Do you like the buyout of Strikeforce?

OU wrote:

LA wrote:

SF only had a small team of employees, like 15 or so I remember Coker saying. Fact is some were replacable or others offered jobs only unwilling to rearrange their lives for said jobs. No big deal here, everything we've seen so far has been great post merger, and like you really care about some employees whose actual jobs you have no clue about.

I didn't say anything about the article, I just posted it here because it was the first merger thread I found.

Well bumped thread asking about thoughts on the merger, paired with your previous thoughts on the merger, then a article about SF employees getting fired...leads to my post.

LA wrote:

OU wrote:

LA wrote:

SF only had a small team of employees, like 15 or so I remember Coker saying. Fact is some were replacable or others offered jobs only unwilling to rearrange their lives for said jobs. No big deal here, everything we've seen so far has been great post merger, and like you really care about some employees whose actual jobs you have no clue about.

I didn't say anything about the article, I just posted it here because it was the first merger thread I found.

Well bumped thread asking about thoughts on the merger, paired with your previous thoughts on the merger, then a article about SF employees getting fired...leads to my post.

It's not like I'm anti-merger/buyout. Only difference is I realize it won't be 100% positive and there will be some negative draw backs. That isn't being pessimistic that is being realistic.

OU wrote:

LA wrote:

OU wrote:

LA wrote:

SF only had a small team of employees, like 15 or so I remember Coker saying. Fact is some were replacable or others offered jobs only unwilling to rearrange their lives for said jobs. No big deal here, everything we've seen so far has been great post merger, and like you really care about some employees whose actual jobs you have no clue about.

I didn't say anything about the article, I just posted it here because it was the first merger thread I found.

Well bumped thread asking about thoughts on the merger, paired with your previous thoughts on the merger, then a article about SF employees getting fired...leads to my post.

It's not like I'm anti-merger/buyout. Only difference is I realize it won't be 100% positive and there will be some negative draw backs. That isn't being pessimistic that is being realistic.

Nah bro I see that as pessimistic, and looking great so far for all parties.....insurance, better pay, more exposure, better matchmaking, more signings, better events, deeper all around events top to bottom....

http://www.mmamania.com/2011/6/7/2211201/ufc-quick-quote-the-fans-got-screwed-when-the-ufc-bought-strikeforce

Quote :

"Great for the UFC and the Fertittas. Brilliant, brilliant move. For
the fighters? Terrible move because they don't have another place to go
and bargain. As a business man? I think it's brilliant on the part of
the UFC. I'm not even sure that when Strikeforce's
contract is up with Showtime they just don't fold it into the UFC at
that point and make it all pay-per-view. For the fans it's bad, for the
fighters it's bad, for the UFC it's terrific. Anytime you force fans to
[buy] pay-per-view for every single card you put on, then you're
screwing the fans. Not every card is a pay-per-view value. Some are just
general good TV value and then the special ones are pay-per-view value
so I feel the fans get screwed."

Gary Shaw

Never put anything into what a Boxing promoter says about MMA, hidden agendas.

Bargain? Zuffa pays fighters best outside some random overpays. Plus now they have insurance....

The part on PPV makes no sense. The UFC has always had the same PPV model, and won't expand it. If anything with their current situation between CBS and NBC networks could result in even more free MMA and only very special cards on PPV.

I think it's good overall, UFC is the face of MMA afterall.

Combat fucking lives.

Quote :

Bargain? Zuffa pays fighters best outside some random overpays. Plus now they have insurance....

There is a valid point over all, because guys like Hendo and Fedor were able to make more in Strikeforce than the UFC. And when there is competition for fighters, it keeps the promotion honest.

However the insurance aspect does provide a serious financial benefit that counters some of the negatives.

An aside on fighter pay ;


The reason TUF fighters are mostly garbage is because TUF winner contracts are some of the worst Zuffa offers, where Bellator pays 160k to the winners over a few months. This is why Bellator tournaments are loaded with talented up and comers and the occasional high value free agent and TUF is a regional show broadcast to millions with the UFC logo branded on it.

Saw the live interviews, Shaw and Arum are dinosaurs inevitably to become extinct.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

Bargain? Zuffa pays fighters best outside some random overpays. Plus now they have insurance....

There is a valid point over all, because guys like Hendo and Fedor were able to make more in Strikeforce than the UFC. And when there is competition for fighters, it keeps the promotion honest.

However the insurance aspect does provide a serious financial benefit that counters some of the negatives.

An aside on fighter pay ;


The reason TUF fighters are mostly garbage is because TUF winner contracts are some of the worst Zuffa offers, where Bellator pays 160k to the winners over a few months. This is why Bellator tournaments are loaded with talented up and comers and the occasional high value free agent and TUF is a regional show broadcast to millions with the UFC logo branded on it.

Hendo is really the only true case I've seen, but as great as Hendo is, he wasn't drawing well, and asking for oney like one of the highest paid guys in the Sport. He was paid really well with bonuses in the UFC, in some events better then SF, but SF offered more gaurenteed money, 250k a fight.

With Fedor, his contract offer from the UFC may have been more lucrative, but that was decided through M-1's riduclous want to Co-Pro.

It should be noted that both fighters next fight under the new regime with Zuffa, Hendo 800k, Fedor 1.5mill..............


On TUF, it has mostly to do with the selection process and who they chose, very good guys have been passed up for who knows what reasons.

And with the exposure on TUF, sponsorship opportunities open up more so then through Bellator IMO.

But TUF tryouts are not filled with the highest value guys. Being a TUF winner is bad for your career if you have legit legit skills. You stand to make more by signing a four fight deal and getting a new one once you win than you do being locked into a TUF contract from hell.

Actually some very good prospects have come to tryouts but been rejected for one reason or another.

I get your point though, they get locked into the winner contract, but it's still a decent deal for the winners contract and you get a ton of sponsorship opps. It's worked very well for some guys, I'm sure we can agree on that. The last couple seasons just have seen a talent dropoff, I'd guess they reevlauate that over the next couple seasons, cause it needs to be addressed, Tony seems solid tough.

Bellator is a better deal in overall pay and contract freedom, but TUF winners have their perks.

I'd like to know how Bellator is doing financially too, but that's a different discussion.

Bellator has no contract freedom. Bellator locks their dudes up. Winners, champs and active fighters are exclusive. Sure they allow eliminated fighters to weigh options though.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Bellator has no contract freedom. Bellator locks their dudes up. Winners, champs and active fighters are exclusive. Sure they allow eliminated fighters to weigh options though.

They're tourney winners vs TUF winners, not overall, we were talking one vs the other.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/6/17/2228887/strikeforce-enacts-sponsor-tax-right-before-overeem-vs-werdum-card
In 2009, the UFC enacted a sponsorship tax for companies to sponsor fighters. Now, that tax is coming to Strikeforce.
On June 8, MMA clothing company Vexillum tweeted the following:


UFC is pissing me off today the must not care about fighters getting payed by sponsors #UFC #strikeforce #mma #bitches
vexillumllc


Hey @vexillumllc the #UFC and #Strikeforce hit you with the sponsor tax huh? They are really taking $ out of the fighter's pockets w dat BS!
ConorHeun

Strikeforce heavyweight Chad Griggs, who fights Valentijn Overeem on Saturday, spoke to us on Thursday's edition of Bloody Elbow Radio about this:

Q: Chad, there's a story that came out today talking about a
new sponsorship tax coming in on Strikeforce fighters that kind of
happened recently. Have you been effected by this at all?
CG: I have. Most definitely. I don't want to get in trouble
with anybody so I won't say a whole lot other than it's, yeah, we're
having a little issue with it right now and it's definitely costing,
hopefully, we're trying to work it out, but yeah, it's snuck up on us
pretty unexpectedly, and we're looking to lose a lot of money,
potentially lose a lot of money in sponsorships. I hope that doesn't
happen, but it's not looking good.
Q: I understand you don't want to talk yourself into trouble,
but I have to ask: Is it a distraction at all that it happened this
close to a fight and all of a sudden, you have to worry about something
else that isn't the fight?
CG: I like to say it isn't, but absolutely (it is). It's not
something I really wanted to be worrying about, but I'm here, I'm
supposed to be fighting in two days and I've got all my gear and all my
shorts and I'm wondering, 'OK, well, am I going to be going out in a
Speedo to fight? Or will I be duct taped up all over?' I'm not even
really sure what I'm going to be wearing out there, but I'll be there to
fight.
Q: As a fighter who is just starting to come into his own on
the big stage, and you work for so long to make it and have those
sponsorships and earn the bigger money, is this kind of depressing news
for you?
CG: Sure, absolutely. How could it not be? If it costs you a
bunch of money, how could it not be depressing? Like I said, it is what
it is and we'll get through this fight and we'll try to learn from it
and see what the changes are and grow from it and do something different
for the next one. One fight at a time, we're gonna focus on the fight
and like I said, I'm not sure what I'll be wearing, but I'll be out
there.

business as usual...

Jesus...these thread bumps are starting to come off pretty prissy


You wanna make a thread, make one.........

Where are these for all the positive moves? Haven't seen one..

This week Reem, Cormier and Barnett all had positive things to say about how everything is run now for events. JZ recently said the takeover resulted in him finally getting a fight.




Now Zuffa did make a big mistake here, but mostly for enacting this tax one day before the event, not sure what they were thinking, doesn't make sense. I'm sure fighters already had sponsor contracts written up, so it puts mostly the lower level fighters and their sponsors in a tough position. It could also be said that fighters and their sponsors should have at least been somewhat prepared for this since the buyout. UFC/Zuffa has had a taxed sponsor policy for years, so it wasn't a new thing. It'll hurt lower level guys whose sponsors won't be so willing to pay the tax. At the same time the buyout and new exposure resulting from the buyout will open up more and bigger sponsorship deals in the future.

*THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE POST ABOUT ZUFFA, JUST THOUGHT THIS THREAD SEMI FIT HERE AND NOT NEW THREAD WORTHY, AGAIN NOT A NEGATIVE POST ABOUT ZUFFA*

http://www.mmamania.com/2011/6/23/2239589/ufc-were-not-a-monopoly-we-just-crush-a-lot

Quote :

"People always say 'monopoly.' The people who say that don't know
enough about the sport. … If you go state to state and called the
athletic commission in every state where we're sanctioned and ask them
how many MMA events were held there this year and how many times did the
UFC come, the answer is going to be once or zero. We're not a monopoly.
We're just the best. We do what we do the best."

timthebim wrote:

GDP that monopoly board is awesome!

Pulled it from Numbers post

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/6/26/2245090/post-strikeforce-purchase-nate-marquardt-a-potentially-cautionary-tale

He probably could have waited on that writeup, in certain cases there are grounds or certain actions, it's hard to look the other way as the sport gets bigger. Picture a related event in other sports, it would be a big deal.


But from what I've seen, Nate should end up finding a home in SF, joining Daley, Barnett, Monson, and whoever else has a shaky history.

Quote :

could this have waited until we find out why?

numbers wrote:

Well, yes...

Are you asking if I could have waited to find out why Marquardt was released prior to publishing this? Obviously I could have, but the point is that it wouldn’t have changed the main point of the article.

But it does.....and the writer saying it to himself doesn't really mean much.


The whole Monopoly angle whether in sight or implied, changes when grounds for expulsion are legitimate. You can't make the organizain and sport look bad like that, it would look worse and/or turnout worse in the future if you kept turning a blind eye to this shit. Once Nate gets himself together, he'll be back under Zuffa.

The point of the article is about blackballing and opportunity.

Who made the UFC look worse.

The guy who didn't do what he was supposed to, fought elevated/unchecked, lied his ass off about it nationally for 7 months, or the dude who did everything he thought he was supposed to in conjunction with all necessary parties?