc/sport/story/150581.html

From: LEET060 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 5:52 PM
Member Since: 10/1/07
Posts: 2210
 
Dave Meltzer on wrestling observer radio clarified that the stuff he said about the showtime/strikeforce/zuffa fighter's contract about 'THE LIST' that he was misquoted and a fighter told him about it when he was talking to one of the fighters.

Meltzer does admit that maybe he shouldn't of said it on air and if he is wrong, he said that he is sorry.

source: http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/112-wrestling-observer/26560-july-16-observer-radio-bryan-alvarez-and-dave-meltzer-recap-money-in-the-bank-2012-full-report-on-all-the-matches-more-on-strikeforcezuffa-tna-notes-raw-monday-kurt-and-the-hall-of-fame-new-ufc-matches-cursed-calgary-show-your-questions-and-more

From: smoogy 100 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 7:21 PM
Member Since: 1/7/08
Posts: 11089
 
UG News still running with Dana's phony denial, shocking

From: SmackyBear 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 7:36 PM
Member Since: 1/10/12
Posts: 81
 
Chris27 - the head of Showtime was just on the MMA Hour.

Just heard the last few minutes so I didnt hear what he said about this situation.

he did say they have someone in mind for DC in Sept but that fighter isnt signed yet.

To me it has to be Tim.


I just read the recap at mmafighting. He said the SF fighters can't be transferred to the UFC while they're on their SF contracts, but there's nothing preventing the UFC from signing them once their contracts are up.

From: TheParrot 55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/16/12 7:42 PM
Member Since: 9/10/09
Posts: 3490
 
CindyO -  I asked DW:

"Meltzer is claiming you guys signed an agreement with Showtime that states Zuffa/UFC  cannot have (specifically mentioned) Ronda, Luke or Gil on your roster as long as Showtime promotes MMA, even beyond their contract period w/Strikeforce). He also said that even if Strikeforce folds, those 3 still cannot come to the UFC (but they can go to Belator or another competitor- just never UFC as long as Showtime promotes MMA). Is this true?"

DW's response:

"idk wtf melzers problem is! Has this guy lost his mind? That is absolutely not true!"


Cindy

 idk why you had to bother Dana when I cleared this up already.

From: Maverick3744 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 7/17/12 6:57 AM
Member Since: 7/17/12
Posts: 3
 
 I dont know why people are going crazy to be fighting on a main event on showtime aint so bad.  Luke even acknowledged that.  Soon S.F will be like an official minor league but not in a bad way it will be for possibly finding new talent.  

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