Full Jackson/Bellator Injunction Reasons

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Team Bisping

Team Bisping

TMMAC Addict
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
6,487
10,431
Damn, according to that above document, when rampage signed for Bellator he got:

- 130k Tesla car
- 100k signing bonus
-650k for fights for bellator...plus 50k for sponsorship bonuses
- Plus PPV point etc (which is where the disagreement lies)

Damn no wonder Bellator are taking Rampages ass to court, he's basically holding them to fucking ransom, from what I briefly make out...Coker has every right to enforce such a deal and Bellator have literally pumped millions into the Rampage 'brand' only for him to fuck off to the UFC at the slightest discretion.
 
Zeph

Zeph

TMMAC Addict
Jan 22, 2015
24,355
32,126
Hey, welcome ErikMagraken @ErikMagraken. Good to have you on here.

Gilbosh said:
Damn, according to that above document, when rampage signed for Bellator he got:

- 130k Tesla car
- 100k signing bonus
-650k for fights for bellator...plus 50k for sponsorship bonuses
- Plus PPV point etc (which is where the disagreement lies)

Damn no wonder Bellator are taking Rampages ass to court, he's basically holding them to fucking ransom, from what I briefly make out...Coker has every right to enforce such a deal and Bellator have literally pumped millions into the Rampage 'brand' only for him to fuck off to the UFC at the slightest discretion.
Click to expand...
Does that include the 200k they gave him that they weren't obligated to pay him? Also Luke Thomas said on his last livechat that it could have been in the region of 10mil that Bellator spent promoting either Rampage or the events that he was on. He wasn't completely clear and it sounded like second hand information, however, if it is either of those things or anywhere near that number, that is significant.
 
Shy Guy

Shy Guy

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
2,460
3,412
I'm glad they granted the injunction.

Rampage is a mess to deal with.
 
Wild

Wild

Zi Nazi
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
85,135
123,507
Erik - A lot of folks here saw the UFC's decision to "sign" Rampage when Rampage was still was under contract, as totally predictable. And there's only one reason they did it, and that's so they can turn around later and say "see, we're not a monopoly...Bellator just kept a star from us".

But it's the how it went down part that is the question...

Did they:
a) convince Rampage that Bellator "breached" their contract (knowing Bellator hadn't and would win an injunction) and use Rampage as a pawn?
b) negotiate a behind closed doors deal w/ Bellator (Scott Coker) to "borrow" Rampage for this charade.

What's your thoughts on that?
 
Zeph

Zeph

TMMAC Addict
Jan 22, 2015
24,355
32,126
I Wild Each It said:
Erik - A lot of folks here saw the UFC's decision to "sign" Rampage when Rampage was still was under contract, as totally predictable. And there's only one reason they did it, and that's so they can turn around later and say "see, we're not a monopoly...Bellator just kept a star from us".

But it's the how it went down part that is the question...

Did they:
a) convince Rampage that Bellator "breached" their contract (knowing Bellator hadn't and would win an injunction) and use Rampage as a pawn?
b) negotiate a behind closed doors deal w/ Bellator (Scott Coker) to "borrow" Rampage for this charade.

What's your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
Also, I've heard talk that it is possible that Bellator could sue the UFC over this. Is that possible, and if it is, is it likely to happen?
 
ErikMagraken

ErikMagraken

Posting Machine
Apr 9, 2015
778
2,553
I Wild Each It said:
Erik - A lot of folks here saw the UFC's decision to "sign" Rampage when Rampage was still was under contract, as totally predictable. And there's only one reason they did it, and that's so they can turn around later and say "see, we're not a monopoly...Bellator just kept a star from us".

But it's the how it went down part that is the question...

Did they:
a) convince Rampage that Bellator "breached" their contract (knowing Bellator hadn't and would win an injunction) and use Rampage as a pawn?
b) negotiate a behind closed doors deal w/ Bellator (Scott Coker) to "borrow" Rampage for this charade.

What's your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
I certainly don't have any inside knowledge of what Zuffa and others were thinking in this ordeal. I doubt there is any collaboration between the two organizations. My guess is as follows -

Bellator, with Scott Coker aboard, started moving to a model of fewer shows with more name recognition. Their 2014 year end event (Ortiz v. Bonnar) drew the highest TV ratings of any 2014 MMA event. Rampage was one of the few names under Bellator contract that could likely achieve similar ratings if promoted correctly. It was in Zuffa's interests to get Rampage away from Bellator if possible. There was at least an arguable case that Bellator breached their contract with Rampage so the UFC signed him. To them its a win / win. On the one hand if they ultimately succeed in getting Rampage they take a valuable property away from Bellator. If not, they can use this dispute as evidence of common business practices and real competition for 'elite level MMA fighters' in the anti trust lawsuit. Unless there is a quick resolution Rampage gets sidelined while the case is litigated, so win or lose they at the very least succeed in disrupting Bellator plans in the short term.
 
Wild

Wild

Zi Nazi
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
85,135
123,507
ErikMagraken said:
I certainly don't have any inside knowledge of what Zuffa and others were thinking in this ordeal. I doubt there is any collaboration between the two organizations. My guess is as follows -

Bellator, with Scott Coker aboard, started moving to a model of fewer shows with more name recognition. Their 2014 year end event (Ortiz v. Bonnar) drew the highest TV ratings of any 2014 MMA event. Rampage was one of the few names under Bellator contract that could likely achieve similar ratings if promoted correctly. It was in Zuffa's interests to get Rampage away from Bellator if possible. There was at least an arguable case that Bellator breached their contract with Rampage so the UFC signed him. To them its a win / win. On the one hand if they ultimately succeed in getting Rampage they take a valuable property away from Bellator. If not, they can use this dispute as evidence of common business practices and real competition for 'elite level MMA fighters' in the anti trust lawsuit. Unless there is a quick resolution Rampage gets sidelined while the case is litigated, so win or lose they at the very least succeed in disrupting Bellator plans in the short term.
Click to expand...
Interesting perspective sir, and makes sense. Thanks for the response.
 
D241

D241

Banned
Jan 14, 2015
4,384
4,741
I Wild Each It said:
Erik - A lot of folks here saw the UFC's decision to "sign" Rampage when Rampage was still was under contract, as totally predictable. And there's only one reason they did it, and that's so they can turn around later and say "see, we're not a monopoly...Bellator just kept a star from us".

But it's the how it went down part that is the question...

Did they:
a) convince Rampage that Bellator "breached" their contract (knowing Bellator hadn't and would win an injunction) and use Rampage as a pawn?
b) negotiate a behind closed doors deal w/ Bellator (Scott Coker) to "borrow" Rampage for this charade.

What's your thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
Most certainly A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom