twitter google

UFC conference call recap with Dana White, Lorenzo Fertitta, and John Mulkey disputing claims made by Randy Couture

The UFC held a press conference at their Las Vegas offices today to dispute recent claims in the media made by Randy Couture in regard to his treatment by the company. The conference was available to the media either in public or via conference call and the public was also granted access through live streaming via UFC.com and Yahoo! Sports.

Involved with the press conference was UFC president Dana White, along with a rare appearance by co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta. Making his first known media appearance on behalf of the company was also the UFC’s chief financial officer, John Mulkey.

At the start of the conference, the UFC announced that they would be addressing specific financial details to dispute some of Couture’s claims and that they essentially would be following the heavyweight champion’s act from a week ago by distributing copies of documents to the media.

The UFC issued a detailed verbal account of the breakdown of Couture’s pay. Before I go over the numbers, I wanted to issue a disclaimer: Mulkey spoke very fast and I was not in attendance so I was unable to receive printed copies of the documents. The numbers I am reciting have not been verified. If you feel there is an error or discrepancy, please e-mail me at: SCaplan8@comcast.net.

According to Mulkey, Randy Couture received a $500,000 signing bonus, half of which ($250,000) was paid at the time of his signing the contract earlier this year. This clearly contradicts Couture’s claim last week that he asked for a signing bonus and was declined.

Dana White explained that it was a true signing bonus in the sense that if Randy, given his age, was injured and couldn’t compete, he’d still get his bonus. As such, they decided to meet his request for a signing bonus of $500,000 but withhold the other half ($250,000) until after his fight at UFC 68 vs. Tim Sylvia.

CLICK HERE to read the remainder of this article on Sam Caplan’s ProElite.com blog.

25 COMMENTS
  • Evan says:

    Link to video anyone?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoBKJX15d0xc6n8XoOwQdQlnn414/SIG=12frib1q9/**http%3A//cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/sports%3Fch=2283876%26cl=4772740%26lang=en

    Just on case you can’t find it on the first link, this direct link may work. Yahoo videos can be hard to navigate.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    Ugh….now those links won’t work. Sorry guys. Thats what I get for posting links from a forum.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    If it was a signing bonus then why didn’t he receive the whole sum before the fight?(especially if dana said it didn’t matter if he was injured, he still would have recieved the money, if that the case then why wait till to pay him a few hours after the fight?)

    Is that common in other sports as far as signing bonuses go? Do NFL players receive half of their signing bonus at the time of their signing and the other half midway through the season?

    If that was a signing bonus, then what was the money after the liddell fight, which I noticed was conveniently not touched upon.

    And finally, if that was a signing bonus, why wasn’t it in his contract? Aren’t most signing bonuses written into a fighters contract?

    I think this was nothing more than trying to put a positive spin on the fact that they do these “locker room” bonuses.

    PS I would also like to point out that when dana was asked in the press conference last thursday if he had talked to randy, he stated he had not. Randy in his press conference then stated he had talked to both dana and lorenzo the day before. And finally, Dana then stated today the he had in fact talked to randy on that wednesday before the press conferences took place.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    *athletes contract, I didn’t mean to just include fighters on my 4th paragraph

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Ivan Trembow says:

    I think Sandra F is correct that Zuffa is now just picking at semantics. At no point have they addressed why they pay their athletes a lower percentage of revenues than any other major sport. Going through the motions of “offering” Couture a title defense even though Couture has said that he is not going to be fighting on the remaining nine months of his Zuffa contract is just legal semantics for them to use when/if they sue Couture (so they can say, “Look, we offered him a fight!”).

    Fertitta, who has a net worth of $1.3 billion according to Forbes Magazine, should be ashamed of himself for this particular quote: “To have Randy use the platform we gave him to try and damage us hurts very much.”

    So apparently Couture owes everything to Zuffa, and never mind the fact that they have made far more money off of him than he has off of them. They spoke of Couture’s inclusion as a coach on The Ultimate Fighter 1 as if it was an act of charity by Zuffa. Actually, no, it was to build to a monster PPV buyrate for Liddell-Couture II, which drew the biggest PPV buyrate by far in Zuffa’s history up to that point, of which Couture and Liddell each made a tiny fraction of Fertitta and White made. They also spoke of August 23rd being “Randy Couture Day” on Spike TV as if it was an act of charity on Zuffa’s part… as opposed to being a vehicle to promote the Zuffa-promoted PPV main event of Couture-Gonzaga which was held two days later, and like almost every UFC PPV these days, grossed tens of millions of dollars.

    It’s also a bit arrogant to think that everything Couture does is part of an effort to “damage the UFC.” Maybe he was just tired of being a top star who was only getting a microscopic percentage of Zuffa’s massive profits, who was tired of what he felt was disrespect from Zuffa, and who was upset about being lied to when he was told that he was the second-highest-paid fighter in the UFC by Fertitta and White.

    Of course, Fertitta could never tell a lie, according to White, who clearly knows where his bread is buttered, and who isn’t doing his semblance of credibility any favors when he says things like, “Fedor sucks,” or “Fedor is a farce,” or, “I don’t give a fuck about Fedor,” or “Fedor never was and is not currently one of the top five heavyweights in the world.” Now, the winner of Bisping-Evans, THAT’S one of the top five fighters in the world in their chosen weight class according to White, who must have a different definition of “top five fighter in the world” that is based more on who is getting a promotional push from the largest MMA company at the moment.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Ivan Trembow says:

    At least now the numbers that were previously leaked to the media, possibly by Zuffa, about Couture’s pay being over $3 million per fight are widely known and accepted to be false, as he wasn’t even making that amount per year according to the latest numbers Zuffa is claiming.

    It said on the Fightlinker report, “Dana opens up by saying he doesn’t like talking about money because most of the fighters don’t like talking about money.”

    Really? It’s only because the fighters don’t like talking about money? It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that open disclosure of salaries as in every other major sport puts all of the athletes on an equal playing field when it comes time for negotiations because they know what their peers are making? It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the fighters might band together and/or demand more money if the fighters were to talk to each other about money, and subsequently find out what their peers are actually making straight from the horse’s mouth of each individual fighter… as opposed to having absolutely no recource but to to take Zuffa at their word when they say things to fighters like, “You’re the second highest paid fighter in the whole company”? It has nothing to do with that? Nothing to do with the fact that it’s precisely that— fighters talking to each other about their UFC paychecks— that led to Couture figuring out that he was lied to in the first place? It’s just because the fighters “don’t like” talking about money?

    That report also quotes Dana White as saying, “There’s 5 large companies here. Just because we’re better doesn’t mean we’re a monopoly.” Wait… I thought that there’s just the UFC and then there’s “all these other rinky-dink promotions that don’t really exist,” as Dana White has said numerous times. Or a show like the EliteXC show in Hawaii, which he said had “lower, lower, lower-level fighters” in the main event.

    I also think this exchange sums up perfectly how seriously (or not seriously) the UFC took the concerns that Couture expressed to them directly a few weeks before he announced his resignation: “Question re: did they feel like he was serious when he said he’d retire if he didn’t get to fight Fedor. Lorenzo said “We didn’t really think he would retire.””

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Adam Morgan says:

    Excellent writeup, Sam.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    What Dana said was that they didn’t want to give $500,000 at the time of signing because if Couture got injured before the Sylvia fight, they’d be out half a million. Rather than tell Randy no, they gave him $250,000 at the time of signing and agreed to release the rest after his first fight. They wanted to make sure he fought at least one match for them. What is they paid him half a mil, he busted his knee, and never fought again?

    Also deferring signing bonuses is not all that uncommon in pro sports, especially in the NFL.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    Sam I am confused here, and let me recap why.

    Your statement in the article:”Dana White explained that it was a true signing bonus in the sense that if Randy, given his age, was injured and couldn’t compete, he’d still get his bonus.”

    Your statement in your post:”What Dana said was that they didn’t want to give $500,000 at the time of signing because if Couture got injured before the Sylvia fight, they’d be out half a million. Rather than tell Randy no, they gave him $250,000 at the time of signing and agreed to release the rest after his first fight. They wanted to make sure he fought at least one match for them. What is they paid him half a mil, he busted his knee, and never fought again?”

    These two statements don’t coincide with each other. Dana says it was a true signing bonus in the sense that if he was injured then he would have still received the bonus. You then go on to say that they didn’t want to give him the whole thing because if he got injured then they would have lost that money. But according to dana they would have lost it anyway, because the entire $500,000 was considered a signing bonus.

    Your article “According to Mulkey, Randy Couture received a $500,000 signing bonus”

    I think this is straight up spin and nothing less. Ivan is right, we are talking semantics now.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Thorazine says:

    For UFC 68 Couture vs Slyvia on March 2006. Couture was paid $250,000 before and $250,000 after as a signing bonus = $500.000. Couture’s pay-per-view% = $936,000. Total= $1.436 Million

    For Couture vs Gonzaga UFC 74 on August 2007, Couture’s was paid $250,000. He earned a $35,000 bonus for fight of the night, and PPV% = $787,000. Total = $1.072 million.

    -White and Fertitta are very clear on the numbers.
    -Randy stated he got bonus for the Slyvia fight but was questioning why he didn’t get one with Gonzaga?
    -Randy was highly upset Fedor was offered so much money, that was the main issue.

    -Randy is not very clear in how he’s presenting his numbers, in his press conference it seems directed at yahoo sports.
    When Randy shows the contract it clearly says (2 $250.000 checks) but then he quickly says “$250 and about $500 for PPV, you do the math”…. it’s right in front of our faces and it doesn’t seem like he’s presenting it correctly. Randy is coming off like a guy that’s paranoid and suspicious without keeping track of his own deposits on what the UFC paid him.

    I understood that he was upset at yahoo sports for mis-representing his pay and was mad at UFC for offering Fedor millions more. Apparently the UFC never offered Fedor that kind of money according to Dana? So is Randy really getting his information from the internet?

    No more information on the 18month 4 fight agreement, ‘damn’. If contract information is confidential then Couture may be up against opposition. Also the UFC hints at defamatory remarks, there could be lawsuit potential here.

    In light of this new information I have to side with Dana despite not really understanding what the 18 month agreement for 4 fights really means. Or understanding what the UFC offered Fedor, which is the main issue despite Randy’s other mini-issues.

    Couture has said he is the last guy to complain”’ and I think he needs to fix this with the UFC and never, ever let his wife discuss his financial matters again in public and get his facts correct to a ‘T’ when presenting them to the public, leaving off a few hundered thousand here or there even on accident is not acceptable public relations.

    This is all that’s left of Couture’s claims:
    -No bonus for Slyvia fight- why?
    -Why was Fedor offered so much more? (apparently he wasn’t) or Randy was going to get at least as much as Fedor and the UFC (Dana) was going to fix that, we’ll never know for sure, but Dana has always said they never said no to Couture and I believe that part, Randy said it himself, if he went to Dana he’d probably say yes.

    Just wait until Randy speaks out again… I’ll change my mind..LOL. he’d better not, unless he has his facts straight. Otherwise he’d better state it in a manner to settle this dispute and repair any harm to the UFC he may have committed without perpetuating any further ill will.

    I’ve been a staunch supporter of Randy Couture, but I have to objectively put my support on pause, because Couture needed to present his numbers accurately, not half assed.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    Sam I know you are a busy man but I await your response.

    Thanks

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    This was my response:

    Dice:

    What Dana said was that they didn’t want to give $500,000 at the time of signing because if Couture got injured before the Sylvia fight, they’d be out half a million. Rather than tell Randy no, they gave him $250,000 at the time of signing and agreed to release the rest after his first fight. They wanted to make sure he fought at least one match for them. What is they paid him half a mil, he busted his knee, and never fought again?

    Also deferring signing bonuses is not all that uncommon in pro sports, especially in the NFL.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Tanner says:

    http://www.4twozero.com/pdf/UFCcouturedocs.pdf

    theres the docs they released yesterday at the conference.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dizzle says:

    I think the UFC is acting immature and childish. I’m almost to the point where I could give 2 shits about the UFC right now. I think that they whould be more respectful towards their fighters.

    They tried to make it seems like Couture is the bad guy. Now they are using scare tactics and saying that if randy tries to fight with another org than they will take hiim to court. It’s fuckin ridiculous.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    Ok I guess I will go through it again. Try and follow me on this

    Your article “According to Mulkey, Randy Couture received a $500,000 signing bonus”

    So we have established that the entire $500,000 was a signing bonus, not just half of it.

    Your article “Dana White explained that it was a true signing bonus in the sense that if Randy, given his age, was injured and couldn’t compete, he’d still get his bonus.”

    So if randy was to be injured he would have still received the other half of his signing bonus. Because it was considered guaranteed money, which is what a signing bonus technically is. If a NFL player gets injured and misses 16 out of 16 games, he still receives his signing bonus. I looked it up.

    Your post “What Dana said was that they didn’t want to give $500,000 at the time of signing because if Couture got injured before the Sylvia fight, they’d be out half a million. Rather than tell Randy no, they gave him $250,000 at the time of signing and agreed to release the rest after his first fight. They wanted to make sure he fought at least one match for them. What is they paid him half a mil, he busted his knee, and never fought again”

    So now sam, your saying that dana said they didn’t want to give him the full 500 grand because if he was injured then they wouldn’t have had to pay him the other half. Do you see the contradiction between your article and your post?

    Now instead of just reposting what you said earlier, maybe we could get some clarification on this. Anybody else is open to respond as well.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    To me, what was written initially and what I wrote as my clarification were intended and read the same. I realize that it did not read the same to you so I posted the clarification. Sorry, but I am unable to be anymore clear than I’ve already have tried to be.

    I’m not defending anyone’s position, merely communicating what was said: Randy asked for $500,000 signing bonus. Dana was concerned about the possibility of Randy getting injured in training and never fighting again. So they gave him $250,000 at the time of signing and promised another $250,000 (in addition to his purse) after the first fight.

    Regardless of whether someone feels the UFC is using semantics in regard to the $250,000 after the first fight, he still received $250,000 at the signing, which is $250,000 more than he said he received during his press conference last Thursday.

    Where did you look up NFL signing bonuses, Dice? Because your info is not correct. It’s not uncommon for an NFL player to receive a signing bonus in installments. I’ve covered the NFL for years. Just because the signing bonus is reported as being up front doesn’t mean the player receives all of it at the time of his signing.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    I didn’t realize it was a clarification. Sorry but those two statements I copied of yours are different Sam. I don’t think I am the only one who sees how they are different. One says the signing bonus is guaranteed, no matter if randy is injured, the other states that if he is injured then the other half would have been witheld.

    As for your statement that it is not uncommon for an NFL player to receive a signing bonus in installments, well I don’t see where you are coming from. I am saying that because I never wrote that they don’t receive it in installments. Reread my post, I said “If a NFL player gets injured and misses 16 out of 16 games, he still receives his signing bonus. I looked it up.” Nowhere do I state that they receive it in a lump sum, so I don’t know where you got that from. When researching it I found that the bonus is often paid in installments, however like I said before, it is guaranteed even in the case of injury. Therefore, if the $500,000 was indeed a true signing bonus, then the UFC would have still had to pay Randy even if he was injured. However you state that this is not the case.

    I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt here but I feel like your dancing around the issue I raised.

    So let me ask it again, how is it a signing bonus if half of it would have been with held in case of an injury? This is not consistent with how other sports signing bonuses work. Like I said before, an injury in the NBA or NFL does not void the signing bonus or whats remaining on it.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    I’m sorry if my explanation is not sufficient but I do not know how to be any more clear than I was.

    Dana described the $500,000 as a signing bonus with $250,000 paid at the time of signing and $250,000 to be paid after the first match.

    Don’t shoot the messenger.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    Sam I am not trying to.(shoot the messenger)

    I just noticed that you slipped something in your post that I never said. You said my information about NFL bonuses wasn’t correct, when in fact it was. You stated that NFL players do indeed receive their signing bonuses in installments, which I never said they didn’t. I don’t know how you concluded that I was saying that NFL players don’t receive their bonuses in installments.(it was a question I asked and you answered in post #10) My statement was talking about whether they still receive the full bonus in case of injury, which a completely different subject than in what form (installments, lump sum) its paid.

    I am simply pointing out things that some people seem very apprehensive to admit.
    Mainly that Dana is contradicting himself when it came to the conditions of the signing bonus. I guess I am wondering if my explanation is sufficient enough. Do you not see what I am talking about? Do you think I am wrong, and if so how?

    What I am gathering is that this must have been some special type of UFC signing bonus, that is unlike any other major sports signing bonus in that in the case of an athlete being injured, then the remaining bonus can be voided.

    You are correct that you are the messenger, but you also need to be critical of what both dana and randy say. So I notice everyone is quick to point out that randy was incorrect (wrong, lying, whatever you want to call it) when talking about how much he received in payment for the UFC. But I don’t see many people pointing out the glaring contradiction in dana’s statement regarding signing bonuses. The very fact that you seem to not understand my point worries me.

    I am not going to take up anymore of your time.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    This is the last response I am going to make in regard to this topic because I really feel you are being selective in what you want to here. I also feel like you’re being overly-argumentative (it seems like you’re mad at the UFC and have decided to take it out on the messenger who is simply trying to relay what they informed the media yesterday):

    You said: “Sorry but those two statements I copied of yours are different Sam. I don’t think I am the only one who sees how they are different.”

    1) So far, you are the only person who requested a clarification on the way I originally worded how the UFC described the signing bonus to the media.

    You said: “I just noticed that you slipped something in your post that I never said. You said my information about NFL bonuses wasn’t correct, when in fact it was.”

    2) I didn’t “slip” anything in my post. I wrote it in my post to correct a statement of your which I do not agree with. There are been several cases in which NFL players were denied portions of their deferred signing bonus for various reasons (violation of code of conduct, failure to meet basic achievement clauses, etc.). There have been cases where signing bonuses were tied to incentives that were not performance related (i.e. roster bonus). There have even been cases where NFL teams have gone back and tried to recover signing bonuses that were previously paid out (the Colts want to get money back from Corey Simon). So I don’t think it’s a stretch for me to say that your original statement about signing bonuses is correct.

    You said: “but you also need to be critical of what both dana and randy say. So I notice everyone is quick to point out that randy was incorrect (wrong, lying, whatever you want to call it) when talking about how much he received in payment for the UFC. But I don’t see many people pointing out the glaring contradiction in dana’s statement regarding signing bonuses.”

    3) First off, what I NEED to do is report a story and the facts above anything else (unless I’m writing an OP/ED piece). I reported what the UFC said so that the public can decide. I DID NOT SAY Randy Couture received a $500,000 signing bonus — I said that the UFC IS CLAIMING he received a $500,000 signing bonus. I’m sorry if you feel Couture is being mis-treated, but I’m not the one claiming he received a $500,000 signing bonus. Perhaps your angst would be better directed at the UFC?

    Now, once I report the facts I would hope, if it’s okay with you, that I have time to go over information before I make a statement that could be critical. Also, I also hope, with your permission, I can use my own personal discretion when I feel there is a need to be critical — not when you feel I need to be critical. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Is is mandatory that I share yours?

    You said: “The very fact that you seem to not understand my point worries me.”

    4) I’m sorry that you’re worried. I guess then I can’t help but be worried that you don’t seem to understand that last Thursday Randy Couture held a press conference and claimed he requested a signing bonus and didn’t receive one, when in reality, he received $250,000 at the time of his re-signing with the UFC early last year.

    We can argue about the semantics about the other $250,000 until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that Couture did in fact receive a substantial signing bonus when he mis-stated he had not. Based on that, I’m choosing to be critical of Couture in that select instance. I don’t think he lied but I do believe he made a statement that was clearly not accurate. You see the UFC as doing the spin and I see Randy as being the one he is trying to spin the fact that he was paid $250,000 when he re-signed with the UFC last year. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    5) I don’t see how anyone can debate what the initial payment of the $250,000 was. But I’ll indulge you on your argument about the second half of the $250,000. FACT: The UFC describe it as a $500,000 signing bonus. OPINION: Just because the UFC says it is a $500,000 signing bonus, doesn’t mean it is (but I am reporting it how they say it so you can decide rather than taking the liberty of phrasing it how I perceive it).

    In regard to my perception of the situation, I think Dana was clear. He said that Randy wanted a $500,000 signing bonus. Instead of telling Randy “no,” they told him they were concerned about giving him that much at his age because of the threat of a career-ending injury. So rather then tell him a flat out no, they told him he’d get the other half after UFC 68. I HAVE NO IDEA what would have happened if he had gotten injured prior to UFC 68 and retired for good. My feeling is that if he couldn’t have fought at UFC 68, he wouldn’t have gotten the other $250,000 unless he fought on another card. That being said, he did get the $250,000 in addition to his purse and his PPV bonus. And if the second half of the $250,000 he received of the promised $500,000 wasn’t second installment of a signing bonus, then what was it?

    The UFC did not want to hand Couture $500,000 without having fought a single match for them. So they told him he could get the other half so long as he fought one match for them. It was an easily-attainable performance bonus but a bonus that was categorized by the UFC as the second half of a “signing bonus.” The fact of what the UFC is describing the bonus as being cannot be disputed because that’s what they labeled it in their own words. Now, if you want to argue with them that they are describing it in such a manner, perhaps you should go argue with them in their choice of words, instead of me.

    That’s all I have to say. If you still have questions, please re-read this statement a second time.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dizzle says:

    It’s all he said she said…for all we know Dana white had his advertising company change the invoices / bills / contracts before he came out to the public with the information. I work for a company that does this all time to make sure that we are correct when it comes to contracts…ect. Either way it doesn’t really matter anymore…it’s a battle between Randy and UFC.

    Dice I think you’re wasting time.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    You didn’t slip anything in?

    Let me show you what I mean

    Your statement “Where did you look up NFL signing bonuses, Dice? Because your info is not correct. It’s not uncommon for an NFL player to receive a signing bonus in installments. I’ve covered the NFL for years. Just because the signing bonus is reported as being up front doesn’t mean the player receives all of it at the time of his signing.”

    What info wasn’t correct? Where did I state that they don’t receive bonuses in installments? If you find where I said that I will never post here again. I can find no statement of mine where I state this. Like I said before, it was a question I asked in post 5 and you answered in post 10. Please

    My statement regarding signing bonuses was as such: That regardless of injury they are still valid. You go on to state that their are a variety of reasons(violation of code of conduct, failure to meet basic achievement clauses, etc.) that NFL players haven’t been paid their full bonus, however I see little or no relevance to what we are talking about. We aren’t talking about basic achievement clauses, etc., We are talking about whether signing bonuses are voided in the case of injuries and how that relates to the UFCs definition of a signing bonus. (which apparently is much different than that of any other major sports org. in that it does require
    “basic acheievement” in that a fighter has to fight in at least one fight, of course whether this is in writing I am highly skeptical)

    “. That being said, he did get the $250,000 in addition to his purse and his PPV bonus. And if the second half of the $250,000 he received of the promised $500,000 wasn’t second installment of a signing bonus, then what was it?”

    I don’t know, could it be one of these famous locker room bonuses they hand out? Since they admit that they hand out these type of bonuses based solely on their discretion, I guess they can call it whatever they want (signing bonus, achievement bonus, etc)

    “I’m sorry if you feel Couture is being mis-treated, but I’m not the one claiming he received a $500,000 signing bonus. Perhaps your angst would be better directed at the UFC?”

    I have never stated a word that randy is being mistreated (I think he has his own issues to deal with). My statement has been very clear all along : The UFC claims this was a $500,000 signing bonus but would not have been fully paid out in the case of an injury. which is inconsistent with how signing bonuses usually are defined. I am trying to point out a contradiction in terms of their definition of signing bonus and other definitions.

    As far as your perception of the situation (anything you wrote past point 5), well I think its spot on and pretty much in agreement with what I have been saying all along. All I was looking for from you was an acknowledgment that Dana’s statements didn’t seem to coincide with each other. On one side he made it sound like the $500,000 was a signing bonus in the sense that randy would have still received even if he was injured. On the other hand you stated that dana made it seem like the other half of this bonus would have been voided if randy injured himself. I don’t see how this is being selective in any sense of the word.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam, good job on reporting everything right down the middle. I did not detect any overt bias and/or agenda. I’m glad your association with Elite XC is not effecting your writing.

    Unfortunately, I’m seeing the shooting the messenger trend more and more. People treat Kevin Iole as if he was Dana White himself. Don’t hate on the man just because he has access.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

LEAVE A COMMENT!

You must be logged in to post a comment.