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….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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,

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0