Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 06-26-2009, 08:20 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

That's cool Dave, you can protest, in the meantime, we're going to have fun watching Brock smash Mir's face.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-26-2009, 10:55 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
That's cool Dave, you can protest, in the meantime, we're going to have fun watching Brock smash Mir's face.


Crack On

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-27-2009, 01:03 AM
David_Banner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
We aggree on something
Crazier things have happened
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-27-2009, 01:46 AM
Max
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So your problem is with a system that decided to over look the fact that Brock came from the WWE and see his true talent and accept him. Your problem is with a system that gives someone a title shot becasue they are the best in the div and not because they have a lot of fights in the org. Your problem is with a system that pushed its biggest fight ever as a fight between a LW and a WW instead of HW or LHW's.

I have a question Dave, do you have a problem when the UFC puts someone like Amir Sadollah on TUF when there are fighters who have many more fights yet did not get a shot?
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-27-2009, 04:49 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i wasn't on the Brock bandwagon at first but he's grown on me. i look at him like a HW Matt Hughes, except for the Christian part.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-27-2009, 08:54 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritwalker
Sure they do.

It's a basic clause of most contracts.

Something to the effect of - Under no circumstances may The Player enter into a commercial endorcement/sponsorship contract with a third party that casts "negitive light on The Team.

Like Jordan couldn't do Nike as a Bull without premission from the team, and coudn't even be a spokesman for "whatever" outside of uniform, without premission.
Wrong.

The players are held to what is commonly known as a "morality clause" with both teams and outside companies, and ALSO the leagues themselves. The clauses are designed to protect companies in the case of a scandal that can hurt the company or team's image. However, agents and lawyers ALWAYS add specific language to the deals that prevent the player from being dropped for bogus or frivolous claims.

Now, if a player goes out and does an ad campaign for a porno company, or gets paid to be on the cover of "High Times", those kind of things are almost ALWAYS subject to being a violation of the morality clause. However, a shoe company like Nike, or an underwear company like Hanes are NOT going apply. Even when there is a conflict of interest where a team is sponsored by a certain company and a player is sponsored by a rival company, there is still nothing the team can do. For example, say you are sponsored by Nike, and Nike tells you that they don't want you to be seen wearing clothing from Reebok, BUT Reebok makes the jerseys that your team wears. In that case, your agent would tell Nike that you will not wear anything other than Nike, EXCEPT when wearing the uniform that is issued by their teams. That's how it works.

Michael Jordan NEVER needed permission to sign sponsorship deals with Nike, Hanes, Wheates, Gatorade, or any of the sponsors he had. Of all the athletes you could have chose for an example, Jordan is probably the worst because he was one of the few exceptions to the rule of thumb. Jordan probably could have gotten away with murder and nobody would have cared in the 90's. He made the NBA popular again, and he made BILLIONS of dollars for his sponsors, and for the league. Nobody even blinked twice when the gambling claims came to light, not that it was a big deal, just making a point.

There is NO self-respecting sports agent who let their client sign away their right to be sponsored by the company they choose.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-27-2009, 09:19 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT
winner
Actually, LOSER.

RNC is trying to use a baseless political argument to justify what is obvious bully tactics by the UFC.

Let's not make this a conservative vs liberal argument, because it has nothing to do with that. The fact that he tries to make people who disagree with this out to be hypocrites for hypothetically disagreeing with Obama is just absurd.

RNC posts a bunch left-wing rhetoric all the time, so by his own comparison, he would be the biggest hypocrite of all by saying it's okay to screw people over in the name of capitalism. The mere idea that "capitalism" means it's okay to screw people over to fulfill your own GREED is another one of the mindless liberal talking points designed to make conservatives look like bad guys for not agreeing with a countless number of social programs.

It's never right to screw people over for your own greed. Capitalism allows us to CAPITALIZE on our ideas, talents, and success, and does not bind us to being controlled by a government. It's the best system there is in the world, but it does not give us the free reign to screw people over with NO checks and balances. Sure, people DO screw others over ALL THE TIME, but that is why it's important for people to recognize it, and speak out against it.

Of course, if you listen to RNC, you are not even allowed to be a fan of the company if you have a negative opinion of the situation. Thats no different than me saying if you don't like something about America then you should leave the country. It's stupid, and nobody with a working brain should fall for that.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-27-2009, 11:24 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Banner
Crazier things have happened
I guess you are correct
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-27-2009, 11:34 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
1)So your problem is with a system that decided to over look the fact that Brock came from the WWE and see his true talent and accept him. 2) Your problem is with a system that gives someone a title shot becasue they are the best in the div and not because they have a lot of fights in the org. 3) Your problem is with a system that pushed its biggest fight ever as a fight between a LW and a WW instead of HW or LHW's.

4) I have a question Dave, do you have a problem when the UFC puts someone like Amir Sadollah on TUF when there are fighters who have many more fights yet did not get a shot?
1) Yes, because I believe they should have taken into consideration the impact on the sport.

2) Best in the division?? Based on WHAT?? One loss and one Win????

3)No, its because they should be promoting Lightweights...not BJ Penn.

4) Well they no doubt have a selection process, i'd have to look into exactly what that was before I commented. The ideal of TUF has changed sinse its inception. Amir wouldnt have got through in the first two or three shows...after that it changed slightly...until right now, the UFC will let in people from other sports, and people who just have celebrity.

Originally it was about finding an ultimate fighter out of the best upstarts through a tournement. In order to boost the stable, and in order to market the UFC to a wider audience. But once you got to Number four...it was about re-introducing old and failed fighters, it was about drama between the coaches, later still and its nothing but a crass money making machine thats lost its way in dramatic style.

I actually was privy to seeing the entrance Video that Amir submitted for the UFC TUF....and I dont think they picked him to win the show, nor for his skills. They picked him for his character...and he just so happened to be a diamond in the rough. He was a perfect pick for the time, possibly wouldnt have made it in early shows, and wouldnt have been flamboyant enough to be a pull in later shows.

He was just right...but the UFC did it by accident...his success is his own making...not the product of a UFC gift...those gifts are really given to very early people in the show...like Diego Sanchez, Josh Koscheck....they OWE their success to the UFC as much as the UFC owes the success of TUF to them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-27-2009, 12:50 PM
Spiritwalker's Avatar
Spiritwalker Spiritwalker is offline
Matt-4; GJJ Black Belts-0
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Gastonia NC
Posts: 4,339
Default

Might want to check your facts.



A shoe company or underware company probably would get an eye bat over sponsoring a player.. like you said.. but if the teams owners was a majority stock holder in Converse, or an underware company, you can bet there would be issues.

And I choose Jordan specifically because he is noe of the best known pitchmen

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Rattlesnake
Wrong.

The players are held to what is commonly known as a "morality clause" with both teams and outside companies, and ALSO the leagues themselves. The clauses are designed to protect companies in the case of a scandal that can hurt the company or team's image. However, agents and lawyers ALWAYS add specific language to the deals that prevent the player from being dropped for bogus or frivolous claims.

Now, if a player goes out and does an ad campaign for a porno company, or gets paid to be on the cover of "High Times", those kind of things are almost ALWAYS subject to being a violation of the morality clause. However, a shoe company like Nike, or an underwear company like Hanes are NOT going apply. Even when there is a conflict of interest where a team is sponsored by a certain company and a player is sponsored by a rival company, there is still nothing the team can do. For example, say you are sponsored by Nike, and Nike tells you that they don't want you to be seen wearing clothing from Reebok, BUT Reebok makes the jerseys that your team wears. In that case, your agent would tell Nike that you will not wear anything other than Nike, EXCEPT when wearing the uniform that is issued by their teams. That's how it works.

Michael Jordan NEVER needed permission to sign sponsorship deals with Nike, Hanes, Wheates, Gatorade, or any of the sponsors he had. Of all the athletes you could have chose for an example, Jordan is probably the worst because he was one of the few exceptions to the rule of thumb. Jordan probably could have gotten away with murder and nobody would have cared in the 90's. He made the NBA popular again, and he made BILLIONS of dollars for his sponsors, and for the league. Nobody even blinked twice when the gambling claims came to light, not that it was a big deal, just making a point.

There is NO self-respecting sports agent who let their client sign away their right to be sponsored by the company they choose.
__________________
It is because you chose to get on the mat that makes you the winner. Think about how many people are not on that mat right now. - Luis Sucuri Togno
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.