UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> UG's Myths re: Eddie Alvarez Situation


1/8/13 7:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 724
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
UGCTT_Fillthy - 

so what happens if UFC offers a new contract that includes a guarenteed PPV appearance, and a % of gate or buys (however paltry)?


even if they offered that the amount is still not guaranteed - theoretically a ppv could have 0 buys or a million buys, theres no way to know

 

second, i doubt the ufc will be able to take a second bite of the apple because usually rights of first refusal dont work that way


http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Bantamweight-Tyson-Nam-Signs-with-WSOF-Draws-Winner-of-Miguel-TorresMarlon-Moraes-46175
Yeah doesnt work that way lol.

did u not see the word "usually"? Again i havent read eddies contract..i mentioned that upfront so i dont know the exact mechanics of how the right works


Yeah i figured id save you the trouble of alluding to people on how things "usually" work and show you how things ACTUALLY work in the real world, with an example based off the exact same contracts.

 

alluding to people? lol...

 

also, that article refers to a right to match for a fighter that has been cut...perhpas the match is different for a fighter that hasnt been cut

 

and if the ufc can make a second offer, why dont they?

 


whos to say they havnt or wont? your the only one that indicated it was set in stone and ufc would not get a 2nd chance to offer, i havnt seen anyone else say that

 

again, i was only specualting based on what the norm is..i said very clearly that i dont know the actual terms of the contract..i never said it was set in stone..i was responding to a question based on what the convention is...if the ufc is able to make a second offer, does that really negate anything in my initial post? no, so i don't know why you are bothering

 


Why speculate when you can know with a minimal amount of effort? didnt you start this thread to insinuate everyone speculating about how the bellator contracts worked without seeing it were being naive in making such statements without knowledge? then you go on to speculate more about it in the thread?
1/8/13 7:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 725
also yeah it negates the part where you said "second, i doubt the ufc will be able to take a second bite of the apple because usually rights of first refusal dont work that way" you are indicating you have knowledge on how rights of first refusal work, i assure you that has been negated.
1/8/13 7:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20937
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
UGCTT_Fillthy - 

so what happens if UFC offers a new contract that includes a guarenteed PPV appearance, and a % of gate or buys (however paltry)?


even if they offered that the amount is still not guaranteed - theoretically a ppv could have 0 buys or a million buys, theres no way to know

 

second, i doubt the ufc will be able to take a second bite of the apple because usually rights of first refusal dont work that way


http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Bantamweight-Tyson-Nam-Signs-with-WSOF-Draws-Winner-of-Miguel-TorresMarlon-Moraes-46175
Yeah doesnt work that way lol.

did u not see the word "usually"? Again i havent read eddies contract..i mentioned that upfront so i dont know the exact mechanics of how the right works


Yeah i figured id save you the trouble of alluding to people on how things "usually" work and show you how things ACTUALLY work in the real world, with an example based off the exact same contracts.

 

alluding to people? lol...

 

also, that article refers to a right to match for a fighter that has been cut...perhpas the match is different for a fighter that hasnt been cut

 

and if the ufc can make a second offer, why dont they?

 


whos to say they havnt or wont? your the only one that indicated it was set in stone and ufc would not get a 2nd chance to offer, i havnt seen anyone else say that

 

again, i was only specualting based on what the norm is..i said very clearly that i dont know the actual terms of the contract..i never said it was set in stone..i was responding to a question based on what the convention is...if the ufc is able to make a second offer, does that really negate anything in my initial post? no, so i don't know why you are bothering

 


Why speculate when you can know with a minimal amount of effort? didnt you start this thread to insinuate everyone speculating about how the bellator contracts worked without seeing it were being naive in making such statements without knowledge? then you go on to speculate more about it in the thread?

uhhh no..why would i tell people not to speculate, then go on and speculate...

 

this thread was in response to those that assume they know what the contract requires and what the obligations and rights of the parties - read the first sentence of this post...based on those assumptions people are claiming bjorn and bellator are scummy and shady when they really have no clue..

 

i then responded to some questions based on some of my own speculations but do you see me making judgments or launching criticisms based on my speculations? no..and i am not claiming my specualtions as truth, there is a difference

1/8/13 7:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20938
Thacommish - also yeah it negates the part where you said "second, i doubt the ufc will be able to take a second bite of the apple because usually rights of first refusal dont work that way" you are indicating you have knowledge on how rights of first refusal work, i assure you that has been negated.

again, look up the word "usually" and "doubt" if you arent sure...i never said with certainty that the right of first refusal contained in eddie's contract works that way..i was speculating based on my experience.

 

it is absolutely true that i have knowlege of how rights of first refusals USUALLY work..but like i said in my first post, with freedom of contract you can draft a right of first refusal to say whatever you want..you can give offerees 100 bites of the apple, but that isnt USUALLY how it works...get it?

1/8/13 7:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/08/13 7:40 PM
Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 726
"uhhh no..why would i tell people not to speculate, then go on and speculate...<br /><br /> <br /><br />this thread was in response to those that assume they know what the contract requires and what the obligations and rights of the parties"<br />Since you brought up looking up the word usually and doubt, you should pick up a thesaurus and look up speculate you might find the word assume under there... \
1/8/13 7:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 727
assuming, speculating, same shit especially when your wrong. and whats with not thanking me for clearing up your misguided concept about how rights of first refusal worked with bellator contracts?
1/8/13 7:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20939
Thacommish - "uhhh no..why would i tell people not to speculate, then go on and speculate...<br /><br /> <br /><br />this thread was in response to those that assume they know what the contract requires and what the obligations and rights of the parties"<br />Since you brought up looking up the word usually and doubt, you should pick up a thesaurus and look up speculate you might find the word assume under there... \

they have similar meanings but they aren't equivalent...if you speculate regarding something, its pretty clear that the subject matter you are speculating on is not an absolute truth..its a projection, an estimate, a guess

 

an assumption, in this case, means you believe what you think is true to actually be true...understan?

1/8/13 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 728
but it wasnt true. thus in the end its the same.
1/8/13 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20940
Thacommish - assuming, speculating, same shit especially when your wrong. and whats with not thanking me for clearing up your misguided concept about how rights of first refusal worked with bellator contracts?

why would i thank you..your finding really doenst do anything to further the issue at hand...if the ufc can make a second offer, great, they should make a second offer..doesnt negate the fact that there are idiots on here assuming what they want and making idiotic posts like this

 

 

 

"dudes getting fucked over by a butthurt company. and in terms of actual tangible money instead of ppv percentages bellator would have to give a considerable higher % to match the real world value of zuffas offerl, scummy shit from scummy people"

 

 

 

1/8/13 7:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20941
Thacommish - but it wasnt true. thus in the end its the same.

ummm no its not...to speculate and be wrong, is different than to assume a truth, bash people on the basis of that assumption, and then being wrong

1/8/13 7:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20942

and btw..i just read that link you posted..it doesnt say eddie was cut..it basically says that bellator waived the right of first negotiation period...its typical for these types of contracts to have a right of first negotiation and then a right of first refusal...that article says that bellator basically waived the right of first negoitation where eddie has to negotiate exclusively with bellator

1/8/13 7:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Thacommish
34 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/4/10
Posts: 729
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - assuming, speculating, same shit especially when your wrong. and whats with not thanking me for clearing up your misguided concept about how rights of first refusal worked with bellator contracts?

why would i thank you..your finding really doenst do anything to further the issue at hand...if the ufc can make a second offer, great, they should make a second offer..doesnt negate the fact that there are idiots on here assuming what they want and making idiotic posts like this

 

 

 

"dudes getting fucked over by a butthurt company. and in terms of actual tangible money instead of ppv percentages bellator would have to give a considerable higher % to match the real world value of zuffas offerl, scummy shit from scummy people"

 

 

 


sorry i missed the part where you spent 20 seconds googling my shitty assumption and proved it wrong, or where i condemned others for making ignorant assumptions then went on making my own under the guise of pretending to have more knowledge about it than most because im a lawyer. Nope instead im all for it, just find it odd how your so hypocritical about it.
1/8/13 8:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Mdson
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/24/10
Posts: 236
I love it when people google shit and argue with a guy who has actual education, experience and knowledge on these type of issues. Thanks for posting OP.
1/8/13 8:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ArthurKnoqOut
32 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/6/10
Posts: 2104

As much as I like Ed (and the few times we hung out with Ben Askren and Alan Belcher after some Bellator events) and as much as I TOTALLY see his POV. Bellator is a business and I totally see where Bjorn Rebney is coming from...He simply can't, especially as a precedent, let his emotions cloud their (Bellator's) actions. 

1/8/13 9:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Il Duce
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/1/12
Posts: 423
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku -
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
UGCTT_Fillthy - 

so what happens if UFC offers a new contract that includes a guarenteed PPV appearance, and a % of gate or buys (however paltry)?


even if they offered that the amount is still not guaranteed - theoretically a ppv could have 0 buys or a million buys, theres no way to know

 

second, i doubt the ufc will be able to take a second bite of the apple because usually rights of first refusal dont work that way


http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Bantamweight-Tyson-Nam-Signs-with-WSOF-Draws-Winner-of-Miguel-TorresMarlon-Moraes-46175
Yeah doesnt work that way lol.

did u not see the word "usually"? Again i havent read eddies contract..i mentioned that upfront so i dont know the exact mechanics of how the right works


Yeah i figured id save you the trouble of alluding to people on how things "usually" work and show you how things ACTUALLY work in the real world, with an example based off the exact same contracts.

 

alluding to people? lol...

 

also, that article refers to a right to match for a fighter that has been cut...perhpas the match is different for a fighter that hasnt been cut

 

and if the ufc can make a second offer, why dont they?

 


whos to say they havnt or wont? your the only one that indicated it was set in stone and ufc would not get a 2nd chance to offer, i havnt seen anyone else say that

 

again, i was only specualting based on what the norm is..i said very clearly that i dont know the actual terms of the contract..i never said it was set in stone..i was responding to a question based on what the convention is...if the ufc is able to make a second offer, does that really negate anything in my initial post? no, so i don't know why you are bothering

 


Why speculate when you can know with a minimal amount of effort? didnt you start this thread to insinuate everyone speculating about how the bellator contracts worked without seeing it were being naive in making such statements without knowledge? then you go on to speculate more about it in the thread?

uhhh no..why would i tell people not to speculate, then go on and speculate...

 

this thread was in response to those that assume they know what the contract requires and what the obligations and rights of the parties - read the first sentence of this post...based on those assumptions people are claiming bjorn and bellator are scummy and shady when they really have no clue..

 

i then responded to some questions based on some of my own speculations but do you see me making judgments or launching criticisms based on my speculations? no..and i am not claiming my specualtions as truth, there is a difference

Man, don't argue with this asshole who's only wants to argue for the sake of being a pain in the ass wannabe know it all.

The Commish needs to go back to Bleacher Report or Mania and troll them mofos over there.

Thanks OP for shedding some light on this issue. Phone Post
1/8/13 9:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Il Duce
78 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/1/12
Posts: 424
Thacommish -
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Thacommish - assuming, speculating, same shit especially when your wrong. and whats with not thanking me for clearing up your misguided concept about how rights of first refusal worked with bellator contracts?

why would i thank you..your finding really doenst do anything to further the issue at hand...if the ufc can make a second offer, great, they should make a second offer..doesnt negate the fact that there are idiots on here assuming what they want and making idiotic posts like this

 

 

 

"dudes getting fucked over by a butthurt company. and in terms of actual tangible money instead of ppv percentages bellator would have to give a considerable higher % to match the real world value of zuffas offerl, scummy shit from scummy people"

 

 

 


sorry i missed the part where you spent 20 seconds googling my shitty assumption and proved it wrong, or where i condemned others for making ignorant assumptions then went on making my own under the guise of pretending to have more knowledge about it than most because im a lawyer. Nope instead im all for it, just find it odd how your so hypocritical about it.
STFU. Phone Post
1/8/13 10:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Bat21
62 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/08
Posts: 6886
whoabro -  Great post op, thanks! Phone Post

This. 

1/9/13 12:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wovito
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/08
Posts: 7270
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
dabigchet - i don't think bellator's legal obligation is really the point. if eddie's terms are signing bonus + fight purse + PPV cut when main event and bellator just said, "ok, we'll match it!" they are being assholes to eddie. it is not the same offer for obvious reasons and bjorn is being an asshole plain and simple. it is not going to end well for people's perceptions of him.

PPV cut makes the upside of UFC contract obviously much higher. i have to wonder if the UFC didn't screw this up by not guaranteeing PPV main event if he wins the first fight of his contract.

the legal obligations are totally the point...eddie could have negotiated a much stronger right of first refusal that specifically requires bellator to match ppv, but that has value - maybe bellator wouldnt have paid him as much if he insisted on that type of provision...he cant now go back on his word now that bellator has already paid him and he wants out


You're confusing legal obligations with contractual obligations. You're also speculating beyond what your knowledge of the contract permits. These are both mistakes for a lawyer.


Are you a wizard?

 

I was using dab's language...if you are making a distinction between legal and contractual obligations then thats your issue, obviously this whole post is about contractual obligations so your semantic argument is stupid

 

 

and of course i am specualting beyond what the contract "provides" (not "permits", there is a difference)..but i make it pretty clear when I am specualting and I am not stating any of my speculations as facts, which is unlike what many posters on here have done on this issue

and i am not giving any legal advice on this post so your "lawyer mistake'" comment is ridiculous..obviously if I were going to give eddie or Bellator legal advice I would need to see the terms of the contract


You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. You claim my "semantic argument is stupid", (although any real attorney would tell you that the distinction is meaningful) and then go on to make a, in your words, "stupid semantic argument" in the next sentence.

2. My comment about your over speculating was clearly and explicitly related to what YOUR KNOWLEDGE permits you to speculate on, not what the contract provides. (You haven't seen the contract. You have no idea what it provides.) The obvious intent of the statement was to say that any speculation you make is of little value because you haven't seen the document.

3. No one is accusing you of giving legal advice. As an attorney, your core competencies should include reading comprehension, and precision/careful drafting. Your apparent lack of those skills or failure to use them are mistakes for attorneys. I'm guessing you didn't graduate from Harvard.


Next time, don't be such a dick.
1/9/13 12:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01/09/13 12:49 PM
Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20950
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
dabigchet - i don't think bellator's legal obligation is really the point. if eddie's terms are signing bonus + fight purse + PPV cut when main event and bellator just said, "ok, we'll match it!" they are being assholes to eddie. it is not the same offer for obvious reasons and bjorn is being an asshole plain and simple. it is not going to end well for people's perceptions of him.

PPV cut makes the upside of UFC contract obviously much higher. i have to wonder if the UFC didn't screw this up by not guaranteeing PPV main event if he wins the first fight of his contract.

the legal obligations are totally the point...eddie could have negotiated a much stronger right of first refusal that specifically requires bellator to match ppv, but that has value - maybe bellator wouldnt have paid him as much if he insisted on that type of provision...he cant now go back on his word now that bellator has already paid him and he wants out


You're confusing legal obligations with contractual obligations. You're also speculating beyond what your knowledge of the contract permits. These are both mistakes for a lawyer.


Are you a wizard?

 

I was using dab's language...if you are making a distinction between legal and contractual obligations then thats your issue, obviously this whole post is about contractual obligations so your semantic argument is stupid

 

 

and of course i am specualting beyond what the contract "provides" (not "permits", there is a difference)..but i make it pretty clear when I am specualting and I am not stating any of my speculations as facts, which is unlike what many posters on here have done on this issue

and i am not giving any legal advice on this post so your "lawyer mistake'" comment is ridiculous..obviously if I were going to give eddie or Bellator legal advice I would need to see the terms of the contract


You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. You claim my "semantic argument is stupid", (although any real attorney would tell you that the distinction is meaningful) and then go on to make a, in your words, "stupid semantic argument" in the next sentence.

2. My comment about your over speculating was clearly and explicitly related to what YOUR KNOWLEDGE permits you to speculate on, not what the contract provides. (You haven't seen the contract. You have no idea what it provides.) The obvious intent of the statement was to say that any speculation you make is of little value because you haven't seen the document.

3. No one is accusing you of giving legal advice. As an attorney, your core competencies should include reading comprehension, and precision/careful drafting. Your apparent lack of those skills or failure to use them are mistakes for attorneys. I'm guessing you didn't graduate from Harvard.


Next time, don't be such a dick.

 

1. of course the distinction is meaningul, but on an mma message board shooting the shit with fellow fans, i was following his use of language and obvious intent..he was talking about the contract..so you being a little bean counting nerd and making a fuss over using "legal" vs. "contractual" is a petty, stupid argument that totally avoids the substance of this post but focuses on a semantic, meaningless detail in this context

 

 

2. my speculation has value because this is a message board and we are discussing things of interest pertaining to mma, which includes speculation..does my speculation have value in a court of law? of course not, but this is not a court of law..and just to be clear, of course if i havent read the contract, my speculation goes beyond what i know about the contract..thats why its speuclation dumbass

 

3. again, if i am justing discussing things casually on a message board i am not going to proof my statements or correct my spelling or grammer..dont be such an uptight douchebag...you think when i go to a bar and get drunk i have to act like a lawyer? get overyourself

 

4. i am being a dick in response to you being a douche..i didnt make any comments to you and you are attacking not the substance of what i said but technicalities and sarcastically ask "are you a wizard"..sorry but if you act like a douchce, yes, i will be a dick to you

1/9/13 1:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wovito
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/08
Posts: 7277
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
dabigchet - i don't think bellator's legal obligation is really the point. if eddie's terms are signing bonus + fight purse + PPV cut when main event and bellator just said, "ok, we'll match it!" they are being assholes to eddie. it is not the same offer for obvious reasons and bjorn is being an asshole plain and simple. it is not going to end well for people's perceptions of him.

PPV cut makes the upside of UFC contract obviously much higher. i have to wonder if the UFC didn't screw this up by not guaranteeing PPV main event if he wins the first fight of his contract.

the legal obligations are totally the point...eddie could have negotiated a much stronger right of first refusal that specifically requires bellator to match ppv, but that has value - maybe bellator wouldnt have paid him as much if he insisted on that type of provision...he cant now go back on his word now that bellator has already paid him and he wants out


You're confusing legal obligations with contractual obligations. You're also speculating beyond what your knowledge of the contract permits. These are both mistakes for a lawyer.


Are you a wizard?

 

I was using dab's language...if you are making a distinction between legal and contractual obligations then thats your issue, obviously this whole post is about contractual obligations so your semantic argument is stupid

 

 

and of course i am specualting beyond what the contract "provides" (not "permits", there is a difference)..but i make it pretty clear when I am specualting and I am not stating any of my speculations as facts, which is unlike what many posters on here have done on this issue

and i am not giving any legal advice on this post so your "lawyer mistake'" comment is ridiculous..obviously if I were going to give eddie or Bellator legal advice I would need to see the terms of the contract


You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. You claim my "semantic argument is stupid", (although any real attorney would tell you that the distinction is meaningful) and then go on to make a, in your words, "stupid semantic argument" in the next sentence.

2. My comment about your over speculating was clearly and explicitly related to what YOUR KNOWLEDGE permits you to speculate on, not what the contract provides. (You haven't seen the contract. You have no idea what it provides.) The obvious intent of the statement was to say that any speculation you make is of little value because you haven't seen the document.

3. No one is accusing you of giving legal advice. As an attorney, your core competencies should include reading comprehension, and precision/careful drafting. Your apparent lack of those skills or failure to use them are mistakes for attorneys. I'm guessing you didn't graduate from Harvard.


Next time, don't be such a dick.

 

1. of course the distinction is meaningul, but on an mma message board shooting the shit with fellow fans, i was following his use of language and obvious intent..he was talking about the contract..so you being a little bean counting nerd and making a fuss over using "legal" vs. "contractual" is a petty, stupid argument that totally avoids the substance of this post but focuses on a semantic, meaningless detail in this context

 

 

2. my speculation has value because this is a message board and we are discussing things of interest pertaining to mma, which includes speculation..does my speculation have value in a court of law? of course not, but this is not a court of law..and just to be clear, of course if i havent read the contract, my speculation goes beyond what i know about the contract..thats why its speuclation dumbass

 

3. again, if i am justing discussing things casually on a message board i am not going to proof my statements or correct my spelling or grammer..dont be such an uptight douchebag...you think when i go to a bar and get drunk i have to act like a lawyer? get overyourself

 

4. i am being a dick in response to you being a douche..i didnt make any comments to you and you are attacking not the substance of what i said but technicalities and sarcastically ask "are you a wizard"..sorry but if you act like a douchce, yes, i will be a dick to you


1. Was all of that some other language for "I'm sorry. I was wrong."?

2. Are you ACTUALLY a wizard?
1/9/13 2:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/6/08
Posts: 20956
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
dabigchet - i don't think bellator's legal obligation is really the point. if eddie's terms are signing bonus + fight purse + PPV cut when main event and bellator just said, "ok, we'll match it!" they are being assholes to eddie. it is not the same offer for obvious reasons and bjorn is being an asshole plain and simple. it is not going to end well for people's perceptions of him.

PPV cut makes the upside of UFC contract obviously much higher. i have to wonder if the UFC didn't screw this up by not guaranteeing PPV main event if he wins the first fight of his contract.

the legal obligations are totally the point...eddie could have negotiated a much stronger right of first refusal that specifically requires bellator to match ppv, but that has value - maybe bellator wouldnt have paid him as much if he insisted on that type of provision...he cant now go back on his word now that bellator has already paid him and he wants out


You're confusing legal obligations with contractual obligations. You're also speculating beyond what your knowledge of the contract permits. These are both mistakes for a lawyer.


Are you a wizard?

 

I was using dab's language...if you are making a distinction between legal and contractual obligations then thats your issue, obviously this whole post is about contractual obligations so your semantic argument is stupid

 

 

and of course i am specualting beyond what the contract "provides" (not "permits", there is a difference)..but i make it pretty clear when I am specualting and I am not stating any of my speculations as facts, which is unlike what many posters on here have done on this issue

and i am not giving any legal advice on this post so your "lawyer mistake'" comment is ridiculous..obviously if I were going to give eddie or Bellator legal advice I would need to see the terms of the contract


You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. You claim my "semantic argument is stupid", (although any real attorney would tell you that the distinction is meaningful) and then go on to make a, in your words, "stupid semantic argument" in the next sentence.

2. My comment about your over speculating was clearly and explicitly related to what YOUR KNOWLEDGE permits you to speculate on, not what the contract provides. (You haven't seen the contract. You have no idea what it provides.) The obvious intent of the statement was to say that any speculation you make is of little value because you haven't seen the document.

3. No one is accusing you of giving legal advice. As an attorney, your core competencies should include reading comprehension, and precision/careful drafting. Your apparent lack of those skills or failure to use them are mistakes for attorneys. I'm guessing you didn't graduate from Harvard.


Next time, don't be such a dick.

 

1. of course the distinction is meaningul, but on an mma message board shooting the shit with fellow fans, i was following his use of language and obvious intent..he was talking about the contract..so you being a little bean counting nerd and making a fuss over using "legal" vs. "contractual" is a petty, stupid argument that totally avoids the substance of this post but focuses on a semantic, meaningless detail in this context

 

 

2. my speculation has value because this is a message board and we are discussing things of interest pertaining to mma, which includes speculation..does my speculation have value in a court of law? of course not, but this is not a court of law..and just to be clear, of course if i havent read the contract, my speculation goes beyond what i know about the contract..thats why its speuclation dumbass

 

3. again, if i am justing discussing things casually on a message board i am not going to proof my statements or correct my spelling or grammer..dont be such an uptight douchebag...you think when i go to a bar and get drunk i have to act like a lawyer? get overyourself

 

4. i am being a dick in response to you being a douche..i didnt make any comments to you and you are attacking not the substance of what i said but technicalities and sarcastically ask "are you a wizard"..sorry but if you act like a douchce, yes, i will be a dick to you


1. Was all of that some other language for "I'm sorry. I was wrong."?

2. Are you ACTUALLY a wizard?

ill take that as a tapout...ill will hold the choke a little bit longer (just so you remember), but then let you go my fren...

1/9/13 2:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UGCTT_Fillthy
207 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/8/09
Posts: 1663

brothers, sister, douches, dicks, wizards... can't we all agree to edit our posts and delete the multi-quote towers?

1/9/13 3:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wovito
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/25/08
Posts: 7279
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
Wovito - 
Orcus Knows MMA Better Than Goku - 
dabigchet - i don't think bellator's legal obligation is really the point. if eddie's terms are signing bonus + fight purse + PPV cut when main event and bellator just said, "ok, we'll match it!" they are being assholes to eddie. it is not the same offer for obvious reasons and bjorn is being an asshole plain and simple. it is not going to end well for people's perceptions of him.

PPV cut makes the upside of UFC contract obviously much higher. i have to wonder if the UFC didn't screw this up by not guaranteeing PPV main event if he wins the first fight of his contract.

the legal obligations are totally the point...eddie could have negotiated a much stronger right of first refusal that specifically requires bellator to match ppv, but that has value - maybe bellator wouldnt have paid him as much if he insisted on that type of provision...he cant now go back on his word now that bellator has already paid him and he wants out


You're confusing legal obligations with contractual obligations. You're also speculating beyond what your knowledge of the contract permits. These are both mistakes for a lawyer.


Are you a wizard?

 

I was using dab's language...if you are making a distinction between legal and contractual obligations then thats your issue, obviously this whole post is about contractual obligations so your semantic argument is stupid

 

 

and of course i am specualting beyond what the contract "provides" (not "permits", there is a difference)..but i make it pretty clear when I am specualting and I am not stating any of my speculations as facts, which is unlike what many posters on here have done on this issue

and i am not giving any legal advice on this post so your "lawyer mistake'" comment is ridiculous..obviously if I were going to give eddie or Bellator legal advice I would need to see the terms of the contract


You should be ashamed of yourself.

1. You claim my "semantic argument is stupid", (although any real attorney would tell you that the distinction is meaningful) and then go on to make a, in your words, "stupid semantic argument" in the next sentence.

2. My comment about your over speculating was clearly and explicitly related to what YOUR KNOWLEDGE permits you to speculate on, not what the contract provides. (You haven't seen the contract. You have no idea what it provides.) The obvious intent of the statement was to say that any speculation you make is of little value because you haven't seen the document.

3. No one is accusing you of giving legal advice. As an attorney, your core competencies should include reading comprehension, and precision/careful drafting. Your apparent lack of those skills or failure to use them are mistakes for attorneys. I'm guessing you didn't graduate from Harvard.


Next time, don't be such a dick.

 

1. of course the distinction is meaningul, but on an mma message board shooting the shit with fellow fans, i was following his use of language and obvious intent..he was talking about the contract..so you being a little bean counting nerd and making a fuss over using "legal" vs. "contractual" is a petty, stupid argument that totally avoids the substance of this post but focuses on a semantic, meaningless detail in this context

 

 

2. my speculation has value because this is a message board and we are discussing things of interest pertaining to mma, which includes speculation..does my speculation have value in a court of law? of course not, but this is not a court of law..and just to be clear, of course if i havent read the contract, my speculation goes beyond what i know about the contract..thats why its speuclation dumbass

 

3. again, if i am justing discussing things casually on a message board i am not going to proof my statements or correct my spelling or grammer..dont be such an uptight douchebag...you think when i go to a bar and get drunk i have to act like a lawyer? get overyourself

 

4. i am being a dick in response to you being a douche..i didnt make any comments to you and you are attacking not the substance of what i said but technicalities and sarcastically ask "are you a wizard"..sorry but if you act like a douchce, yes, i will be a dick to you


1. Was all of that some other language for "I'm sorry. I was wrong."?

2. Are you ACTUALLY a wizard?

ill take that as a tapout...ill will hold the choke a little bit longer (just so you remember), but then let you go my fren...


You'll do nothing of the sort. Here's why:

1. You cried about being corrected on a substantive legal distinction claiming semantics, and then immediately go on to make a semantic criticism of a substantially less meaningful statement. What's worse is your criticism, while highly hypocritical, was also simply inaccurate. You probably made that comment without having given a careful reading to what you were criticizing. Rather than admit that (obvious) mistake, you chose to ignore it and act like a real shitheel.

2. You speculation is meaningless because a) you've never seen the contract, and 2) you are attempting to compare an employment contract for a professional fighter to other contracts that are not employment contracts, and do not deal with analogous subject matter. Where you fail further is when you imply that such a comparison might have any value in determining the likely outcome here.


I'm not sure what exactly you are taking as a "tapout", as you've been thoroughly made a fool of on this thread. Actually, that's not true. You've made a fool of yourself.

If what you've posted so far is indicative of the logical reasoning you employ as an attorney - you're an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Now please, find something better to do with your time going forward than humiliating yourself and making the legal profession look like a bunch of clowns.

Reply Post

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