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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-14-2009, 10:07 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

It's a business. (I'm not fan of him, but) when Emmitt Smith stopped producing in Dallas, they got rid of him. Nothing wrong with that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-14-2009, 10:56 PM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,217
Default

I thought the Iceman hung up his gloves awhile back......

fame and fortune made him do it
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-15-2009, 04:52 AM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Anybody else think that if Dana White can be so mean to someone whose his "friend" and who the his insitution have enjoyed and used...that he could say that eventually to someone like Matt Hughes?

Sorry...but it should be the fighters choice. The insitution doesnt need to keep them on the top of the card, or keep up their money...but it has no right to force them into retirement.

If they havent broken their contract Dana White should STFU making stupid and dumbass comments like this about the Higher eschelons!
Would a "friend" just sit back and watch somebody they care about get the crap kicked out of them fight after fight after fight????

You call that a friend??

Here we go again...

I know you don't like it but the fighters are employees Dave... it's as simple as that.

It may not be nice... or fair but it IS a fact. And as employees Dana and The Brothers have the right to terminate their contract with OR without cause.

I know it's mean bro but it's a fact. And really mean looking posts in all bold just won't change that.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:26 PM
REMY
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
The thing that "bugs" me about Dana and the UFC is it appears like they want to OWN these fighters lock stock and barrell. From their sponsors, what they wear, their dolls (actions figures for the guys ); I mean where will it end...their souls?

I think the fighters need to have some autonomy, some say so, some leverage to keep the power, if not balanced, then at least not wholly one-sided. As far as I can see the UFC has the run of the sport, as for being the "big show", if not a monopoly, pretty close.

They need another organization or two (sound one(s)) that can keep them from becoming this huge out-of-control monster. Competition is usually always a healthy thing in the business world.

...at the end of the day MMA is a sport, and just like the major sports in the USA (Baseball, Basketball, Football) there is 1 major organization, and 1-2 smaller ones. The major ones being the MLB,NFL and NBA.

And just it's the same way in those organizations as it is in the UFC, you can only wear certain things while you are on the field, heck the NFL/NBA/MLB limit what color your cleats/shoes, and sweat bands are!

The way I see it - the UFC is basing its' business off of the NFL/MLB/NBA, and doing things the way they do it because they have been around for years and its' always worked.

Think about it like this - one of the greatest football players of all time, the greatest quarterback of all time, Joe Montana played for the SF 49ers for 13 years, and during that time brought them to and won 4 superbowls (also won 3 SB MVP's) in 1990 he won Sportsman of the Year, and led the 49ers to the best record in the NFL, in 1991 he got injured and missed most of that season, in 1992, they named Steve Young as their starting QB...not letting Montana compete for the job, so he was traded to a different team.

the 49ers saw it as they had a younger guy who could get the job done for years to come, so they stepped away from the old guy...in Montana's last season in football (1994) he not only beat John Elways team (bronco's) BUT also beat the 49ers who had steve young...showing he could still play.

It's the same thing in the UFC they have too look out for the future of the organization and if that means stepping away from the people who were the "go to guys" then so be it,


oh and Dave - the UFC can't cut Hughes' and Chucks' pay like you said - they have contracts that state how much they get paid, if dana goes to either and says "hey your 500,000$ a fight is dropping to $50,000" they can say "nope" and be let go to fight somewhere else if they wish.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:56 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,638
Default

I understand what you're saying Remy (and Chuck, R.D. and Michelle), really.

But the NFL, NBL, and NBA are all "teams". Yes, individuals make up those teams and of course they are all going to wear the same uniform. But what do their contracts say about doing commercials/advertisements? Do the owners get a piece of that? I think it's a little different with MMA (and maybe other "individual" based sports). Don't you?

A player on a team gets traded and Dana/the brothers cut a fighter (looks like after 3 losses) who isn't producing--that's totally understandable. I wasn't commenting on them letting them go rather what is "protecting" the MMA fighters from being totally consumed/controlled by their organization (whether it be the UFC or another).

If y'all say this is the "standard" as for MMA--the organization (in this case UFC) rules every aspect of the fighter, then I guess that's how it's done.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-15-2009, 07:15 PM
REMY
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
. But what do their contracts say about doing commercials/advertisements?

I don't know what their contracts say but i do know that 2 years ago when the Bears were in the superbowl, Brian Urlacher (Chicago Bears' LB) was fined $100,000 when he was giving a interview during one of the media days, because he wore a "vitamin water" hat, and vitamin water doesn't sponser the NFL so he couldn't wear the hat during the interview, and when he did bam the fine came lol
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-15-2009, 07:29 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REMY
I don't know what their contracts say but i do know that 2 years ago when the Bears were in the superbowl, Brian Urlacher (Chicago Bears' LB) was fined $100,000 when he was giving a interview during one of the media days, because he wore a "vitamin water" hat, and vitamin water doesn't sponser the NFL so he couldn't wear the hat during the interview, and when he did bam the fine came lol

I meant commercials like Michael Jordan did for FOL, etc... (wasn't sure you understood when I asked about "commercials/adverts"). Do they have to run that by the organization before they make deals to do commercials for products or sponsors?

You know how Matt makes appearances for his sponsors--does Dana/UFC have any say so in what Matt does?

I guess the CB's guy knew he wasn't supposed to do that, huh. Probably, pocket change for him.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-15-2009, 07:46 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
. And as employees Dana and The Brothers have the right to terminate their contract with OR without cause.
See thats where Working in the US is dangerous.

In England they cant just do that. Its called Employment Law
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-15-2009, 07:48 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
rather what is "protecting" the MMA fighters from being totally consumed/controlled by their organization (whether it be the UFC or another).
Nothing. Thats the issue

They havent much in the way of "Rights"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-16-2009, 02:09 AM
MattHughesRocks's Avatar
MattHughesRocks MattHughesRocks is offline
Stump Rules!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 9,790
Default

To tell you the truth, I'd do the same thing. What is anyone fighter going to do about it? Nothing that's what. Unless half of the top fighters take a stand at the same time ( and that will never happen) it'll never be any different.That's how the UFC got to where they are today. Like it or not, business is business. They went into this to make money, not friends.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie
The thing that "bugs" me about Dana and the UFC is it appears like they want to OWN these fighters lock stock and barrell. From their sponsors, what they wear, their dolls (actions figures for the guys ); I mean where will it end...their souls?

I think the fighters need to have some autonomy, some say so, some leverage to keep the power, if not balanced, then at least not wholly one-sided. As far as I can see the UFC has the run of the sport, as for being the "big show", if not a monopoly, pretty close.

They need another organization or two (sound one(s)) that can keep them from becoming this huge out-of-control monster. Competition is usually always a healthy thing in the business world.
__________________


http://stumpdotcom.com/
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 06:24 PM.


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