UFC drops Jon Fitch, other American Kickboxing Academy fighters (interviews with Dana and Fitch)
MMAPlayground.com »
Community »
MMA News Share Forum »
UFC drops Jon Fitch, other American Kickboxing Academy fighters (interviews with Dana and Fitch)
emfleek
11/20/08 4:56:43PM
Posted by Kracker_Jap
And vice versa
Exactly.
haggiswashere
11/20/08 5:01:54PM
Posted by cmill21
Posted by tuvok500
Dana just hate " Hollywood style " agents.
So, fighters at AKA will have to clear there head and take a good " normal " agent and everything will be fine.
.
Lol says GSP's biggest fan.
MMAcca
11/20/08 5:02:54PM
ncordless
11/20/08 5:04:28PM
Posted by tuvok500
All i have to say is WAR DANA !!!
What are you going to say when GSP leaves over "business issues"?
roadking95th
11/20/08 5:07:23PM
I am very conflicted on this. I don't, and neither does anyone else, know the specifics of the arguement. However, I'll still touch on some of them.
Likeness in perpetuity. The only way I would agree is for my likeness, from the time periods of my current contract, to be used by the UFC with specifies royalties going to me or my descendents. So, if I agree on no royalties, then they can use my current likeness forever for free or whatever. However, if I sign a new contract with them, I would renegotiate the royalties. Maybe I am worth more or less. If I move on to another org or retire or whatever, I have rights to my likeness from there on out. The UFC can still use my likeness from when I was in their org., ex. roadking95th 2008. As far a Dana is concern, a comparitive situation would be him signing over his likeness to THQ forever or to the UFC and who ever buys them out eventually. So, say in 10 years, Affliction buys them, they can make him a jackass character if they want!
Yes, business is business. The UFC can do whatever they want. Jon Fitch can do whatever he wants. I can do whatever I want. If I don't like how either one does business then I can make my own decisions on who is right. It doesn't look good for the UFC right now from my perspective. At least the perpetuity thing. I am against unions though. If one doesn't like the terms I offer for employment, guess what, don't accept them. Don't make me accept your terms so that I can employ you. If you are valuable enough, I'll accept them. I mean, unionize if you want, but I should be able to kick all your asses out if I want.
Final note, sounds like Dana is having problems with other camps too.
Likeness in perpetuity. The only way I would agree is for my likeness, from the time periods of my current contract, to be used by the UFC with specifies royalties going to me or my descendents. So, if I agree on no royalties, then they can use my current likeness forever for free or whatever. However, if I sign a new contract with them, I would renegotiate the royalties. Maybe I am worth more or less. If I move on to another org or retire or whatever, I have rights to my likeness from there on out. The UFC can still use my likeness from when I was in their org., ex. roadking95th 2008. As far a Dana is concern, a comparitive situation would be him signing over his likeness to THQ forever or to the UFC and who ever buys them out eventually. So, say in 10 years, Affliction buys them, they can make him a jackass character if they want!
Yes, business is business. The UFC can do whatever they want. Jon Fitch can do whatever he wants. I can do whatever I want. If I don't like how either one does business then I can make my own decisions on who is right. It doesn't look good for the UFC right now from my perspective. At least the perpetuity thing. I am against unions though. If one doesn't like the terms I offer for employment, guess what, don't accept them. Don't make me accept your terms so that I can employ you. If you are valuable enough, I'll accept them. I mean, unionize if you want, but I should be able to kick all your asses out if I want.
Final note, sounds like Dana is having problems with other camps too.
ncordless
11/20/08 5:09:30PM
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by emfleek
Posted by tberg420
I was just thinking about something. Fitch is upset about the company making money of him when he isn't fighting for the UFC anymore. Well, shouldn't he give some of his sponsorship money back to the UFC when he fights? I mean they are allowing him to fight in their cage and make that extra money. Sounds like to me that some of the fighters aren't thinking clearly.
They're not "allowing" him to fight in their cage. You make it sound like they're doing him a favor. It's a mutual agreement (contract) meaning he's performing a service and they're benefiting from that service.
And vice versa
False. The contract is for a service to be done in exchange for consideration. The parties' responsibilities are uniquely defined and not reflexive.
MMAcca
11/20/08 5:11:54PM
Red-Dragon
11/20/08 5:13:50PM
They need to find a happy medium here. UFC do seem to be very unflexible but then you get the other side of the situation such as soccer in Europe. Players are over paid and contracts mean absoloutley nothing. I can appreciate what Dana is trying to do but he is on a bit too much of a power trip imo.
cmill21
11/20/08 5:18:31PM
This is exactly why the fighters suffer big time with only one big mma prmotion. Come on Affliction, Dream or Sengoku!
Kracker_Jap
11/20/08 5:23:12PM
Posted by ncordless
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by emfleek
Posted by tberg420
I was just thinking about something. Fitch is upset about the company making money of him when he isn't fighting for the UFC anymore. Well, shouldn't he give some of his sponsorship money back to the UFC when he fights? I mean they are allowing him to fight in their cage and make that extra money. Sounds like to me that some of the fighters aren't thinking clearly.
They're not "allowing" him to fight in their cage. You make it sound like they're doing him a favor. It's a mutual agreement (contract) meaning he's performing a service and they're benefiting from that service.
And vice versa
False. The contract is for a service to be done in exchange for consideration. The parties' responsibilities are uniquely defined and not reflexive.
CONTRACT (legal term) An agreement entered into by two or more legally competent parties by the terms of which one or more of the parties, for a consideration, undertakes to do or to refrain from doing some legal act or acts. A contract may be either unilateral, where only one party is bound to act, or bilateral, where all parties to the instrument are legally bound to act as prescribed.
Pot smoking redneck neocon definition....
I wipe your butt you wipe mine, here use this brown crayon
Jesse_Canadian_MMA
11/20/08 5:55:35PM
noticed on the UFC site, that Werdum is removed from the fighters list but no one else is?
I know the UFC doesnt keep up to date on that list but Werdum is gone so maybe they will work something out with the others
well lets face it no one cares about wellisch and if Velesquez goes well at the moment it would suck but once Cain loses a fight or 2 no one will care about him either
so heres to Fitch and the UFC working it out.
I know the UFC doesnt keep up to date on that list but Werdum is gone so maybe they will work something out with the others
well lets face it no one cares about wellisch and if Velesquez goes well at the moment it would suck but once Cain loses a fight or 2 no one will care about him either
so heres to Fitch and the UFC working it out.
nickcuc547
11/20/08 5:56:26PM
Posted by cmill21
I don't see how this is AKA's fault, they don't want the UFC to own their likeness for the rest of their lives...I woulden't sign it.
true but is that the entire story?
tuvok500
11/20/08 6:06:28PM
Posted by ncordless
Posted by tuvok500
All i have to say is WAR DANA !!!
What are you going to say when GSP leaves over "business issues"?
WAR GSP probably, but it is not going to happen, GSP is not stupid and he will not let his agent do stupid things.
cmill21
11/20/08 6:13:26PM
Posted by tuvok500
Posted by ncordless
Posted by tuvok500
All i have to say is WAR DANA !!!
What are you going to say when GSP leaves over "business issues"?
WAR GSP probably, but it is not going to happen, GSP is not stupid and he will not let his agent do stupid things.
Fitch was the one who said no to this deal, his management told him to accept it....
warglory
11/20/08 6:31:09PM
Whatever happens, I am very happy that Fitch decided not to sign. Zuffa needs to learn some boundaries, and that the UFC isn't the only pot to piss in. Fitch can make a living elsewhere if necessary, and with his work ethic, will probably be thrown back into the spotlight very quickly.
ncordless
11/20/08 7:27:08PM
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by ncordless
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by emfleek
Posted by tberg420
I was just thinking about something. Fitch is upset about the company making money of him when he isn't fighting for the UFC anymore. Well, shouldn't he give some of his sponsorship money back to the UFC when he fights? I mean they are allowing him to fight in their cage and make that extra money. Sounds like to me that some of the fighters aren't thinking clearly.
They're not "allowing" him to fight in their cage. You make it sound like they're doing him a favor. It's a mutual agreement (contract) meaning he's performing a service and they're benefiting from that service.
And vice versa
False. The contract is for a service to be done in exchange for consideration. The parties' responsibilities are uniquely defined and not reflexive.
CONTRACT (legal term) An agreement entered into by two or more legally competent parties by the terms of which one or more of the parties, for a consideration, undertakes to do or to refrain from doing some legal act or acts. A contract may be either unilateral, where only one party is bound to act, or bilateral, where all parties to the instrument are legally bound to act as prescribed.
Pot smoking redneck neocon definition....
I wipe your butt you wipe mine, here use this brown crayon
Your definition backed my statement. There is no agreement to "allow" Fitch to use the cage. The contract is for Fitch to fight (undertakes to do) for Zuffa's cash (consideration). Therefore Fitch owes nothing to the UFC for being allowed to fight in the cage. That is why he doesn't have to pay a percentage of his endorsements, which is what someone stated.
And where I am from we don't share butt wiping devices... hillbilly.
ncordless
11/20/08 7:31:18PM
Posted by ncordless
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by ncordless
Posted by Kracker_Jap
Posted by emfleek
Posted by tberg420
I was just thinking about something. Fitch is upset about the company making money of him when he isn't fighting for the UFC anymore. Well, shouldn't he give some of his sponsorship money back to the UFC when he fights? I mean they are allowing him to fight in their cage and make that extra money. Sounds like to me that some of the fighters aren't thinking clearly.
They're not "allowing" him to fight in their cage. You make it sound like they're doing him a favor. It's a mutual agreement (contract) meaning he's performing a service and they're benefiting from that service.
And vice versa
False. The contract is for a service to be done in exchange for consideration. The parties' responsibilities are uniquely defined and not reflexive.
CONTRACT (legal term) An agreement entered into by two or more legally competent parties by the terms of which one or more of the parties, for a consideration, undertakes to do or to refrain from doing some legal act or acts. A contract may be either unilateral, where only one party is bound to act, or bilateral, where all parties to the instrument are legally bound to act as prescribed.
Pot smoking redneck neocon definition....
I wipe your butt you wipe mine, here use this brown crayon
Your definition backed my statement. There is no agreement to "allow" Fitch to use the cage. The contract is for Fitch to fight (undertakes to do) for Zuffa's cash (consideration). Therefore Fitch owes nothing to the UFC for being allowed to fight in the cage. That is why he doesn't have to pay a percentage of his endorsements, which is what someone stated.
And where I am from we don't share butt wiping devices... hillbilly.
Hehe, actually... I am sorry. I am totally letting my finals exam in contract law make me be a troll. It isn't that important. Have a nice day
imanidiot777
11/20/08 7:35:00PM
Let us think for a second Dana, first of all I'm usually your biggest support, not today.
Video games do not usually stay popular for more than 5 years, most even less. Is PONG still popular? NO!
There is no reason to sign a lifetime deal on this, your video game's expected good selling period is probably only a few years, if that. RIDICULOUS!
Video games do not usually stay popular for more than 5 years, most even less. Is PONG still popular? NO!
There is no reason to sign a lifetime deal on this, your video game's expected good selling period is probably only a few years, if that. RIDICULOUS!
40ouncetofreedom
11/20/08 7:38:49PM
Wolfenstein
11/20/08 7:46:03PM
We can't argue any more?...
Image Attachment(s):
MMAcca
11/21/08 1:04:52AM
American Top Team President Sides With UFC Regarding Fitch Fiasco
The following are quotes from Dan Lambert, the President of American Top Team, essentially throwing AKA and Jon Fitch under the bus
LINK
The following are quotes from Dan Lambert, the President of American Top Team, essentially throwing AKA and Jon Fitch under the bus
LINK
tuvok500
11/21/08 2:03:38PM
Posted by MMAcca
American Top Team President Sides With UFC Regarding Fitch Fiasco
The following are quotes from Dan Lambert, the President of American Top Team, essentially throwing AKA and Jon Fitch under the bus
LINK
great article.
MMAcca
11/21/08 2:08:21PM
Posted by tuvok500
Posted by MMAcca
American Top Team President Sides With UFC Regarding Fitch Fiasco
The following are quotes from Dan Lambert, the President of American Top Team, essentially throwing AKA and Jon Fitch under the bus
LINK
great article.
