Official Conor McGregor thread (part 3) *Updated Warning in 1st Post Re:Boxing match

Saipanne · 01-12-2016 11:27PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Prove it? Roc Nation sued Rita Ora because she didn't deliver the agreed amount of albums that she'd signed up for. Barry Sanders was sued by the Detroit Lions for retiring mid contract.

Those were UFC contracts, yeah? Boiler plate standard contract?

weldoninhio · 01-12-2016 11:28PM

SteM wrote: »

Can't stop someone from retiring. His contract is with the ufc. The contract is if he fights mma it has to be with them for x amount of fights, it can't be with another promotion. The contract can't be he HAS to fight x amount of times. That would be slavery.

Can't believe you're even arguing this tbh. Can't believe I'm arguing with you.

Any signing on fee or percentage for fights would be based on 8 fights. They could sue for 50% of the signing on fee and argue that he would have gotten a much lower fee per fight over a 4 fight deal and more than likely win.

They obviously couldn't take him to court to make him fight, but they could get a good bit of cash back. Anyone who doesn't think so is clueless.

I've dealt with contracts day on day for years in a previous role, UFC aren't in the business of giving money away, ask any of the fighters on its roster.

Depp · 01-12-2016 11:29PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Those were UFC contracts, yeah? Boiler plate standard contract?

bringing up rita bloody ora...this is a new low

:D:D

did conor steal your bird or something weldo your vendetta is depressing

weldoninhio · 01-12-2016 11:32PM

Depp wrote: »

bringing up rita bloody ora...this is a new low :D:D

did conor steal your bird or something your vendetta is depressing

It's not a vendetta, anyone that signs a contract, especially if it has a large signing on fee and a bigger % cut based on the longevity of the contract and decides to give in midway through would be sued for breach. Whether it's McGregor, me, Aldo or fecking Bono. It's basic contract law.

Do you think the UFC write the contracts on the back of a fag packet??

SteM · 01-12-2016 11:32PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Any signing on fee or percentage for fights would be based on 8 fights. They could sue for 50% of the signing on fee and argue that he would have gotten a much lower fee per fight over a 4 fight deal and more than likely win.

They obviously couldn't take him to court to make him fight, but they could get a good bit of cash back. Anyone who doesn't think so is clueless.

I've dealt with contracts day on day for years in a previous role, UFC aren't in the business of giving money away, ask any of the fighters on its roster.

You don't know what his contact is or how it's structured. You don't know what signing fee he got or any conditions attached to it. Stop bluffing ffs.

weldoninhio · 01-12-2016 11:35PM

SteM wrote: »

You don't know what his contact is out how it's structured. You don't know what signing fee he got or any conditions attached to it. Stop bluffing ffs.

You're right. A lad sitting at home watching the apprentice is just making up this (very reasonable and very logical) argument to cover the outlay on a long term contract is bluffing. The lawyers the UFC use probably aren't paid to work in the best interests of them. Ffs surely you'd expect something like this in any sportsperson/musician/writers contract.

Depp · 01-12-2016 11:36PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It's not a vendetta, anyone that signs a contract, especially if it has a large signing on fee and a bigger % cut based on the longevity of the contract and decides to give in midway through would be sued for breach. Whether it's McGregor, me, Aldo or fecking Bono. It's basic contract law.

Do you think the UFC write the contracts on the back of a fag packet??

from what i remember after the 200 bs theres a clause in ufc contract that stops them from going after a guy who retires...however Im no expert on ufc contracts so I won't lie through my hole and yammer on about it being fact :rolleyes::rolleyes:

theres literally no precedent of the ufc suing retiring fighters out of the countless guys that have retired in contract...you're being beligerent and ridiculous pulling unrelated cases out of your hole and its getting sad

SteM · 01-12-2016 11:41PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

You're right. A lad sitting at home watching the apprentice is just making up this (very reasonable and very logical) argument to cover the outlay on a long term contract is bluffing. The lawyers the UFC use probably aren't paid to work in the best interests of them. Ffs surely you'd expect something like this in any sportsperson/musician/writers contract.

You are making **** up, we agree on something.

Did the ufc go after gsp when he vacated the title with fights left on his contract? Wasn't worth it I suppose.

Depp · 01-12-2016 11:45PM

SteM wrote: »

You are making **** up, we agree on something.

Did the ufc go after gsp when he vacated the title with fights left on his contract? Wasn't worth it I suppose.

they just didnt bother...i know because i signed a contract at work once so that makes me an expert on all forms of contract law...duh :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

finglashoop · 01-12-2016 11:47PM

SteM wrote: »

You are making **** up, we agree on something.

Did the ufc go after gsp when he vacated the title with fights left on his contract? Wasn't worth it I suppose.

I presume his contract ties him ufc. And he cant fight anywhere else. They can cut fighters mid contract. I doubt there's a clause forcing him to fight or be sues2 if he retires.

Didnt anderson commit to a contract with more fights than he will fight not so long ago ( 16 iirc, could be wrong ) that basically meant he couldn't fight anywhere else

JJayoo · 01-12-2016 11:47PM

Maybe he can have a proper match with the South African boxer that he apparently destroyed while sparring

John_D80 · 01-12-2016 11:53PM

@weldoninho you have it way wrong mate.

The UFC or any promotion cannot force a fighter to fight if he does not want to fight, even if he is contracted, but he can not fight for another promoter/organisation while the contract is active. Most fighters probably retire with fights left on their contract.

Actually (and ironically) if the UFC attempted to force any fighter to engage in a potentially dangerous activity like fighting, against their will, the fighter themselves would actually have reasonable grounds to seek a termination of the contract.

rob316 · 02-12-2016 12:09AM

got a picture and book signed by John today. delighted

Axwell · 02-12-2016 12:14AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

He signed a contract for 8 fights. If he retires then he is breaking that contract. Do you understand what a contract is??

Not sure where you get your information but it is way off..

Are you familiar with the UFC retirement clause? I would hazard a guess you are not based on your comments. The UFC would not be in a position to sue McGregor if he retires, his contract goes into a paused status on retirement. That is not to say he can then go and fight Mayweather if he retires, as he cant. But as for the UFC being able to sue him for retiring, nonsense.

CatFromHue · 02-12-2016 12:51AM

Depp wrote: »

theres literally no precedent of the ufc suing retiring fighters out of the countless guys that have retired in contract...you're being beligerent and ridiculous pulling unrelated cases out of your hole and its getting sad

It would be silly to do so too.

All the fighter would have to do to absolutely ruin the UFC's image would be to say he has to take the fight as they're making him, that he'd prefer to be retired, he's not going to train for it, and he won't make any effort in the fight. Then show up over weight and as soon as the fight starts just tap out and walk off.

mdwexford · 02-12-2016 01:08AM

Hilarious stuff.

rob316 · 02-12-2016 01:50AM

I'd imagine Conor could genuinely retire and walk away from a contract but he would need to sign a non-compete not to fight in any other promotion or combat sport. If he breaks that, then UFC have a case.

The Golden Miller · 02-12-2016 02:00AM

The lad can't even beat Nate Diaz. What happened to his "anyone, anywhere, anytime" mantra that all his fans willfully ignore? Instead he backed down on it and had to effectivly call off UFC 200 to get more time to train and come up with "tactics". Yet we hear him shouting "doubt me now" after a fight he was too afraid to go toe to toe with his opponent as if he proved something. I've never seen such backtracking. I've no problem with a fighter using tactics to win a fight, but he and his fans seem to pick and choose which "mouthing off" they'll get behind. If he says he'll knock out Aldo, they'll ridicule Aldo for not being able to go toe to toe with him, but against Diaz they'll have a major come down and tell the world it's not all about winning the fight up front, it's about "tactics" etc. He, and they, are spoofers imo. You either put up and fight like you talk or accept your glaring weaknesses which came to be twice against Diaz.

Depp · 02-12-2016 02:02AM

rob316 wrote: »

I'd imagine Conor could genuinely retire and walk away from a contract but he would need to sign a non-compete not to fight in any other promotion or combat sport. If he breaks that, then UFC have a case.

he wouldnt even have to, say for example he has 6 fights left on his contract all that means is he has to buy out his contract or fight the next 6 fights he has for the ufc, if he doesnt fight again theres diddly squat the ufc can do

Depp · 02-12-2016 02:03AM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The lad can't even beat Nate Diaz.

did ya miss 202 or something?

Gamebred · 02-12-2016 02:04AM

Dont take the bait please.

02-12-2016 02:18AM

Depp wrote: »

did ya miss 202 or something?

I am not agreeing with what he said, but I think he meant that Conor had to put the fight off for a few months for extra time to train.

Lukker- · 02-12-2016 02:19AM

Unifying the Money Belt

shocksy · 02-12-2016 02:21AM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The lad can't even beat Nate Diaz. What happened to his "anyone, anywhere, anytime" mantra that all his fans willfully ignore? Instead he backed down on it and had to effectivly call off UFC 200 to get more time to train and come up with "tactics". Yet we hear him shouting "doubt me now" after a fight he was too afraid to go toe to toe with his opponent as if he proved something. I've never seen such backtracking. I've no problem with a fighter using tactics to win a fight, but he and his fans seem to pick and choose which "mouthing off" they'll get behind. If he says he'll knock out Aldo, they'll ridicule Aldo for not being able to go toe to toe with him, but against Diaz they'll have a major come down and tell the world it's not all about winning the fight up front, it's about "tactics" etc. He, and they, are spoofers imo. You either put up and fight like you talk or accept your glaring weaknesses which came to be twice against Diaz.

The door is that way >>>>>>
Cheerio now

Outlaw Pete · 02-12-2016 02:36AM

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I never said anything about your comment being related to skip in any way.

You implied it by saying:

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You should ban yourself for a week for bringing Skip Bayless into anything.

Again, I didn't bring him into anything and I know he's a moron, which was why I said the video was good craic as opposed to that he made good points in it.

walshb wrote: »

Conor would have next to no chance against C level boxers, however, Mayweather would be the one I'd choose as regards danger and hurt and of course, money. Mayweather is not near a killer, and fights scared/cautious most of the time, but he'd likely still get Conor out of there in 3-4 rds.

What about glove size was different though? Obviously Mayweather is not going to fight outside of boxing rules but if they could negotiate that Mayweather had to wear MMA sized gloves, wouldn't that lessen Floyd's advantage somewhat? Given that the larger gloves in boxing play are significant factor in fighter's defensive style. Smaller gloves would likely mean there would be more chance of him getting clipped and caught than if he had the size of gloves which he is used to.

The Golden Miller · 02-12-2016 02:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not agreeing with what he said, but I think he meant that Conor had to put the fight off for a few months for extra time to train.

Exactly. You may not have to agree with me, but to willfully ignore the crux of a point in such a disingenuous manner is pathetic imo. Not only did he need extra time to train (with Diaz willing to fight anywhere, any place, anytime......hey isn't that McGregors mantra?), and to only come up with such negative tactics to win on points in all that time, makes a mockery of everything he's said before and since of every other opponent and their inability to KO opponents.

Billy86 · 02-12-2016 03:19AM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The lad can't even beat Nate Dia.

You must have missed the part where he beat Nate Diaz.

Go on, back off to the puzzle factory with you now.

ardinn · 02-12-2016 03:21AM

Billy86 wrote: »

You must have missed the part where he beat Nate Diaz.

Go on, back off to the puzzle factory with you now.

Stop quoting people on my ignore list!!! It makes me see bad things :mad:

Icelandicseige · 02-12-2016 03:26AM

I think people are underestimating Mcgregors chances against Floyd IMO.
McGregor knocked Nate Diaz 3 times at welterweight.
I know gloves will be bigger if the fight ever did happen but mcgregor has super pricision and technique aiming for the chin and although he will get hit a lot more by floyd I think he can handle what he throws.

Floyd is a points fighter. It will be a game of who's the better counter puncher. Anyway that's just my small unimportant opinion but I'd be picking McGregor for the win!!

Subcomandante Marcos · 02-12-2016 03:31AM

Floyd has fought harder hitters with much better hands than Conor.

The half decent amateur boxer from Crumlin hasn't a hope in hell.

Conor wouldn't have a hope in hell against any top 10 amateur in his weight class in Ireland in a boxing match, never mind the best boxer of the last 20 odd years and a man in the running for the greatest of all time argument.

Official Conor McGregor thread (part 3) *Updated Warning in 1st Post Re:Boxing match

Comments