UFC deal way more lucrative for Alvarez

[sobermonkey]

Anyone else feel like the whole Alvarez situation is more about Dana flexing his muscles than actually signing a fighter?

Who knows how Alvarez will actually faire in the UFC? It's like suggesting some baseball player who has only played in the minors will come to the big leagues and dominate before he even steps onto the field. I find the whole situation suspect.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

How dare you good sir I specialize in sofa law!!!!!

i prefer to pose questions i don't know the answer to, versus exclaim the answer i think is right in call caps

 

[zephid]

Bellator doesn't even come close to having the $ the UFC does. Even if Bellator matches the offer, the UFC could easily offer more

Of course they have the ability to offer more then Bellator, the question is would they? I'm pretty sure there is an upper limit on how much the UFC are willing to offer Alvarez and Bellator might be willing and able to match that offer.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Of course they have the ability of offer more then Bellator, the question is would they? I'm pretty sure there is an upper limit on how much the UFC are willing to offer Alvarez and Bellator might be willing and able to match that offer.

right. so instead they offered a potential PPV cut, which Bellator can (or cannot, depending on how you view it in strictly legal terms) "match". and now the courts will decide.

 

[johnsq316]

holy shit you are slow on the uptake lol

yes TS, Bellator has a stipulation in the contract from 4 years ago that says they can "match" a UFC offer. and last week they gave the exact same offer that the UFC gave him, and claimed they are fulfilling the "letter of the law", regardless of potential PPV revenue.

so it is up to the courts to decide interpret "letter of the law" and and what "match" really means.

WHY are they doing it? shrug.

as i've said in other threads, Eddie's lawyers and Zuffa lawyers are not daft. they must have seen this coming (considering a stupid sherdogger like me did). they COULD have offered him something like $300k/$300k and no bonus instead of $70k/$70k and opportunity for $1m in PPV $ and bonuses, and see if Bellator is willing to match that guaranteed $. they chose not to go that route, and now it goes to the courts. i have to assume there is more going on than what appears to the armchair lawyers like us.

Zuffa probably structured the contract as they did precisely to prevent Bellator from matching (or ultimately, to win a court case). Bellator just got a decent bump in revenue from Spike TV. Had they made it a straight cash offer Bellator might have bit the bullet and matched it; Alvarez is their poster boy, they probably could have justified it.

By writing the offer the way they did they made it virtually impossible for Bellator to match it, since Bellator doesn't run PPVs and their CEO was quoted within the last few months saying he didn't see PPV as part of their business model in the immediate future.

I find it somewhat analogous to the "poison pill" offer sheet that was briefly used in the NFL (and then they changed the rules so it wasn't possible). The Vikings signed Steve Hutchinson to an offer sheet in 2004 with a clause that said "if the player plays more than 3 games in a season in Seattle, Washington the entire contract becomes fully guaranteed." Of course, Hutchinson's previous team, the Seahawks, couldn't possibly match it; if Hutchinson blew out his knee they'd be on the hook for the whole thing.

Bellator can't possibly match Zuffa's offer sheet; they don't run PPVs so they can't guarantee points. That's what a court will ultimately decide in all likelihood.

 

[BrizzoBoi]

Anyone else feel like the whole Alvarez situation is more about Dana flexing his muscles than actually signing a fighter?

Who knows how Alvarez will actually faire in the UFC? It's like suggesting some baseball player who has only played in the minors will come to the big leagues and dominate before he even steps onto the field. I find the whole situation suspect.

It is for sure way more about taking away Bellator's biggest star, than it is about signing Alvarez.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Zuffa probably structured the contract as they did precisely to prevent Bellator from matching (or ultimately, to win a court case). Bellator just got a decent bump in revenue from Spike TV. Had they made it a straight cash offer Bellator might have bit the bullet and matched it; Alvarez is their poster boy, they probably could have justified it.

By writing the offer the way they did they made it virtually impossible for Bellator to match it, since Bellator doesn't run PPVs and their CEO was quoted within the last few months saying he didn't see PPV as part of their business model in the immediate future.

I find it somewhat analogous to the "poison pill" offer sheet that was briefly used in the NFL (and then they changed the rules so it wasn't possible). The Vikings signed Steve Hutchinson to an offer sheet in 2004 with a clause that said "if the player plays more than 3 games in a season in Seattle, Washington the entire contract becomes fully guaranteed." Of course, Hutchinson's previous team, the Seahawks, couldn't possibly match it; if Hutchinson blew out his knee they'd be on the hook for the whole thing.

Bellator can't possibly match Zuffa's offer sheet; they don't run PPVs so they can't guarantee points. That's what a court will ultimately decide in all likelihood.

100% agreed. you said it more bluntly than i (i was beating around the bush).

fuck me, i'd forgotten about that Hutchinson contract. boy that pissed some folks off. owell, we should beat the Falcons on Sunday and all will be right in the world. then on to New Orleans against Green Bay....can we get the replacement refs back for that one please??!?

 

[RichyN]

Thats not true SFF,

http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/01/how-eddie-alvarez-and-bellator-arrived-at-dueling-lawsuits

On Nov. 1, Bellator's legal department informed Alvarez that it had formally modified his promotional agreement to waive the 90-day exclusive period. But there was a catch: He could only negotiate an offer with Zuffa. Other suitors were subject to the original term, which preceded a one-year matching period.

Bellator reminded Alvarez he was required to immediately forward any offer from Zuffa. The promotion had 14 business days to match.

And it included another reminder: "Should Bellator elect to match the offer, no further offers may be entertained by you and you will be obligated to contract with Bellator on the terms that Bellator agreed to match." (Rebney said on Thursday that such language is standard in contracts for both Zuffa and Bellator.)

The UFC responded within the next two weeks. A letter from Zuffa, dated Nov. 14, documents a signing bonus offer of $250,000, payable in three installments.

Can someone (Bellator) legally hold down some ones right to choice? Even if its a contractual agreement that Alverez signed. I'm sure this is some kind of violation of the bill of rights.

 

[BrizzoBoi]

Can someone (Bellator) legally hold down some ones right to choice? Even if its a contractual agreement that Alverez signed. I'm sure this is some kind of violation of the bill of rights.

Alvarez can do what he wants. He's signing with the UFC, which is why Bellator is suing.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Can someone (Bellator) legally hold down some ones right to choice? Even if its a contractual agreement that Alverez signed. I'm sure this is some kind of violation of the bill of rights.

you've never signed a non-compete? if you ever get a tech job, you might have to as well. and if that ever happens, you should bring this argument up

a minor history lesson; the bill of rights protects you against the government. it does not apply here. for example, if you tell your boss to fuck off, the First Amendment does not protect you from getting fired. but don't believe me; go try it and let us know how it goes!!!

 

[johnsq316]

100% agreed. you said it more bluntly than i (i was beating around the bush).

fuck me, i'd forgotten about that Hutchinson contract. boy that pissed some folks off. owell, we should beat the Falcons on Sunday and all will be right in the world. then on to New Orleans against Green Bay....can we get the replacement refs back for that one please??!?

Hey, you got us back on the Hutchinson contract by signing away Nate Burleson!
Worst ineffective retaliation ever.

If you beat the Falcons you will beat Green Bay. Your defense matches up well with their offense and they can't stop your power running game. I'd be more concerned about San Francisco if they beat Green Bay - those boys feel like they owe you one.

Back on topic - Zuffa has good lawyers and got a good look at Alvarez's contract. I'd be surprised if they don't win a judgement.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Hey, you got us back on the Hutchinson contract by signing away Nate Burleson!
Worst ineffective retaliation ever.

so ineffective. they overpaid him with the exact same contract just to make a point. that extra $10m or so he got (they could have signed him for $40m and instead paid him the same $50m Hutchinson got for no reason other than to make the point) could have been well spent elsewhere.

If you beat the Falcons you will beat Green Bay. Your defense matches up well with their offense and they can't stop your power running game. I'd be more concerned about San Francisco if they beat Green Bay - those boys feel like they owe you one.

i'm not worried about SF but i think the whole world would like to see a GB/Hawks rematch. SF is tight though.

Back on topic - Zuffa has good lawyers and got a good look at Alvarez's contract. I'd be surprised if they don't win a judgement.

ya, i think they knew exactly what they were doing. OTOH, it will now be up to Eddie to pay his lawyers to fight Zuffa's battle / make Zuffa's point. at first i thought Eddie held all the cards; now i wonder if they duped him, big time.

 

[RichyN]

you've never signed a non-compete? if you ever get a tech job, you might have to as well. and if that ever happens, you should bring this argument up

a minor history lesson; the bill of rights protects you against the government. it does not apply here. for example, if you tell your boss to fuck off, the First Amendment does not protect you from getting fired. but don't believe me; go try it and let us know how it goes!!!

I'm sorry. I'm Canadian, I'm not too familiar with U.S law. But here we have basic human rights law that the provinces including (private enterprises) have to follow that would protect us from discrimination and what not. Thus, I'm sure a contract that blatantly prevents someone from making a career choice would not happen here. I guess its a little different in the U.S. I'll be sure to double check any contracts before I work in the states

 

[johnsq316]

so ineffective. they overpaid him with the exact same contract just to make a point. that extra $10m or so he got (they could have signed him for $40m and instead paid him the same $50m Hutchinson got for no reason other than to make the point) could have been well spent elsewhere.

$40m? IIRC, we didn't think he was worth $25m. We were done with him here; always injured, unreliable. I do remember there wasn't anyone suggesting we should match.

i'm not worried about SF but i think the whole world would like to see a GB/Hawks rematch. SF is tight though.

They had the stat on Mike and Mike this morning - teams that rematch in the playoffs after a 20+ point route in the regular season, the team that lost in the regular season has won 7 of 11.

ya, i think they knew exactly what they were doing. OTOH, it will now be up to Eddie to pay his lawyers to fight Zuffa's battle / make Zuffa's point. at first i thought Eddie held all the cards; now i wonder if they duped him, big time.

Depends on how badly Bellator is willing to fight for him (and if Zuffa is helping out with Eddie's lawyers). There's a certain point at which it becomes counter productive to try to keep someone when they are saying "I don't want to work for you."

 

[SeattleFightFan]

I'm sorry. I'm Canadian, I'm not too familiar with U.S law. But here we have basic human rights law that the provinces including (private enterprises) have to follow that would protect us from discrimination and what not.

ahhh, gottcha.

a non-complete basically says that if i work for company A (e.g. Google), i cannot work for a competitor B (e.g. Apple) for a certain amount of time C (e.g. 1 year).

it's very standard across many industries. i remember reading an article 10 or 12 years ago about Jet Blue that said the guy who started it had to wait i think it was 3 years to work for any airline (he had worked for some other airline before that and had signed a 3 year non-compete), so he had spent the 3 years getting his ducks in a row to start his own.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Depends on how badly Bellator is willing to fight for him (and if Zuffa is helping out with Eddie's lawyers). There's a certain point at which it becomes counter productive to try to keep someone when they are saying "I don't want to work for you."

i wondered, can the UFC pay for his lawyers? and could they have made that deal? i guess there's nothing stopping it, eh?

 

[johnsq316]

I'm sorry. I'm Canadian, I'm not too familiar with U.S law. But here we have basic human rights law that the provinces including (private enterprises) have to follow that would protect us from discrimination and what not. Thus, I'm sure a contract that blatantly prevents someone from making a career choice would not happen here. I guess its a little different in the U.S. I'll be sure to double check any contracts before I work in the states

The Bill of Rights involves the relationship between the Federal Government, the states, and the people. No application to the relationship between private parties.

In any case, if you sign a contract that gives your employer right of first refusal or a non-compete, you've signed that right away; that isn't a human rights issue. That's a pretty standard thing anytime you're dealing with intellectual property, a highly mobile client base, or employees who are considered "irreplaceable."

A lawyer or an advertising executive can't turn in his notice at his firm on Friday and start calling all his old clients at a new firm on Monday - when you get hired into one of those positions you sign some rights away, like the right to freely associate with those clients that you worked with for your old employer.

Most recent obvious public example I can think of was Conan O'Brien. When the whole Tonight Show thing blew up in his face and he decided to leave NBC (rightfully, IMO), he had to sit out for 180 days before he could return to TV in any capacity. He signed his right to work over to NBC for 180 days after the end of his tenure, to protect NBC's brand so that he wasn't doing the Tonight Show one week and showing up on ABC the next.

 

[RichyN]

ahhh, gottcha.

a non-complete basically says that if i work for company A (e.g. Google), i cannot work for a competitor (e.g. Apple) for a certain amount of time (e.g. 1 year).

it's very standard across many industries. i remember reading an article 10 or 12 years ago about Jet Blue that said the guy who started it had to wait i think it was 3 years to work for any airline (he had worked for some other airline before that and had signed a 3 year non-compete), so he had spent the 3 years getting his ducks in a row to start his own.

I feel this is unfair to the person. Especially if Alverez got fired by Bellator. Would you happen to know why industries have non-compete clauses? Are they only valid in only certain situations? Say I was Alverez's lawyer would I be able to put a contingent on the non-compete?

 

[johnsq316]

i wondered, can the UFC pay for his lawyers? and could they have made that deal? i guess there's nothing stopping it, eh?

No real reason they couldn't. It could be part of his actual employment contract or it simply could be a side deal he made with them. Since Zuffa undoubtedly has employment lawyers on staff or on retainer (to do all their contracts) it would cost them nothing and be beneficial to ultimately securing the asset.

 

[RichyN]

The Bill of Rights involves the relationship between the Federal Government, the states, and the people. No application to the relationship between private parties.

In any case, if you sign a contract that gives your employer right of first refusal or a non-compete, you've signed that right away; that isn't a human rights issue. That's a pretty standard thing anytime you're dealing with intellectual property, a highly mobile client base, or employees who are considered "irreplaceable."

A lawyer or an advertising executive can't turn in his notice at his firm on Friday and start calling all his old clients at a new firm on Monday - when you get hired into one of those positions you sign some rights away, like the right to freely associate with those clients that you worked with for your old employer.

Most recent obvious public example I can think of was Conan O'Brien. When the whole Tonight Show thing blew up in his face and he decided to leave NBC (rightfully, IMO), he had to sit out for 180 days before he could return to TV in any capacity. He signed his right to work over to NBC for 180 days after the end of his tenure, to protect NBC's brand so that he wasn't doing the Tonight Show one week and showing up on ABC the next.

kk got you. I'm currently learning about law in Canada and what we call our rights to protection from governemnt is "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms". We would probably have contracts in Canada like that too. It makes sense. It's just dumb in my opinion.