I was wondering If the fertitas bros are aloud to get into another promotion like bellator , one fc , titan or any that r out there.
Or can they start there own from scratch.
If they did sign something I wonder for how long they have to stay clear of the fight game.
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
Ya I figured they signed some kind of thing like that just nothing was said that I heard of. I never heard of a forever but ur right with that amount of money could be.
I doubt they would get back into the game. I can see Dana doing something like this though.
e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
They probably got out for a reason. Doubt they'd want back in.
Of course they did. There is no way on earth anyone is going to pay that kind of money for their business and not cover themselves from them going out and starting back up again.
gokudamus -e. kaye -I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
<br /> <span class="User-264289" id="userPost59410667">i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions</span></blockquote>
This is just from some random website I googled, but i know I have heard of lifetime agreements in some states. I'm going to guess and say the UFC purchase is one of those "unique" circumstances discussed below.
"7. What is considered a reasonable duration of time?
As discussed in the previous question, what length of time is considered reasonable will generally be analyzed in conjunction with the other factors. For example if the non-compete agreement is designed to protect valuable information the reasonable duration is for the time the information has value.
Lifetime bans on a particular area of work have been upheld in unique circumstances, but, generally, courts analyze the "protectable interest" the employer has and will not uphold time restrictions which go far beyond the employer's "protectable interest." For more information about the employer's protectable interest, see the next question."
http://www.workplacefairness.org/non-compete-agreements#7
gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
There was just an article on MMAFighting today about a Las Vegas commissioner working for stations casino, which is owned by the fertittas, and in it, it said they still own a minority share, around 8%, so I doubt they would even want to work somewhere else when they're still partial owners of the UFC
Pura Vida -I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
They're not aloud, they're silently whispered in private company.
Pura Vida -gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
uhhh yeah...but the same policy applies to both...
Shiloh -Pura Vida -I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
BEARSbeetsBATTLESTARglatica -So your saying for 4 billion dollars they didn't get 100% or almost that I think Dana still has a percent I think something like 10 % so that would 80 % for 4 billion seems odd.There was just an article on MMAFighting today about a Las Vegas commissioner working for stations casino, which is owned by the fertittas, and in it, it said they still own a minority share, around 8%, so I doubt they would even want to work somewhere else when they're still partial owners of the UFC
Fertittas about to buy the raiders, they dont care about mma anymore
gokudamus -Shiloh -Pura Vida -I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
BEARSbeetsBATTLESTARglatica -I was just going to post this.There was just an article on MMAFighting today about a Las Vegas commissioner working for stations casino, which is owned by the fertittas, and in it, it said they still own a minority share, around 8%, so I doubt they would even want to work somewhere else when they're still partial owners of the UFC
They still own a stake in the UFC. That IS there incentive not to complete.
Also not sure about Nevada but non compete clauses are very hard to enforce outside of a few states like California and Washington.
In most states it's a very limited time 90 days - 180 and limited scope and hard to enforce.
So what a lot of companies do is offer deferred compensation or some sort of "consulting agreement" what means they will pay you a yearly salary to do nothing. If you decide to compete that will break the terms and you don't get paid.