HDNet Fights card draws Couture and Arlovski (updated)

Update: To clarify, if Arlovski wants to become a free agent, he will have to serve the final fight remaining on his UFC contract, assuming the UFC formally presents him with a fight option prior to the expiration date of his current deal.

In his latest column for the Dayton Daily News, Dann Stupp of MMAjunkie.com discusses how Andrei Arlovski and Randy Couture, two heavyweights still under to the contract to the UFC, both made their presences known during this past Saturday’s HDNet Fights card that featured a co-main event between Jason “Mayhem” Miller vs. Tim Kennedy and Frank Trigg vs. Edwin Dewees.

According to Stupp, Arlovski indicated that he doesn’t plan to fight for the UFC again. He has one fight remaining on his contract, which expires in April.

Even if the the UFC doesn’t schedule Arlovski’s last fight by April, he still becomes a free agent, so long as he doesn’t turn down a fight offer.

As for Couture, his fighter contract expires in July. He expressed an interest in fighting Fedor Emelianenko this coming October, once his employment contract with the UFC expires.

Stupp indicates that Couture once again reiterated that he “resigned” as opposed to “retired” from the UFC, as UFC President Dana White has stated. White’s comments were believed to be a proactive defense against potential litigation from Couture’s camp. If a fighter under UFC contract retires, that contract becomes frozen, meaning the days towards the expiration of the term stop counting down.

According to Dave Meltzer’s daily update on Sunday, there are legal proceedings that are in preliminary stages going on in regard to Couture’s contract status with the UFC. Unless there’s some unknown loophole, “resigned” vs. “retired” could be a moot argument because the expiration on the term of a typical UFC contract doesn’t mean a fighter is a free agent if he still owes the promotion fights. Couture still has two fights left on his UFC contract.

It’s also important to clarify that Couture did not say he will be fighting Fedor in October, only that he’d like to. Many sites have taken his comments out of context and are reporting the match as being a definite when that’s far from the case.

Speculation that the UFC could work with M-1 Global in a cooperative fashion also is not realistic. As long as it is the clear cut number one promotion in the world the UFC has no incentive to work with promotions it perceives as competition.

With his contractual freedom in question and a co-promotion between the UFC and M-1 Global unlikely, it’s unclear just how Couture may be able to get the match with Fedor that he wants. Unless something unexpected happens, it appears we may never see the current UFC heavyweight champion compete again.

It’s interesting that Arlovski is publicly ruling out the UFC. Is that a negotiation ploy or is he being sincere? If he’s being sincere, then I’m not sure he’s getting good advice.

It’s hard for me to say for sure what’s in Arlovski’s best interests when it’s unknown what the UFC has offered in way of an extension, however, I have doubts he’ll be offered more money elsewhere.

Right now, Arlovski’s management can’t talk openly with other fight promotions. However, back channel talks between fighters and promotions take place on a regular basis. I still don’t see where a better offer might come in. Arlovski doesn’t fit into the IFL’s business model and EliteXC is being more frugal these days.

M-1 Global is a possibility but President/CEO Monte Cox traditionally has not been a big spender. That’s not to say he won’t pay a guy top dollar, but I don’t expect him to go out and overpay for fighters because that’s just not his style.

Short-term, Arlovski is an obvious fit for M-1 because they need as many viable challengers for Fedor as possible. But what happens if Arlovski faces Fedor and loses? What’s next for him at that point?

At the end of the day no promotion can consistently offer Arlovski as many big-time matchups as the UFC.

They say the grass is always greener but for Arlovski and Couture that might not actually be the case.

Click here to read Stupp’s article in its entirety.

55 COMMENTS
  • Dizzle says:

    after his contract is up he will fight fedor?

    I think that the UFC has made alot of bad decisions…and to be honest I can see this effecting the UFC in about 3-5 years.

    I glad to see couture not wanting to fight with an organization like the UFC.’

    Sadly enough, I am beginning to dislike the UFC as their decisions as a company are effecting my view points on MMA all together.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    Also,

    Arlovski is a great prospect for M-1 because he is russianl, and M-1 is a russian based business?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Guy Gaduois says:

    Until mma writers stop overinflating Fedor’s value for fighting jumbo sized tomato cans and also rans, there will be a congestion of action in the heavyweight class.
    I admire that Couture is proving his sincerity and expressed to desire to fight the alleged (my word) best fighter in the world, and is turning down opportunities and show his target is set and locked on Fedor.
    It’s a trickle down effect and Arlovski, while getting to the party a little late, is looking to capitalize on two factors: 1. Fedor will lose once he fights a quality opponent in his weight class and someone wants to get a shot at him in his/their prime. 2. The logic is that since most of the reporting mma world is out of their minds for Fedor, the guy that beats Fedor will be renowned with the same enthusiasm.
    What that progression of thought misses is that this same mma-writer frenzy doesn’t translate that way. MMA writers can look right past the guy who beats their guy (See Griffin def. Rua and look at the rankings in Light Heavyweight . . . it’s pretty stupid, but there it is – no love for Forrest.) and continue to indulge in their ejaculatory praise of ‘their’ guy regardless of the fighter’s performance.
    It’s fanboy masturbatory fantasy overwhelming reality. We’re supposed to like the fight game because it clears up who the superior fighter athlete is. When Fedor’s fight record fails to inform us of his quality as a fighter and his ranking is unimpacted by performances against lackluster opponents, why would a loss ever phase his support base?
    If Couture or Arlovski were to fight and defeat Fedor, there will be a mountain of excuses, not accolades for the winner. It’s become that irrational.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    I hate to say this…but there is too much hate on fedor now. Again I say watch “ALL” of his fights and analyze the positions he has been in…and you cannot sit there and say he’s isn’t as good as everyone thinks he is.

    I hate to defend Fedor..because I am like the only person who ever does anymore. The reason I say this is because most of you viewers don’t practice MMA like some of us fans do. Anyone can lose a fight in MMA at any given moment. Rampage Jackson could fight an amateur fighter that has never fought before and lose to him. Does that mean Jackson suck sbecause he lost to a so called “can?”

    NO! Because this sport is a physical and mental chess match that can go wrong with a slip up of one move.

    Fedor has proven his skills are worthy of being one of the best “MMA” fighters in the world.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Zack says:

    Here’s my stance – Fedor is the best, but given that he hasn’t fought an appropriate opponent in years, he’s become a “spectacle”, not a competitor.

    That said – if he doesn’t actually “compete” very soon, then I think there is legitimate cause to remove him from the HW rankings. He might be the best fighter in the world “potentially”, but not in “actuality”.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    he’s not the best figther in the world Zack.

    There isn’t 1 MMA fighter how is the best fighter in the world.

    Biggest reason is because there are rules inside of the cages and rings.

    In a real fight there are no rules..u do what you have to do to survive.

    What I am saying is that Fedor has proven himself as being the best at what he does in his weight class. He will lose a match within the next year or 2…he’ll probably lose his match to Choi to be honest with you.

    My problem is that alot of people who dont know fedor that well give the impression that he hasn’t fought top competition…but he has fought nothing but top competition. He’s fought some of the best MMA star at the time he has fought…and he has also fought numerous amounts of Olympians in the ring.

    Fedor is one of my favorite fighters to defend…because there isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t pop in one of his DVD’s.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Guy Gaduois says:

    Dizzle – not saying your opinion doesn’t matter, but reality check- fighters are being ranked, based on some very ethereal criteria. “Because I like him” is a criteria you share with many writers, rankers, etc.
    It may be the only criteria, and I question whether that’s a good thing.

    The obvious difficulty in any fight game is ranking. One of the only solid criteria for measurement is fight performance. Back to the real world example: Many sites, writers rank Rua above Griffin. The cage tells a different story, but the actual fight doesn’t matter as much as ‘history as I choose to perceive it’ in the rankings game.
    If we’re doing away with rankings, turn it into an American Idol call in survey for the fight everyone wants, do away with weight classes and go by popularity polls. It’s as solid a methodology as “because I like him” – in fact, it’s the logical conclusion of current ranking ideology.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    it’s not popularity though Guy.

    My opinion is based off of analyzing all of Fedor’s fights…not just watching him fight and yelling and screaming “go get him! Beat em up.”

    Like i stated before…watch how Fedor is able to be in bad positions and get out of them and still win the fight.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    Fedor needs to fight prime top of the line fighters again. Until then, he is all legend now.

    AA has become a boring fighter in a now boring division. His value is probably not as much as he thinks. Plus he isn’t the most fan friendly guy so you can’t parade him around to the fans like you can with Miller or Randy.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    “Unless there’s some unknown loophole, “resigned” vs. “retired” could be a moot argument because the expiration on the term of a typical UFC contract doesn’t mean a fighter is a free agent if he still owes the promotion fights. Couture still has two fights left on his UFC contract.”

    So, if Randy doesn’t return to the UFC, he’ll die unable to fight with another organization? Ludicrous. I don’t know of any services contract where, if you don’t fulfill your part of the agreement, you will be in an injunction and prevented from providing your services elsewhere per saecula saeculorum. Even non-complete clauses must be reasonable and, in the jurisdictions that I know of, cannot last more than a year.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Maremagnum, do you follow baseball, the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL at all?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    Sam:

    I do, but I have little interest in their contractual issues. In this case, however, what piques my interest is the assumption that, because of some unknown provision in his contract, Couture would have to be “bound to his master for life”, as the court in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah once said.

    The fact is, although the acceptability of non-competition clauses has spread, most jurisdictions in which such contracts have been examined have deemed them to be legally binding, so long as the clauses contain reasonable limitations as to the geographical area and time period in which an employee of a company may not compete. Courts have held that, as a matter of public policy, an individual cannot be barred from carrying out a trade in which he has been trained except to the extent that is necessary to protect the employer.

    Contracts are not set in stone. If they were unquestionable, there would be no need for courts to confirm their validity.

    Sam, are you a lawyer at all?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    Mare Contracts can last alot longer than just one year.

    The thing that Randy has done that is good is that he didn’t quit or retire…he resigned which is completely different thank quiting. Anytime I quit a job…I don’t just tell my employeer “here’s my 2 week notice…i quit” Instead I fax over a letter of resignation stating that I no longer desire to work for the company anymore. With that letter you cannot legally tell a future employeer anything other than “yes he did work for this company.”

    It’s a great way to find a new job and start working A.S.A.P.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    Dizzle, is that the same as a breeding contract?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    But the fact is he turned down a fight with Nog and is refusing to fight in the UFC so he can fight someone else.

    Certainly that must play out to the UFC’s favor?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    hardy har har Mare.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    If I were Randy…I’d fight 2 more fights and right when the bell rings…i’ll get hit a couple of times and just Tap out….It’ll be the fastest Paycheck he’s ever gotten.

    That’d teach Dana White a Lesson or 2.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    Well, the offer to fight Nog came after Couture’s resignation, so I’m not sure how they could use that.

    Another potential difficulty for his former employer is facing a party that most courts would probably consider the “weaker” party. (Weaker meaning having less resources, influence, and so forth.) Courts can be protective of a party that seems weaker and that gives the impression of being taken advantage of. Then again, litigation has become, in many cases, akin to flipping a coin so who knows.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    lol diz…I am sure they have clauses on throwing fights.

    Would be kinda funny though.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    “Courts can be protective of a party that seems weaker and that gives the impression of being taken advantage of”

    I am not sure many courts exist that don’t favor the pockets of “big business.”

    Were talking about a contract violation. That almost always favor the violated party right?

    – I am really asking here, not arguing.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    But Mare Randy isn’t being taken advantage of…so why would the courrt give him protection? He signed the contract with his management and lawyers. He had an idea of what he was signing and what he got himself into.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    Unfortunately, big business has the means to buy judgments (I don’t necessarily mean bribes; mostly, it’s just that ordinary people don’t have the resources to be able to sustain a prolonged court battle with some company or person with deep pockets.)

    As for the breach of the contract, yes, courts favor the violated party, but the party must prove there was an actual violation; you can’t just say there was one and then have the court rule in your favor.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Maremagnum, just because he “resigned” doesn’t mean the UFC can’t offer him a fight. By offering him that fight, the UFC did their part to ensure they met their obligation in regard to the contract. Nobody can force Randy to fight ever again, but the UFC does hold his promotional rights. Sitting on the sidelines doesn’t count as honoring your contract. If that was the case, how many athletes in major sports would holdout for an entire year if they knew they’d get credit for service time and be able to walk after the year was over? We see holdouts all the time in major sports but those athletes still have to serve out their contracts when they come back.

    I’m no lawyer, but it seems like there is a lot of gray area and perhaps Randy has a case here. However, time is not on Randy’s side. The UFC has some strong attorneys and more financial resources. They can drag the process out for a very long time.

    If Randy wants to fight Fedor, his best bet is to try to get the UFC to push for the match on his behalf. The odds of the UFC doing a deal with M-1 Global are not likely, but the match has a better chance of happening via that scenario as opposed to happening as a result of litigation.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    I have a better idea…

    Have Randy dress up as a Lucha libre and market the fight as fedors “mystery match” that way no one will know it’s Randy who he is fighting.

    Done deal I accept Pay Pal, Money Orders, Cashier Checks, or straight wire transfer.

    thanks guys I’ll see yall in the Bahamas.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    Well, the court has to decide whether Couture is being taken advantage of or not. It is the one that will have all the details available to it in order to render a judgment.

    Now, what would be Couture’s breach? Quitting? Can you sign a contract that prevents you from ever quitting the services of a company? Would that not make a you a slave?

    In the UFC’s best scenario, I believe, they can get something in exchange for Couture’s lack of services, but not disproportionate to what he was being given. However, since Couture was not paid in advance for his remaining fights, the UFC cannot prove that Couture has taken anything from them and that he has become unjustly enriched. What would UFC be given? the potential revenue it would have had with Couture in their line-up? They would have a hard time proving that, since they are given to express how successful they are without ever ascribing their monetary gains to any one fighter. If he had been paid for the remaining two fights, it’s possible that he could have been forced to perform or return the money, but that doesn’t appear to be the issue in this case.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    You make excellent points, Sam. Hopefully, the match can take place. Maybe it’s more likely to happen Randy’s way, considering that, even if there was an injunction issued in favor of the UFC, it wouldn’t be applicable outside the US, maybe even outside Nevada. However, neither Couture nor anyone else would want to deal with the consequences of being in contempt of a court-ordered injunction.

    Do you know if those other athletes get paid before their services are rendered? I don’t know. It would make one’s case more difficult if one quit after one were paid to perform.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Maremagnum says:

    #24: LOL

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    Mare I know he had received 50% of his sign on bonus when he signed.

    I’m sure he’ll never see the other 50%..but either way Randy is very upset about the lack of respect shown to him from his employers.

    I know where he is coming from because I feel the same way here at the office I work at.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    Here we go again…

    How did they disrespect Randy again?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    Just watch his press conference Evan.

    He explains it better himself.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Mike Wolfe says:

    Most courts hold that if the fact of damage is established, then the measure of damages need not be proven with arithmetic certainty. Couture’s refusal to fight is a breach of his contract, it would obviously cause damage to UFC, and the measure of damages in the form of lost revenues would be comparatively easy to calculate. Revenues from prior Couture fights would provide some basis, and forensic experts on both sides would be allowed to express opinions about the value of the remaining two fights based upon economic info in UFC’s possession. Typically, arguments about whether the experts’ opinions were speculative would go to the weight or significance of the testimony, and not its admissibility. This assumes that an injunction is unavailable. Whether it is depends upon the governing law, which could be set forth in the contract, and the language of the agreement itself.

    Couture would have to think long and hard about what to do if the UFC contract was drafted by a capable attorney. Many commercial agreements contain “loser pays attorney’s fees” clauses, and those could be significant in a high profile dispute such as this. Plausible scenarios include a substantial judgment against him or several years on the sidelines. UFC’s concern about publicity and scrutiny of its finances might give him some leverage, but that could’ve been contemplated and addressed in the document. Pure speculation without access to the agreement.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    I saw it and I saw what the UFC did.

    UFC won. Just because Dana held the conference doesn’t mean they were wrong.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    # # 11 Sam Caplan Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Maremagnum, do you follow baseball, the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL at all?

    Sam have you listened to the fightopinion radios after the couture resignation? Well they had 2 lawyers (well one soon to be, adam swift) and they paint a lot different picture than you do. They made it sound like no matter what the contract says, couture will eventually be a free agent. Life long contracts where one party has little or no power are not usually enforced to their full extent (thats where you baseball, NFL, NBA analogy falls short). In order for a lot of these contracts to be enforced, the judge/jury needs to feel as though both sides had similar bargaining power.

    I am not saying Couture will be free to go in October, but he will most likely still be able to compete in the near future (will it be soon enough, who knows?).

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Evan says:

    But the fact remains he is turning down fights for the UFC to fight somewhere else and making it very public that he is doing so.

    I don’t see how thats legal.

    But I am not anything close to a lawyer so what do I know…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    Dice:

    He doesn’t have a life long contract, he only has a four fight contract, with two fights fulfilled and two remaining.

    Sitting out doesn’t absolve someone from the remaining commitment on their contract. My analogy doesn’t fall short. If the position some lawyers are trying to defend were correct, pro athletes, actors, and musicians would be sitting out on the sidelines every single time they outperformed their existing contract.

    We see holdouts in sports all the time, but it is primarily to force the hand of the team they are contracted too. More often than not, they end up returning to the team. But if an athlete has one year left on his contract and sits out an entire season, when he returns, he still owes the team one year.

    It will be no different for Randy. He can sit out, but if he comes back, the UFC will still maintain his promotional rights for two fights. There’s no way around it. Perhaps the UFC contracts were never litigated and there are tons of holes in it, but that still doesn’t mean Randy can just go sign another contract. He has to take his case to court and he’s going to lose a lot of money and time if he does so and will have a hard time winning the case.

    If Couture isn’t free by October, how will be be free in the near future? He’s 44. How can anything after October qualify as near future?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    to sam..

    your nba/nfl/mlb analogy doesnt make sense..

    there are people that sit out a whole year or threaten to .. but you know why they most of the time come back to work.. BECAUSE they wont get a paycheck for thier contract that they originally signed or they are getting fined every day for holding out..

    i dont think randy falls in that equation cause he doesnt get paid a salary but rather whenever he fights… if he was constantly hurt or injured , he wouldnt be making guaranteed money like other sports .. he would be losing money unless he stepped into the ring..

    how do draft picks that dont wanna play for a team they got drafted by works???? they usually sit out / play overseas or ask to be traded…. all they (ufc) has are the rights to promote him.. but those rights arent life long or 4 fights in any timeframe.. that would be slavery.. im sure there is a combo of time line and actual fights…. which ever comes first.. …. nobody would sign a contract strickly based on number of fights… it has to be a combo.. which is why randy is saying that date…

    similar thing is happening in boxing right now.. juan diaz was supposed to fight michael kastisis in a bad ass fight … but don king who promotes diaz decdied not to place a bid on the purse bid and golden boy promotions won the bid for like 1.5 million..

    well king came back saying some legal loophole that diaz cant fight under another promotion if king isnt involved in the purse bid.. what king is really doing was behind the scences he was trying to extrort diaz because king would sign off on the fight with his permission IF DIAZ SIGNED AND EXTENSION because his contract expires in march… king then tried to sue HBO .. and HBO now has dropped the fight… so diaz now has to wait for his contract to expire in march to get rid of king promotional responsilibty.. but even though king has a fight left on his contract…

    either or … no way is randy gonna be held to 2 more fights after his contract expires…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    We see holdouts in sports all the time, but it is primarily to force the hand of the team they are contracted too. More often than not, they end up returning to the team. But if an athlete has one year left on his contract and sits out an entire season, when he returns, he still owes the team one year.

    ^^^^this is wrong^^^^^

    he wouldnt get paid for the year he sat out and he would get fined like crazy.. but when that year was up he would be a free agent… the linebacker for the bears threatened to do this (briggs, i think) cause they didnt want to give him a long term deal and they franchised tagged him… but he threated to sit out the year and be a free agent (i guess you cant franchise a player 2 years in a row ) but he came back i belive cause him getting franchised means he is gettin paid top 5 linebacker salary but he doesnt get a long term deal for that money… but he didnt want to lose a years worth of salary or owe money in fines…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    “he wouldnt get paid for the year he sat out and he would get fined like crazy.. but when that year was up he would be a free agent… the linebacker for the bears threatened to do this (briggs, i think) cause they didnt want to give him a long term deal and they franchised tagged him… but he threated to sit out the year and be a free agent (i guess you cant franchise a player 2 years in a row ) but he came back i belive cause him getting franchised means he is gettin paid top 5 linebacker salary but he doesnt get a long term deal for that money… but he didnt want to lose a years worth of salary or owe money in fines…”

    ^^^^THIS IS WRONG^^^^

    If Briggs had sat out, he would have had to have report to the team by Week 10 of the regular season in order to get credit for the season. If he had reported after Week 10, he would not have received credit for service time.

    Briggs becoming a free agent is a bad example because he was technically already a free agent. The Bears utilized special circumstances that were negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement that allows them to protect their rights to a player. Briggs technically could have still signed with another team even after being franchised. However, the Bears held the right of first refusal and would have received two first round picks as compensation if they had elected not to match an offer he signed with another team.

    The facts you present are incorrect and you are also leaving out some other pertinent facts pertaining to Briggs. To use him as an example is completely misleading.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    that dont make any sense..

    if briggs doesnt report by week 10 he doesnt get paid… but he becomes a free agent at the end of the year…

    so if briggs didnt play this year, he wouldve been the bears property till when ??? till he played six weeks.. how does this make any sense…

    and again.. you are comparing salaried players who will get paid no matter if they hit the field or warm the bench injured with someone who only gets paid when he fights…

    in other words its 4 fights or a certain date.. i think randy already said that certain date was… .. what could dana possilbly say or justify that two fights could mean decades of service??? ?

    if he was offered the fight and randy declined cause he resigned.. guess what its randy that loses in the courts eyes because he isnt making any money in salary and wont make any money for that fight.. so how will dana prove that they suffered finanically more than randy…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    “He doesn’t have a life long contract, he only has a four fight contract, with two fights fulfilled and two remaining.”

    When I was writing that I thought I should clarify what I meant (my fault). If he does not fulfill the final 2 fights the UFC is contending that he can not fight for anyone else. So unless he fights for them 2 more times, he can never fight for anyone else (non compete). Thats what I meant by lifetime contract (and yes if he breaks the contract like he did, then it is a lifetime contract since there are no limitations I am aware of (geography enforcement, time duration for no compete) stated within his contract) . I know the basic outline of his contract. ( actually the details of his contract state that if he were still the title holder after fulfilling his 4 fights that he would still have another year added on to it, so by signing the contract Randy did, he could have been on the hook until Oct 2009)

    “It will be no different for Randy. He can sit out, but if he comes back, the UFC will still maintain his promotional rights for two fights. There’s no way around it.”

    Sam I like you as a writer, and we had an argument a while back, but you didn’t read what I wrote back then and you definitely didn’t read what I wrote now.
    THERE IS A WAY AROUND IT. Like I just wrote, when contracts like this are in dispute, one of the first things that are looked at is the bargaining power between the two entities involved. If the court sees that one side had a lot more power than the other, then they often find the contract unenforceable (its called a contract of adhesion, swift and thaler believe its a long shot, but they mention it). If this did apply then couture could break his contract right now.(which I don’t think he can)

    Their strongest argument isn’t really the contract of adhesion point but whether or not the retirement clause is enforceable (my argument was a hybrid of these two, imbalance of power and no limits on retirement as far as non compete goes). Here is where I think they make a very strong argument. One that I think was supported in 2 instances 1) the UFC had lawyers re write top UFC fighters contracts right after the couture ordeal, signifying in my mind that they needed to try and tie up some loose legal jargon and 2) Dana whites reluctance at the Lorenzo/white press conference to admit that randy would still be under contract even after the time expired on his contract.
    They make the case that it is very difficult to enforce a non compete for an indefinite period of time (they even mention that a non compete clause isn’t even imposable in California, in Nevada it needs to have limitations, of which UFC contracts apparently don’t have)
    Here is the link to the show, the parts I am talking about start at 38 minutes.
    http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/10/27/fight-opinion-radio-66-the-war-of-words/

    “If Couture isn’t free by October, how will be be free in the near future? He’s 44. How can anything after October qualify as near future?”

    Exactly, thats why I wrote “I am not saying Couture will be free to go in October, but he will most likely still be able to compete in the near future (will it be soon enough, who knows?).”

    See that last part in there, “will it be soon enough, who knows?”. That meant that we all know he is old balls and anything past 2008 imo will be stretching it (as far as him be competitive anyways). “Near future” is a value term, your definition might be different than mine. My definition in this case pretty much means within a couple years. For any other fighter this wouldn’t be a problem, for a 44 year old, I think otherwise. I never said anything about him being competitive(thats an entirely different argument) with elite fighters if he gets freed from the contract (I don’t even know if he is competitive now, at that age it probably only takes 6 months or so to see a significant drop in stamina, reflexes, etc.)

    And yes, your analogy of other pro sports does fall short in this argument. For a number of reasons (mainly, fighters are independent contractors, athletes in organizations that you mentioned aren’t as far as my understanding goes, they are more like employees with unions). 2 complete different type of contract structures that have a number of differences in them when it comes enforcing conditions if one side breaks the agreement.

    My bottom line when it comes to this entire situation is that you can’t look at randys situation and compare it to past NBA, NFL contract disputes.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    He’d be the property of the Bears until he fulfilled his obligation. You don’t get credit for service time sitting out.

    Randy doesn’t get credit for those two fights by sitting out. Just because he outperformed his contract doesn’t mean he is granted free agency just because he elects to sit out the term. He still owes the UFC two fights. He has to fulfill that obligation in order to satisfy the contract. I’m not sure what’s so confusing?

    If a band signs an entry level deal with a record label and they end up selling a 1,000,000 albums right out of the gate, they still owe the label two albums regardless of whether it’s a good contract for them or not.

    Randy’s deal is not for a lifetime or decades of service. It’s for two more fights. The UFC has a certain window of time to schedule those two fights. He’s either got to satisfy his obligations, walk away for good, or put enough pressure on the UFC to make them want to re-negotiate a more favorable deal.

    I know there are lawyers who disagree, but I’d love to hear some examples of where a precedent has been set in this regard. Granted, it hasn’t happened in MMA before, but what are other examples of how an athlete or artist satisfied a binding contract simply by refusing not to honor it?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    also then what is the threat of holding out an entire season ??? the whole point is trying to scare the team into paying you by 1/ having ur absense hurt the team chances that year or 2/ the player walking away without compensation…

    all those contracts have term dates and lets say you sign a three year contract and decide not to play your last year with a team, after that third year you the player wont be paid (which is a pretty big deal) and you will have lost your free agent luster (cause teams would be wondering what sitting out a year does to your game) which affects your market value… but you the player would not owe the team an extra year to replace the one you sat out… YOU WOULD JUST BE BROKE and wouldve lost some of your bargaining chips as opposed to being named to the pro bowl that year…

    a three year contract is exactly what it is …. 2007-2008-2009 not three playing years in any time frame …

    randy’s contract probally stated 4 fights in this couple of years because he wanted to protect himself from being put on the shelf (which can happen to anybody , Arvloski ??) but you dont put a term exp date if its doesnt mean anything….

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    “Sam I like you as a writer, and we had an argument a while back, but you didn’t read what I wrote back then and you definitely didn’t read what I wrote now.”

    I did read what you wrote. You claim there is a way around it and I disagreed with you. Just because someone has a difference in opinion doesn’t mean they didn’t read what you wrote.

    “See that last part in there, “will it be soon enough, who knows?”. That meant that we all know he is old balls and anything past 2008 imo will be stretching it (as far as him be competitive anyways). “Near future” is a value term, your definition might be different than mine. My definition in this case pretty much means within a couple years.”

    Once again, I am disagreeing with you and challenging you on a statement. Your definition means a couple of years? How is a couple of years for a 44-year old combat sports athlete “near future?”

    “For any other fighter this wouldn’t be a problem, for a 44 year old, I think otherwise. I never said anything about him being competitive(thats an entirely different argument) with elite fighters if he gets freed from the contract (I don’t even know if he is competitive now, at that age it probably only takes 6 months or so to see a significant drop in stamina, reflexes, etc.)”

    So you never said anything about him being competitive? Fair enough. Do you think for one second that Randy Couture would take a match against Fedor or any top-level opponent if he didn’t think he could be competitive?

    “And yes, your analogy of other pro sports does fall short in this argument. For a number of reasons (mainly, fighters are independent contractors, athletes in organizations that you mentioned aren’t as far as my understanding goes, they are more like employees with unions). 2 complete different type of contract structures that have a number of differences in them when it comes enforcing conditions if one side breaks the agreement.

    “My bottom line when it comes to this entire situation is that you can’t look at randys situation and compare it to past NBA, NFL contract disputes.”

    How are they not valid examples? How about the NBA, NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball, recording contracts, contracts between actors and movie studios, and non-compete clauses that local radio DJs and TV newscasters have to honor all the time?

    Randy outperformed his contract, no ifs, ands, or buts. However, he still owes the UFC two more fights regardless or whether he’s a full-time employee or an independent contractor. This is not a situation where he was a young kid without proper representation who signed a long-term deal. He’s a grown man with proper legal resources who signed on for four fights. He has a case that he can bring before a judge but his chances of winning are not very good.

    I think this is a case where some people are thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. I’d love to see Randy be able to go free and sign whatever deal he felt was best for him but at the end of the day he still has a binding contract with the UFC for two more fights.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    “a three year contract is exactly what it is …. 2007-2008-2009 not three playing years in any time frame …”

    That statement is INCORRECT. A player who signs a three year deal owes a team three years of service. Each bargaining agreement between the league and the union has a different definition of service and how to satisfy a year of service. However, NONE of them allow a player to fulfill a year of service by sitting out an ENTIRE season. That’s a fact. If you want to continue to ignore the truth, be my guest.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    sam …

    briggs wouldve fufilled his obligation to the bears.. he wouldve been their property for those years….now if he doesnt play then he doesnt get paid.. but his fullfillment to that contract is being the property of the bears for that time frame AND BEING UNABLE to play for any other team…

    it would be the same as if briggs wouldve torn his acl before minicamp.. he wouldntve played.. but he wouldve been paid thus fulfilling his contract.. now if he sits out.. he doesnt pay and doesnt get PAID but he fulfills his contract obligations to the bears because he didnt play anywhere else…

    didnt the wwe try to screw over lesner when he “retired” to go play football.. they blocked his stuff in japan when he didnt want to play football but it wasnt a life long thing…

    i dont see how a court could even look at life long contract as valid… im sure an aribrator could and will settle this…

    and it dont matter if dana put that its life long (which he didnt) .. thats akin to slavery and i doubt that any court is gonna hold randy accountable.. only thing that ever gets resolved here is that the ufc will get compesated.. but even if they try to block couture from fighting.. it will only be bad pub for the ufc anyway..so dana should get his settle ment and move it along…

    how is the ufc gonna say they are trying to advance the sport of mma when they are blocking a big mega fight THAT THEY WILL GET COMPENSATED FOR….

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    so sam… had briggs decided to sit out this year.. he wouldve been the bears property till he retired…. or till he fulfilled that one year of service….???? i thought the teeth of his holdout threat was that since they cant franchise tag him twice in a row.. he would be a free agent after this season thus leaving the bears with no compensation…

    wasnt that the same threat that larry johnson said as well…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    “it would be the same as if briggs wouldve torn his acl before minicamp.. he wouldntve played..”

    Again, you are incorrect, as it is not the same. If Briggs participated in minicamp or any type of offseason activity, he would have been paid because he was honoring his contract. If he did not meet a mandatory reporting deadline for training camp, then he’s a holdout. Until he misses a reporting deadline, he’s honoring his contract.

    “so sam… had briggs decided to sit out this year.. he wouldve been the bears property till he retired…. or till he fulfilled that one year of service….???? i thought the teeth of his holdout threat was that since they cant franchise tag him twice in a row..”

    As I said earlier, comparing Briggs to Couture is not a proper comparison. Technically, Briggs is a free agent but remained property of the Bears when they exercised their franchise player tag, a special circumstance that was afforded to NFL teams during collective bargaining negotiations. It was a trade off between the owners and the union, which was looking for greater free agency powers.

    It would be a proper comparison if Couture had fulfilled all the fights under his current contract but had an unlimited right of first refusal clause in his contract.

    “i dont see how a court could even look at life long contract as valid… im sure an aribrator could and will settle this…

    “and it dont matter if dana put that its life long (which he didnt) .. thats akin to slavery and i doubt that any court is gonna hold randy accountable.. ”

    On one hand you say that Dana didn’t make his contract life long but in a previous sentence you make a statement about how the court could even look at his “life contract as valid.” Seems like you’re playing both sides of the fence here. Again, Couture’s contract is not life long. The term expires in the first half of ’08. He also only has two fights left. Couture is by no means bound to a burdensome contract. Just because you don’t like a contract doesn’t mean you can walk away from it and then claim the contract is no longer binding even though the term is up when you haven’t provided the agreed upon services.

    I really hope Randy doesn’t go to court with such a thin case because his chances of winning and getting everything he wants out of it is unlikely. He’s going to cost himself a lot of money and a lot of time. Just because there are lawyers that feel he has a case and are willing to represent him doesn’t mean he has a case. I’m willing to bet there are a lot of lawyers who wouldn’t take the case.

    The courts are not the right way to go. Randy should try to apply public pressure on the UFC. Working with the UFC is the only way he’ll get a match with Fedor before he’s the age of 46.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    sam..

    so a player like kellen winslow who was forced out a year becuase of a motocycle injury that had nothing to do with football, does he owe the browns and extra year??? how was he honoring his contract.. and can the BROWNS tell him , ” hey you owe us an extra year at the end of your rookie 3 year contract for that lost year”… even the nflpa is not that weak

    again.. sam.. im talking about the players rights within the contract… if he doesnt play, he doesnt get paid and get fined…. but that doesnt mean his rights are forever the property of the teams….

    but the example is similar because at the end of the day.. if briggs wouldve not played this season he wouldve been a free agent plain and simple.. with or without playing this year… he wouldnt have gotten paid but he wouldve been a free agent… that is not how many years youve been playing for the bears… ITS HOW MANY YEARS YOU SIGNED FOR THE BEARS TO HAVE YOURSELF AS THEIR PROPERTY IN THE NFL….

    why would dana put a date on the contract anyway… it would be to his ultimate benifit just to say 4 fights or as long a time as it takes to fulfill those fights…

    dont get me wrong.. dana is entilted to compesation but to think he can block couture from fighting forever due to the contract he signed doesnt make sense…. if this thing goes to arbiration, then im sure they would come back with allowing randy to fight and having dana compesated…

    as far as your rock band example.. again it doesnt make any sense if a rock band is contracted to a certain amount of albums , then yes they are bound by it.. but if they have contract that had a time limt then they are also bound by that… and you wonder why record lables dont offer contracts with time limits… is it mabey because they know that bands (if unhappy) could wait out the contract without putting out the albums they signed up for…

    “It would be a proper comparison if Couture had fulfilled all the fights under his current contract but had an unlimited right of first refusal clause in his contract.”

    ^^^^again wrong…^^^^

    randy is not a salaried employee.. like a football player or pro sports where they have to abide by union rules… he completes his contract he is a free agent .. he has no union or collective bargining agreement he has to abide by…

    all dana could do is to sue for damages, how does he expect to block anything if he has an expiration date on the contract… if the contract calls for 2 more fights, theorically couldnt dana hold that against a fighter untill he resigned and extension… which is why there was a expiration date put in… and im sure randys lawyers are thinking the same way…

    remember if he doesnt get those fights , RANDY is not making money… so its gonna also be hard to prove on the ufc’s part that they are being taken advantage of or are the victums here…

    its up to randy to prove that his contract means 4 fights or the certain time limit that ends in march ..

    and its up to the ufc to prove that teh expiration date means nothing and that 2 fights left should be prevelant..

    what do you think is easier to prove

    only way randy can go publically against the ufc is if he pulls his fighters from the ufc…..

    i also dont thnk randy wants to not fight for the ufc against fedor.. but what the ufc wants is a monopoly and have all the fights under their belt and have nothing to do with m-1…. if randy is open to compensaiton and im sure m-1 is open to co promotiong,

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    but i guess we will all find out in the next year what the result is and it will set a trend….

    i think both sides are pretty confidnent….

    i doubt that dana and the ufc are using the randy couture contract templete for its future stars now… im sure theyve changed that tremendously…

    i know it seems like lose lose for randy (and in a way it can be ) but the bigger loser will be the ufc…

    all this does is keep randys name out there and his intensions on fighting fedor on another promotion… it can be free promotion for them… also depending on how nasty it gets.. im sure a lot of fighters are going to be paying attention and take differnet steps to not become stuck like randy could possilbly be …

    and the more money that flows into mma the more these fighters have to gain by not signing blindly anything that the ufc gives them…

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dice says:

    “How are they not valid examples? How about the NBA, NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball, recording contracts, contracts between actors and movie studios, and non-compete clauses that local radio DJs and TV newscasters have to honor all the time?”

    Sam, c’mon man. I just stated to you why. Because their contracts are completely different. I don’t want to go into circles again so this will be my last post, but I stated that you don’t actually address my statements (or read I should say) and after your last post I am going to have to stand by those statements.

    They aren’t valid examples for a number of reasons. First there is more of an imbalance of power in the Couture example. Every example you listed in the above statement has a union of some sort, therefore they have more bargaining power. There is a name for it (I mentioned it previously), its called a contract of adhesion. Most of the time this particular legal term is used with extreme differences in power. But it is not unreasonable to suggest that a judge may find a problem with the way the UFC writes their contracts (they pretty much own you) and conducts their business (behind the scenes exchanges of money that were not explicitly stated in the original contract, this after all is what led to the entire dispute). Like I stated previously, its obvious that the UFC is nervous about the terms of Randy’s contract when they re write other top stars contracts after the fallout.

    Second, and most importantly, THE UFC CONTRACTS ARE STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO MAKE FIGHTERS MORE LIKE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. I can not stress this enough! The contracts you are talking about between Pro Sports athletes in the NBA, NFL etc. are much, much different. They are a lot easier to enforce. They have little to no relevance at all to this case. Ask a lawyer, provisions in independent contracts are much harder to enforce. Maybe you could get a hold of swift or thaler and do an interview with them about this topic?

    Regarding the non-compete clause, its because there are no limitations placed on it. Every example you just listed has limitations placed on the contract when it comes to non-compete clauses (possible geographic restrictions and most definitely a time limit). Thats why I keep saying that the UFC contracts are lifetime contracts. ITS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE EXPLICIT CONDITIONS REGARDING THE DURATION OF NON-COMPETE CLAUSES. According to the UFC, if randy doesn’t fulfill his last 2 fights he can NEVER fight again for someone else. Never=lifetime, and lifetime contracts are almost impossible to enforce.

    “So you never said anything about him being competitive? Fair enough.”

    “Once again, I am disagreeing with you and challenging you on a statement. Your definition means a couple of years? How is a couple of years for a 44-year old combat sports athlete “near future?”

    This is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to how you read my posts. A couple years for a 44 year old is just that, A COUPLE YEARS! Like you said in the first statement, I say nothing about whether or not Randy would be competitive after those years . In fact, if you read what I wrote in my second post, I don’t even know if he is competitive (with fedor) right now. I thought he was going to get demolished by Gonzaga. (I also feel like you think I am some crazed randy fan who only wants to see the good in him (or think that he is always right or whatever). Not even close, I have never been a big fan of his, I just felt the reporting on the whole resignation ordeal was sub par and I feel as though your statements comparing his contract situation to that of other pro athletes to be just flat out incorrect).

    You can disagree with me on whether or not Randy will be a free agent in a couple years because we have differing opinions on the matter. However we can’t disagree on whether he will be competitive after those years because I never took/take the opposing side and the fact that you keep bringing it up doesn’t make any sense.

    “Do you think for one second that Randy Couture would take a match against Fedor or any top-level opponent if he didn’t think he could be competitive?”

    Well I can guess whether or not Randy would take a match against Fedor even if he felt he wasn’t competitive (AND to be honest I have no idea, I don’t know how Randy thinks), but thats not the question now is it? A better question would be whether or not I think he will be competitive at that age. Randy might very well think he is competitive with Fedor and I may think he isn’t. Once again I don’t really understand the reason/relevance for the question because I never made a statement warranting it.

    As for now I am sticking with the argument made by 2 lawyers (one of which seems to have intimate knowledge of Coutures contract) regarding the enforceability of the UFC’s non-compete clause instead of journalist who uses non-applicable examples.(no offense intended) So as I mentioned before, unless you address the issues raised by swift and/or thaler, and reiterated by me, I have no intention of responding again.

    PS Your article on your wife in the grappling tournament is one the best you have ever written. I mean that sincerely.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    “so a player like kellen winslow who was forced out a year becuase of a motocycle injury that had nothing to do with football, does he owe the browns and extra year??? how was he honoring his contract.. and can the BROWNS tell him , ” hey you owe us an extra year at the end of your rookie 3 year contract for that lost year”… even the nflpa is not that weak”

    Boxeo, you’re throwing a lot of stuff out there that isn’t correct. Winslow violated his NFL contract by getting injured in a motorcycle accident. There are certain activities that most sports leagues preclude athletes from participating in. Motorcycles were one of those banned activities. Winslow actually had to give money back to the team.

    “but the example is similar because at the end of the day.. if briggs wouldve not played this season he wouldve been a free agent plain and simple.. with or without playing this year… he wouldnt have gotten paid but he wouldve been a free agent…”

    How are the examples similar? If Couture is offered fights while he sits out, the UFC still retains his promotional rights ever after the term expires. You can talk about what you think is fair and isn’t fair, but this is about what’s binding and what isn’t. If Randy tries to fight after his contract expires while he still owes the UFC fights, they will seek immediate injunctive relief.

    “why would dana put a date on the contract anyway… it would be to his ultimate benifit just to say 4 fights or as long a time as it takes to fulfill those fights…”

    There are dates in Zuffa contracts so that the promotion is not granted an infinite amount of time to schedule the number of fights on a fighter’s contract. That’s why Arlovski will be offered a fight before his deal expires in April. If the UFC drops the ball and doesn’t formally offer him a fight, he still becomes a free agent in April. If the UFC doesn’t offer Couture a fight by the time his contract expires, he becomes a free agent. But that’s why they offered him a fight with Nogueira that they knew he’d never agree too.

    “as far as your rock band example.. again it doesnt make any sense if a rock band is contracted to a certain amount of albums , then yes they are bound by it.. but if they have contract that had a time limt then they are also bound by that… and you wonder why record lables dont offer contracts with time limits… is it mabey because they know that bands (if unhappy) could wait out the contract without putting out the albums they signed up for…”

    Sounds like you are supporting my example. A band owes a company a certain amount of albums and a fighter owes a promotion a certain amount of fights.

    “randy is not a salaried employee.. ”

    Actually, Randy was a salaried employee. He wasn’t drawing a salary for being a fighter, but he was drawing a salary for his duties as an ambassador and commentator.

    “like a football player or pro sports where they have to abide by union rules… he completes his contract he is a free agent .. he has no union or collective bargining agreement he has to abide by…”

    He hasn’t completed his contract. His contract will not be complete until he fights two more times for the UFC.

    “all dana could do is to sue for damages, how does he expect to block anything if he has an expiration date on the contract… if the contract calls for 2 more fights, theorically couldnt dana hold that against a fighter untill he resigned and extension… which is why there was a expiration date put in… and im sure randys lawyers are thinking the same way…”

    You don’t understand the structure of a UFC contract. There is a term and a number of fights. Both must be satisfied. Not just one or the other. BOTH.

    As for Randy’s lawyers, we don’t know what they are thinking. We don’t know what their argument will be. If they are building their case around term vs. number of matches, then they won’t have much of a case. Hopefully there is some questionable language in the UFC contract or perhaps the contract was never litigated and is not binding. They might have a case at that point.

    “ut what the ufc wants is a monopoly and have all the fights under their belt and have nothing to do with m-1….”

    Another incorrect statement. The UFC does not have a monopoly.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Sam Caplan says:

    DICE:

    “Sam, c’mon man. I just stated to you why. Because their contracts are completely different. I don’t want to go into circles again so this will be my last post, but I stated that you don’t actually address my statements (or read I should say) and after your last post I am going to have to stand by those statements.”

    I do address your statement. I am copying your quotes and responding to them. Are my arguments too tough for you? What a cop out. Just because I won’t roll over and agree with what you say, and because I challenge your statements, you’re going to throw out a blanket accusation that I don’t read what you say?

    Just because I am challenging your statements and you don’t like what I have to say doesn’t mean I am not reading your arguments. I am just not buying into some of them.

    “But it is not unreasonable to suggest that a judge may find a problem with the way the UFC writes their contracts (they pretty much own you) and conducts their business (behind the scenes exchanges of money that were not explicitly stated in the original contract, this after all is what led to the entire dispute).”

    That’s a separate issue and a different defense. Challenging the validity of the UFC contract and saying Randy should be granted free agency because the language is not binding is different than saying Randy should be granted free agency because he satisfied his obligations.

    “Second, and most importantly, THE UFC CONTRACTS ARE STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO MAKE FIGHTERS MORE LIKE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.”

    First off, Randy actually was a salaried employee of the UFC. He was drawing a salary for being a commentator and an ambassador. Granted he wasn’t receiving a salary for being a fighter but your argument that he’s an independent contractor is thin. Randy received a signing bonus, was compensated every time he fought, and signed over exclusive promotional rights to the UFC.

    Just because you’re technically an independent contractor doesn’t mean you don’t have to fulfill contractual obligations.

    WWE wrestlers are technically independent contractors and they can’t just up and leave to go to a rival promotion if they feel they are outperforming their contract or are unhappy with how they are being treated by their employer.

    “The contracts you are talking about between Pro Sports athletes in the NBA, NFL etc. are much, much different. They are a lot easier to enforce.”

    A signed document is a signed document. Assuming the UFC did not breach Couture ‘s contract, it’s just as binding of an agreement whether he’s an independent contractor or a full-time employee or whether he’s affiliated with a union or not.

    “Regarding the non-compete clause, its because there are no limitations placed on it. Every example you just listed has limitations placed on the contract when it comes to non-compete clauses (possible geographic restrictions and most definitely a time limit). Thats why I keep saying that the UFC contracts are lifetime contracts. ITS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE EXPLICIT CONDITIONS REGARDING THE DURATION OF NON-COMPETE CLAUSES. According to the UFC, if randy doesn’t fulfill his last 2 fights he can NEVER fight again for someone else. Never=lifetime, and lifetime contracts are almost impossible to enforce.”

    A lifetime contract scenario is not applicable to Randy because he never signed a lifetime contract. There is a term and a number of fights in his agreement. Randy must fulfill both to satisfy the contract.

    A non-compete is also not applicable. To my knowledge, Randy is a true free agent if he’s not a champion at the time he satisfies his contract (i.e. satisfies BOTH the term and number of fights). That is, unless there is a right of first refusal clause similar to what Tito Ortiz has in his.

    “This is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to how you read my posts. A couple years for a 44 year old is just that, A COUPLE YEARS!”

    Who’s the one not reading posts? You used the statement near term and later quantified it by attaching a couple of years to it. My statement was that I disagree with your definition of near term as it applied to an athlete in Couture’s situation.

    “Like you said in the first statement, I say nothing about whether or not Randy would be competitive after those years . In fact, if you read what I wrote in my second post, I don’t even know if he is competitive (with fedor) right now.”

    I did read it and my perception is that you’re now trying to convey a different point.

    “You can disagree with me on whether or not Randy will be a free agent in a couple years because we have differing opinions on the matter. However we can’t disagree on whether he will be competitive after those years because I never took/take the opposing side and the fact that you keep bringing it up doesn’t make any sense.”

    The point I was trying to make is that it will be fruitless for Randy to pursue this matter via lawyers through the courts. Even if a decision is reached that is favorable to him, chances are it will be too late.

    “As for now I am sticking with the argument made by 2 lawyers (one of which seems to have intimate knowledge of Coutures contract) regarding the enforceability of the UFC’s non-compete clause instead of journalist who uses non-applicable examples.(no offense intended) So as I mentioned before, unless you address the issues raised by swift and/or thaler, and reiterated by me, I have no intention of responding again.”

    Adam Swift and Jeff Thaler aren’t here to make their arguments. But you’re here and I’ve been addressing your points repeatedly.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    HEY SAM.. EXCUSE THE CAPS.. IM NOT YELLING OR MAD.. JUST DIDNT FEEL LIKE CUTTIN AND PASTING PARTS OF YOUR RESPONSE..

    so a player like kellen winslow who was forced out a year becuase of a motocycle injury that had nothing to do with football, does he owe the browns and extra year??? how was he honoring his contract.. and can the BROWNS tell him , ” hey you owe us an extra year at the end of your rookie 3 year contract for that lost year”… even the nflpa is not that weak”

    Boxeo, you’re throwing a lot of stuff out there that isn’t correct. Winslow violated his NFL contract by getting injured in a motorcycle accident. There are certain activities that most sports leagues preclude athletes from participating in. Motorcycles were one of those banned activities. Winslow actually had to give money back to the team.

    SAM .. THIS EXAMPLE WAS IN REFRENCE TO YOUR IDEA THAT SIGNING A CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS DID NOT MEAN 2007,2008,2009 AND THAT YOU THINK IT MEANS 3 YEARS OF SERVICE… SO WHEN I BROUGHT UP WINSLOW , I WAS TRYING TO PROVE YOU WRONG IN THAT STATEMENT.. BECAUESE THE BROWNS CANT GO TO WINSLOW AT THE END OF HIS CONTRACT AND HOLD HIM TO THAT LOST YEAR (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS HIS FAULT) THEY CAN FINE HIM BUT THEY CANT SAY “YOU OWE US ANOTHER YEAR” EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WINSOLWS FAULT THTA HE DIDNT PLAY… SAME THING WITH BRIGGS AND LARRY JOHNSON THIS YEAR…THEY WANTED TO HOLD OUT THE WHOLE YEAR TO BECOME FREE AGENTS TO COMPLETE THE TERMS OF THEIR SERVICE… BUT THE BEARS OR CHEIFS COULDNT SAY AT THE END OF A CONTRACT THAT THEY OWE THEM A YEAR CAUSE THEY SAT OUT EVEN THOUGH “THEY OFFERED THEM A YEAR SALARY FOR THEIR SERVICES” ALL THEY COULD DO IS TAKE MONEY AWAY..

    “but the example is similar because at the end of the day.. if briggs wouldve not played this season he wouldve been a free agent plain and simple.. with or without playing this year… he wouldnt have gotten paid but he wouldve been a free agent…”

    How are the examples similar? If Couture is offered fights while he sits out, the UFC still retains his promotional rights ever after the term expires. You can talk about what you think is fair and isn’t fair, but this is about what’s binding and what isn’t. If Randy tries to fight after his contract expires while he still owes the UFC fights, they will seek immediate injunctive relief.

    “why would dana put a date on the contract anyway… it would be to his ultimate benifit just to say 4 fights or as long a time as it takes to fulfill those fights…”

    There are dates in Zuffa contracts so that the promotion is not granted an infinite amount of time to schedule the number of fights on a fighter’s contract. That’s why Arlovski will be offered a fight before his deal expires in April. If the UFC drops the ball and doesn’t formally offer him a fight, he still becomes a free agent in April. If the UFC doesn’t offer Couture a fight by the time his contract expires, he becomes a free agent. But that’s why they offered him a fight with Nogueira that they knew he’d never agree too.

    “as far as your rock band example.. again it doesnt make any sense if a rock band is contracted to a certain amount of albums , then yes they are bound by it.. but if they have contract that had a time limt then they are also bound by that… and you wonder why record lables dont offer contracts with time limits… is it mabey because they know that bands (if unhappy) could wait out the contract without putting out the albums they signed up for…”

    Sounds like you are supporting my example. A band owes a company a certain amount of albums and a fighter owes a promotion a certain amount of fights.

    BANDS OWE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RECORDS BUT THEIR CONTRACTS DONT HAVE TIME LIMITS.. IF THEY DID THEY WOULD WAIT OUT THOSE CONTRACTS WHICH IS WHY RECORD LABELS DONT DO THIS… IF YOU HAVE BOTH TIME AND NUMBER OF RECORDS/FIGHTS, ITS EITHER OR.. ONE DOESNT MEAN MORE THAN THE OTHER… WHY WOULD THE NUMBER OF FIGHTS MEAN MORE THAT THE EXPIRATION DATE AND VICE VERSA.. WOULDNT THEY COUNT AS THE SAME AND WHICHEVER CAME FIRST… AND EVEN IF THEY ARE

    “randy is not a salaried employee.. ”

    Actually, Randy was a salaried employee. He wasn’t drawing a salary for being a fighter, but he was drawing a salary for his duties as an ambassador and commentator.

    TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS.. AND I MENT A SALARY EMPLOYEE AS FAR AS THE SPORT HE DOES… LIKE A BASEBALL PLAYER WILL BE SALARY EMPLOYEE FOR THE TEAM HE PLAYS.. RANDY WONT …. HIS AMBASSADOR CONTRACT IS LIKE A ENDOURSMENT DEAL…

    “like a football player or pro sports where they have to abide by union rules… he completes his contract he is a free agent .. he has no union or collective bargining agreement he has to abide by…”

    He hasn’t completed his contract. His contract will not be complete until he fights two more times for the UFC.

    YOU NEED TO DUMP THESE NBA,NFL, MLB EXAMPLES LIKE DICE SAID … I MEAN THESE ARE UNIONS WITH COMPLICATED AGREEMENTS… UFC FIGHTERS HAVE NO UNION AND ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS… IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT BETTER MORE VALID EXAMPLES YOU CAN LOOK AT SITUATIONS IN WRESTLING (PRO) OR EVEN BOXING…

    “all dana could do is to sue for damages, how does he expect to block anything if he has an expiration date on the contract… if the contract calls for 2 more fights, theorically couldnt dana hold that against a fighter untill he resigned and extension… which is why there was a expiration date put in… and im sure randys lawyers are thinking the same way…”

    You don’t understand the structure of a UFC contract. There is a term and a number of fights. Both must be satisfied. Not just one or the other. BOTH.

    I GUESS THAT IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION… IF BOTH NEEDED TO BE SATISFIED…. IF RANDY RESIGNED, AND HOW THAT PLAYS TO HIS LAST REMAINING FIGHTS….. ALSO YOU SAY BOTH NEED TO BE SATISFIED… ASSUMING RANDY FOUGHT 4 TIMES BY NOW AND HIS CONTRACT WOULD BE SAYS IT EXPIRES IN MARCH, IF HIS FOUTH FIGHT HAPPENS THIS PAST OCT, WOULD HE BE STILL UNDER CONTRACT TILL MARCH OR WOULD HE BE A FREE AGENT CAUSE HE COMPLETED ALL HIS FIGHTS… CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS …

    IN A PERFECT WORLD BOTH WOULD BE SATISFIED AROUND THE SAME TIME BUT IF NOT…YOU POINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT RANDY NEEDS TO COMPLETE HIS NUMBER OF FIGHTS YET IF FIGHTERS DO THAT EARLY , THEY WOULD STILL BE BOUND BY THE TERM DATES EXP DATE OF THE CONTRACT????DOSENT MAKE SENSE

    As for Randy’s lawyers, we don’t know what they are thinking. We don’t know what their argument will be. If they are building their case around term vs. number of matches, then they won’t have much of a case. Hopefully there is some questionable language in the UFC contract or perhaps the contract was never litigated and is not binding. They might have a case at that point.

    “ut what the ufc wants is a monopoly and have all the fights under their belt and have nothing to do with m-1….”

    Another incorrect statement. The UFC does not have a monopoly.

    YEAH NICE TRY… THEY SURE OPERATE LIKE ONE

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dizzle says:

    a music contract is 100% different than a fight contract.

    Also music contracts are basically only loans to the musicians/band itself. The record company only cares about getting their money back and making profit off of internet and CD sales… I don’t think they really care about albums anymore..because they know it’s hard to keep a band on the top 40 after their first official Debut release.

    again the solution for randy is to Lose a fight (kinda like how bo cantrell did against slice) that way the UFC wont even think about giving him another fight. And if they do ask him to fight after his loss…just say he is injured and cannot compete and wait for his contract to expire.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • el boxeo says:

    “ut what the ufc wants is a monopoly and have all the fights under their belt and have nothing to do with m-1….”

    Another incorrect statement. The UFC does not have a monopoly.

    i think the statement is correct that is says they want a monopoly.. are they not yet.. but they operate like one…

    fact is its up to the ufc to prove that randy has to complete both the # of fights and the time limit…

    and its up randy to prove that its either or….

    as i stated before.. i doubt the ufc has any leftover randy type contracts now or even for their future stars.. so both the ufc and randy are at risk of losing…

    but even if randy takes this fight at lets say 46… its stilla big money fight… as long as fedor stays unbeaten streak and the auroa of this super fight stays in place…. mabey thats why he is fighting hong man crap…

    and its dana worst nightmare caues eventually the fight will be made (might not mean much) but it will be made with or without the ufc

    and even at 46 randy is still a bigger draw than most if not all mma fighters…. dont matter if you think big nog or silva or vera are better … they re not money fights like randy v. fedor…

    so at any age its still a spectcle and a money event.. which is the whole point of these fighters anyway.. PAYDAY… who cares if you considered the best fighter if you aint making any money….

    reason garbage fights like roy jones v. tito is being made…

    reason randy at 46 v. fedor will be made….

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

LEAVE A COMMENT!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow 5OZ