Who bought M-1, part deux

Okay, so in addition to publicly shaming everyone who’s holding back on the M-1 story, I sent numerous emails to several different people demanding to know what the fuck was going on. No one would tell me who’s bought this thing but here’s the facts as they stand:

  • It wasn’t the UFC (which is too bad because Randy Couture would have looked really smart then)
  • It wasn’t ProElite (which clears Sam Caplan of hiding the truth from me to satisfy his overlords)
  • It’s not Mark Cuban (I already knew this one … that dude is too busy Dancing with the Stars and throwing mega cards like Ford vs Paulson)

While I wasn’t able to get direct confirmation that Ed Fishman isn’t involved, it doesn’t sound like he is. If Fishman was attached, we’d have already heard about it … that guy is such an attention whore. Basically it sounds like a completely new group, although as Sam Camplan stated in our last post about this, they’re planning on using a known name in the fight industry to publicly head the company. Wouldn’t it be totally wicked if it was Randy? Oh snap!

There’s the facts as they stand now. I’d like to thank everyone who responded after they realized I wouldn’t stop sending 20 emails an hour until they did. You guys are total pushovers. Remind me never to share my secrets with you.

  • http://www.signfedor.com AlexK

    Brilliant, but we beat you by a day without resorting to spam tactics :P

    http://www.signfedor.com/2007/10/12/who-bought-m-1-ie-who-signed-fedor/

  • Xavier

    Yeah, it’d be brilliant if it was Randy because then ol’ Dana could sue the ever-loving blue-eyed shit out of him. Randy’s under contract, he isn’t doing diddly-poo for a year.

    Sam Caplan also has a crappy definition of what journalism is.

  • kermit_01

    Its probably the WWE.. I read an article a few months back that talked about global expansion of WWE and mentioned an interest in promoting sanctioned MMA bouts in the US. This might be their first step.. :-p

  • http://FiveOuncesOfPain.com Sam Caplan

    Xavier:
    My definition is what I was taught in formal journalism classes. What’s your definition? Telling people that they can tell you something off the record and then committing an ethics violation and going public with it?

  • Xavier

    Well let’s see, Caplan, being a person that works with journalists daily, I’ll drop perspective.

    No source is “off the record”, there are two kinds of sources. Open and anonymous. A source that gives you information he doesn’t want traced back to him is treated as a confidential source. As a practical example, Watergate. Imagine if ol’ “Deep Throat” had told Woodward and Bernstein the facts of Watergate and they didn’t report on them because he said “oh snap son, this is just for your ears only, don’t report it!” Sure, the information you have isn’t “Watergate”, but the point is the principle.

    No information given is truly given “off the record” when speaking with a reporter. No legitimate journalist would accept such information. A source speaking with a journalist should be told that any information will be done with what the journalist pleases (after all, sources are not to control what information journalists give out) but that the source can choose to be open or anonymous.

    Imagine if I went to a reporter with say, news of a murder. And I said, oh no, reporter, I’m off the record. You can’t do anything with that information. There is no reporter worth their salt that would abide by such dictation. They would simply put “sources say” or “a source close to the situation says.” That’s standard operating procedure for reporters. It’s an ethics violation to even take information “off the record” and allowing a source to dictate your reporting.

    You may have gone to “formal journalism class” but you certainly don’t have much practical experience in the media. If we want to pull our dicks out and compare as you seem to be obsessed with doing (Which, really, is a appeal to authority, you should have learned that in your logical thinking courses), we can certainly do that. There’s nothing I’ve ever told a reporter that has been “off the record”, just whether I wished the information to be attributed to me or not. Confidentiality is how a reporter is to treat sources, not giving them the power to exercise de facto editorial control over your reporting. No proper reporter would ever tell someone that they could be told what information to report. Period.

    While we’re on the subject of “you being a reporter” and your attempts to throw out the “I’m a reporter, I know the ethics of it”, had you been a person THAT observant about reporter ethics, you wouldn’t be paid by a primary source as a reporter. Imagine if say, Jim Gray went to work for David Stern and still tried to report on oh… FIBA. Or as a less obscure sports example, imagine if Dan Rather went to work for the Democratic Party and then kept reporting on other political parties.

    You, by accepting a position with EliteXC, are no longer a legitimate reporter by any ethical standards. You, throwing yourself under the shield of “journalistic ethics” when answering criticism are literally shitting on the idea of what a reporter should be. You’re a paid shill now, you’re not a reporter.

    Lastly, as a practicing MMA fighter, you also have another conflict of interest, being that as a person who has a pecuniary interest in the profession, meaning that your “reporting” on your profession is gimped from day one. Again, real-life example so you can understand… let’s say Brian Williams takes a job as a low-level engineer and then starts a media outlet “reporting” on other engineers, many of whom are high level and also about companies that haven’t hired him or may be in a position to hire him. Williams “reporting” is automatically suspect, is Williams going to write a story that may hurt a potential employer?

    By both working as a paid employee for EliteXC and putting yourself into the profession you “report on” as a low level individual wishing to work up the ranks, you compromise any attempt at objectivity you wish to have.

    Anyways, what you should do in this situation is write up the information, attribute it to an anonymous source and be done with it. Running around like Little Sally with a Secret is not only goofy, it’s certainly nothing any legitimate reporter would do. You’d have a point if people were asking you to reveal the identity of your source and burn it, but nobody is asking that.

    And yeah, that was a long as hell reply that I’ll probably get flamed for because writing at length = evil.

    Lastly, I actually like most of the work you’ve done, especially your interviews. Just don’t play holier than thou with people that know better.

  • Rollo the Cat

    Sam or anyone else who knows the real story,

    Here is a question I think you may be able to answer. What chance do you give the new group for success? Given all the other failures–and wealthy failures–in this business and given that Fedor has failed miserably to attract a crowd in the US, with your knowledge of who these people are, do you think they will be different?

  • http://FiveOuncesOfPain.com Sam Caplan

    LOL, Xavier, you’re too funny but I’ll indulge because this is just too easy:
    “No source is “off the record”, there are two kinds of sources. Open and anonymous.”
    That’s flat out incorrect. That might be your perception but it’s not reality. You wouldn’t survive as a reporter if you actually tried to apply that theory.
    “A source that gives you information he doesn’t want traced back to him is treated as a confidential source.”
    Incorrect. There are different ways to report something that’s on the record. Either you can quote the source or the source agrees that you can quote them anonymously. You can’t extract info from someone off the record and then decide it’s okay to claim they are an anonymous source when they haven’t consented to being any kind of source. When they see you went behind your back they will call you and you’ll be held accountable. You can either lie and say you got it from somewhere else or you could own up to it and burn a bridge.
    BTW, what journalists do you work with on a daily basis? The National Enquirer?
    “No information given is truly given “off the record” when speaking with a reporter.”
    Again, that’s your perception and it’s not reality. You work with journalists, but are you one yourself? Out of curiosity, do you do reporting of any kind on a full-time basis in a specialized industry?
    “Imagine if I went to a reporter with say, news of a murder. And I said, oh no, reporter, I’m off the record. You can’t do anything with that information. There is no reporter worth their salt that would abide by such dictation.”
    ROFL. First Watergate and now a murder. What’s the term I’m looking for? Apples and oranges? Well, maybe not because apples and oranges are both fruits and there is a much bigger gap between a presidential scandal and who the actual owner of M-1 is. And are you so naive to believe that a reporter who has a city beat or a Washington beat reports everything that’s told to them? Yet you claim to work with journalists on a daily basis.
    If you want to talk presidential scandals, look at Bill Clinton. Do you believe for a second that Matt Drudge was the first person who knew about Monica Lewinsky? He heard something second hand and reported it. You can’t tell me the people working the Washington beat on a daily basis didn’t already know. Drudge heard a few people talking and since he had nothing to lose, he went with it. Could someone working the full-time beat have reported it? It would have been real tough because those reporters could have been in serious trouble if the White House challenged them and they didn’t have anything to produce on the record. Drudge was fortunate that once he leaked the info that people were willing to come forward at that point. But you probably consider Drudge to be a true journalist and we’ll just have to agree to disagree if that’s the case.
    “You may have gone to “formal journalism class” but you certainly don’t have much practical experience in the media.”
    You might want to do a little research about my experience. I won’t tell you because you’ll accuse me of “pulling my dick out.”
    “You, by accepting a position with EliteXC, are no longer a legitimate reporter by any ethical standards.”
    Another incorrect statement. I don’t work for EliteXC. I work for ProElite.com, a subsidiary of ProElite, Inc. ProElite, Inc. is the parent company of ProElite.com and EliteXC, which are separate. Now, is there a close association? No doubt. But I do not work for EliteXC and am not accountable to anyone who works as a part of the fight promotion. I can’t tell anyone whether they should consider me a legitimate reporter or not. That’s up to them to decide. But the bottom line is that I am not employed by EliteXC and that I am employed by ProElite.com.
    If you want to make your statements, that’s fine, but why don’t you try reading my work and cite specific examples of where my integrity has been compromised? Not only have I been critical of EliteXC since my hiring, I’ve even been critical of ProElite.com for the way in which they promoted a Nick Diaz chat. And by the way, I work for ProElite.com so I have already in fact been critical of my own employer.
    “Anyways, what you should do in this situation is write up the information, attribute it to an anonymous source and be done with it.”
    No sir, that’s what you would do and that could be a big reason why you work with journalists instead of actually being one yourself. If you did that, whoever told you off the record would know you leaked it and they wouldn’t talk to you again. Furthermore, that person would then warn other people in the industry not to talk to you. Your reputation in the industry would be shit. A few people might talk to you and feed you something here and there but you’d be written off by the vast majority of your colleagues.
    “Running around like Little Sally with a Secret is not only goofy, it’s certainly nothing any legitimate reporter would do. You’d have a point if people were asking you to reveal the identity of your source and burn it, but nobody is asking that.”
    This is the only valid point you make in your entire post. You’re right, unless I can report the whole story I shouldn’t report any of it. It’s not easy reading people coming up with completely outlandish theories that take away from the real story. Couture didn’t leave because he has another job in the fight industry lined up, he left the UFC because he didn’t feel he was being treated fairly. But whatever, I will go back to lurker mode and you won’t have to worry about me “teasing” anyone here again. I sincerely apologize if I have in fact pissed anyone off. My intent wasn’t to come off as a braggart by saying “Haha, I know something you don’t know.” My intent was to let people know they are setting themselves up for disappointment and when it comes to speculating on M-1’s buyer, they probably should be focusing on a complete different genre of business. I was just trying to help as much as I can and my intent was not to brag or tease like it apparently came off.
    “Lastly, I actually like most of the work you’ve done, especially your interviews. Just don’t play holier than thou with people that know better.”
    You’ve offered NOTHING in your diatribe that has me convinced that you even marginally know better. To me, you come off as nothing more than someone talking a lot out of their ass while clinging to a lot of half-baked ideas about journalism. But that’s just my perception.

  • http://FiveOuncesOfPain.com Sam Caplan

    Rollo:
    I give their chance less than 50% because there is over-saturation in MMA right now. Plus, the plan is to promote globally and if PRIDE and UFC has taught us anything, it might be MMA in both countries but it’s still very different. Promoting MMA in Russia is different than the U.S. and promoting in the U.S. is different in Japan. Trying to compete without catering to those specific global markets is going to be tough. And maybe they will try to cater to those specific countries’ tastes but that essentially becomes the same workload and cost of running separate promotions even though it will still be called M-1.
    We’re seeing a lot of expansion between Cuban’s efforts and the new M-1. There’s even talk of 1-2 new promotions starting in Japan. J-Rock apparently is holding a press conference next week and there’s a lot of talk that people formally affiliated with PRIDE may do something.
    After this period of expansion I think we’ll begin to see consolidation with promotions merging and trying to offer the biggest money matchups they can. I mean, and this is just conjecture on my part, but whose to say that the IFL and M-1 won’t the same company a year from now? After the PRIDE acquisition, Dana White said he was done buying companies. But there’s always the chance he may revisit that statement a year from now if there’s a fighter he wants. When the UFC purchased assets from the WFA, it was pretty much all about getting access to Quinton Jackson. Granted, they have used other fighters who were under contract with the WFA, but if Quinton Jackson wasn’t one of them I don’t see them even wasting their time with the deal.

  • http://www.signfedor.com AlexK

    I have a question for Sam. Does it really make sense to accept off-the-record information?

    Consider the following: Tomorrow, a different source tells you the same information about M-1’s new owners ON the record but they wish to remain anonymous. If you publish this information (that you heard both on-the-record and off-the-record), won’t your off-the-record source be upset? You can’t prove you got information from somebody else because your on-the-record source is confidential.

    So really, doesn’t accepting information off the record basically prevent you from publishing that information? In effect, the off-the-record source is dictating what you may and may not report. I think this may be what Xavier was getting at.

    Also, I think you should make it more clear on the “5oz of pain” website that you are affiliated with ProElite and that the site is owned by an employee of ProElite.

    I’ve seen other journalists acknowledge their affiliations at the end of each article and I’ve always thought it was highly professional and ethical. This is especially important when you’re reporting negative news about rival companies, such as the recent UFC happenings.

  • http://FiveOuncesOfPain.com Sam Caplan

    I have a question for Sam. Does it really make sense to accept off-the-record information?
    Consider the following: Tomorrow, a different source tells you the same information about M-1’s new owners ON the record but they wish to remain anonymous. If you publish this information (that you heard both on-the-record and off-the-record), won’t your off-the-record source be upset? You can’t prove you got information from somebody else because your on-the-record source is confidential.”
    I believe in protecting my sources but if I get the story from someone else, that’s where I draw the line. I’m a reporter with ethics but not their PR firm.
    “So really, doesn’t accepting information off the record basically prevent you from publishing that information? ”
    I would never let a source dictate how I work with other sources. If I encountered a source that was as overbearing as that, I wouldn’t deal with them.
    “Also, I think you should make it more clear on the “5oz of pain” website that you are affiliated with ProElite and that the site is owned by an employee of ProElite.”
    Alex, I work for ProElite.com and not EliteXC. There’s a big difference regardless of whether people want to acknowledge that or not. Plus, I’ve made it known over and over that I worked for ProElite.com. Do I have it in a byline after every post I make on 5 Oz.? No, but I haven’t exactly hid the fact that I also have a blog on ProElite.com.

  • Xavier

    Goddamn you and your poorly spaced paragraphs.

    “That’s flat out incorrect. That might be your perception but it’s not reality. You wouldn’t survive as a reporter if you actually tried to apply that theory.”

    You make no argument here, just a weak attempt to appeal to supposed authority. Logical fallacy, mein freud.

    “Incorrect. There are different ways to report something that’s on the record. Either you can quote the source or the source agrees that you can quote them anonymously. You can’t extract info from someone off the record and then decide it’s okay to claim they are an anonymous source when they haven’t consented to being any kind of source. When they see you went behind your back they will call you and you’ll be held accountable. You can either lie and say you got it from somewhere else or you could own up to it and burn a bridge.”

    You’re not supposed to extract “off the record” information to begin with. There is no journalistic properness in doing so. No reporter should be having conversations with people who expect to dictate their reporting. That’s a period. I’m not sure who taught you your “journalistic ethics” but he wasn’t much of a journalist himself if he taught you that you, when acting as a journalist, are supposed to be dictated to what information you may or may not release. Sources who provide sensitive information are to be regarded as anonymous. You’d have a point if you were ‘still investigating’ the information… but if you were doing that, you wouldn’t be playing Little Sally with a Secret on this blog.

    “BTW, what journalists do you work with on a daily basis? The National Enquirer?”

    I’ve been interviewed by hundreds of reporters for hundreds of publications both in the United States and in Europe, worked on hundreds of stories with reporters, most national, and head a company that is a paid consultant to a national newsmagazine. The work my company has done has been groundbreaking and highly controversial, seen by at this point, well over a hundred million people. Your attempts to insult someone you know nothing about, who hasn’t insulted you, are pretty petty and ridiculous. What you’re doing is trying to get me to wave a dick back at you, which again… appeal to authority, an insipid logical fallacy.

    “Again, that’s your perception and it’s not reality. You work with journalists, but are you one yourself? Out of curiosity, do you do reporting of any kind on a full-time basis in a specialized industry?”

    Again, you’re trying to appeal to authority. First, YOU are not a journalist. So acting like you “know more about Journalism” than someone like myself or any commentor on this blog is absolutely ridiculous. You’ve written for blogs, you’ve done interviews. You currently are employed by industry. You’re not a reporter or a journalist. You may one day become one, but you’re currently not one.

    “If you want to talk presidential scandals, look at Bill Clinton. Do you believe for a second that Matt Drudge was the first person who knew about Monica Lewinsky? He heard something second hand and reported it. You can’t tell me the people working the Washington beat on a daily basis didn’t already know. Drudge heard a few people talking and since he had nothing to lose, he went with it. Could someone working the full-time beat have reported it? It would have been real tough because those reporters could have been in serious trouble if the White House challenged them and they didn’t have anything to produce on the record. Drudge was fortunate that once he leaked the info that people were willing to come forward at that point. But you probably consider Drudge to be a true journalist and we’ll just have to agree to disagree if that’s the case.”

    I don’t consider Drudge a journalist. Other reporters were working on the story, actively trying to put the pieces together. They weren’t going on PresidentLinker.com saying “I know a secret, a secret I know, about the president! I know!” and then clamming up. Reporters and journalists don’t do that. If they’re working on the story, they work on the f’n story until it’s fit to print.

    They also don’t admit “getting information mostly for their own personal edification because they’re a fan of the presidency.”

    “Another incorrect statement. I don’t work for EliteXC. I work for ProElite.com, a subsidiary of ProElite, Inc. ProElite, Inc. is the parent company of ProElite.com and EliteXC, which are separate. Now, is there a close association? No doubt. But I do not work for EliteXC and am not accountable to anyone who works as a part of the fight promotion. I can’t tell anyone whether they should consider me a legitimate reporter or not. That’s up to them to decide. But the bottom line is that I am not employed by EliteXC and that I am employed by ProElite.com.”

    Shell game. You can try to spin this to bail you out, but it doesn’t work. You’re paid by a corporation which has an active monetary interest in the profession you “cover.” The reason ProElite.com exists is to pump up EliteXC. Sure, they cover other promotions but that’s to draw in the rubes so they can advertise their primary business, EliteXC. There is no substantial separation. To even make that argument means that you have no real defense of calling yourself a reporter and working for a major company in the profession you claim to cover.

    The most apt comparison would be Kevin Iole. Let’s say Iole took a position writing on a website called Zuffa.com, paid by Zuffa and tried to defend his label as a “journalist” by saying “I’m not paid by the UFC, I’m paid by Zuffa.” There would be no substantial difference and he’d be flamed to hell and back.

    “If you want to make your statements, that’s fine, but why don’t you try reading my work and cite specific examples of where my integrity has been compromised? Not only have I been critical of EliteXC since my hiring, I’ve even been critical of ProElite.com for the way in which they promoted a Nick Diaz chat. And by the way, I work for ProElite.com so I have already in fact been critical of my own employer.”

    Doesn’t matter if you’re critical of them in Example A or Example B. Bill Simmons of ESPN is often critical of ESPN, for example. However, nobody would really refer to him as a serious journalist “about ESPN.” You’ve compromised your objectivity regarding the sport of MMA by taking a job with an MMA company. You could well be a great guy, utterly ethical in what you do, but the fact remains that by even doing so, you’ve committed a serious ethical violation if you continue to try to call yourself a journalist. The best solution would not to call yourself a journalist. You’re not one. That’s not exactly a bad thing and I don’t see why you’re so titchy over it.

    If you were hired as an ombudsman, your argument would make more sense. But you weren’t.

    “No sir, that’s what you would do and that could be a big reason why you work with journalists instead of actually being one yourself. If you did that, whoever told you off the record would know you leaked it and they wouldn’t talk to you again. Furthermore, that person would then warn other people in the industry not to talk to you. Your reputation in the industry would be shit. A few people might talk to you and feed you something here and there but you’d be written off by the vast majority of your colleagues.”

    You again miss the point. You, nor any journalist worth their salt, should never take information as “off the record.” You haven’t been “fed” anything, a journalist that is fed information makes use of information. They don’t play “I’ve got a secret” on a public blog with it. You’ve not made use of the information other than to pump up your own image online by acting as though you have double-secret-buddy-pal sources. That’s not a journalist. Ask anyone that works for the New York Times, the LA Times, etc, information that they receive is attributed to confidential sources once the information has been painstakingly confirmed, usually with a secondary source.

    What you did as a journalist, and this you’ve never tried to respond to, is allow your source to dictate to you what stories you can and cannot write. That’s improper.

    “This is the only valid point you make in your entire post. You’re right, unless I can report the whole story I shouldn’t report any of it. It’s not easy reading people coming up with completely outlandish theories that take away from the real story. Couture didn’t leave because he has another job in the fight industry lined up, he left the UFC because he didn’t feel he was being treated fairly. But whatever, I will go back to lurker mode and you won’t have to worry about me “teasing” anyone here again. I sincerely apologize if I have in fact pissed anyone off. My intent wasn’t to come off as a braggart by saying “Haha, I know something you don’t know.” My intent was to let people know they are setting themselves up for disappointment and when it comes to speculating on M-1’s buyer, they probably should be focusing on a complete different genre of business. I was just trying to help as much as I can and my intent was not to brag or tease like it apparently came off.”

    Who is pissed off? I said that you have a crappy definition of journalism and you’ve acted the drama queen trying to “call me out” and attack me for that statement. You need to get used to taking criticism, though I’ve certainly had my faults when taking criticism myself, so it’s hard to blame you as you’re obviously not used to it.

    “You’ve offered NOTHING in your diatribe that has me convinced that you even marginally know better. To me, you come off as nothing more than someone talking a lot out of their ass while clinging to a lot of half-baked ideas about journalism. But that’s just my perception.”

    You’ve not substantively responded to any of my points in any of your long, poorly-formatted response, preferring to try to pick and choose statements to attack. Trying to drag me into a dick waving contest (which you’ve successfully done) isn’t mature or logical. Bone up on the logical fallacies when arguing, because right now you’re confusing “street cred” with “arguing principles.”

    To me you come off way too defensive and whiny, you should either argue the points or chill the fuck out trying to argue with everyone who takes a shot at you. You’re a talented interviewer, you write good blog entries. You’re a paid employee of a company in the business you cover. You’re not a reporter or a journalist, so don’t try to put on airs to act like you are.

  • http://FiveOuncesOfPain.com Sam Caplan

    One other thing I wanted to comment on was Xavier’s use of murders and Watergate as it pertains to working with sources. There’s a big difference between withholding information that could be considered a matter of national security and information that won’t really harm or damage anyone but the source.
    Look, if I walk into a gym and I see a fighter shooting up and he looks at me and says, “This is off the record, okay?” No way. The guy is not only cheating but he’s breaking the law. If I encountered a scandal that compromised the integrity of MMA then I wouldn’t hold back on something like that.

  • Xavier

    “Does it really make sense to accept off-the-record information?

    Consider the following: Tomorrow, a different source tells you the same information about M-1’s new owners ON the record but they wish to remain anonymous. If you publish this information (that you heard both on-the-record and off-the-record), won’t your off-the-record source be upset? You can’t prove you got information from somebody else because your on-the-record source is confidential.

    So really, doesn’t accepting information off the record basically prevent you from publishing that information? In effect, the off-the-record source is dictating what you may and may not report. I think this may be what Xavier was getting at.”

    This is precisely why reporters are not supposed to accept (and in Sam’s case, go sniffing around for) off the record information when it comes to journalistic ethics. The only reporters I’ve ever seen that would do such things only exist in movies. Great post, Alex.

  • http://www.signfedor.com AlexK

    We’ve gotten to the point where we’re splitting hairs, but I can’t help but comment because you glossed over what I am trying to say:

    1) “I would never let a source dictate how I work with other sources. If I encountered a source that was as overbearing as that, I wouldn’t deal with them.”

    The source doesn’t have to be overbearing or impose stipulations. In the situation I described above, you can either go ahead and publish (and burn the source) or you have to sit on the story.

    It’s a crappy choice both ways and you only find yourself in that situation because you chose to accept off-the-record information.

    2) The difference between ProElite.com and EliteXC is superficial, they are both owned by the same people which casts suspicion on your impartiality and your equivocation isn’t helping.

    People who read your news stories might not know who you are. They may come from a link to your site or a Google search, they deserve to know who wrote the article and any potential conflicts of interest.

  • ted dibiase

    hey caplan. tell us who paid fedor or shut the hell up.

    no one cares about journalism. you nerd

  • kermit_01

    I say Xavier vs. Sam 5- 5 minute rounds for champion of most long winded posts in a single blog entry.. :-p

  • http://www.fightlinker.com Fightlinker.com

    Kermit FTW!

    I feel kinda bad singling out Sam Caplan on this one … he’s by no means the only one that knows. He shouldn’t be getting the shitty end of the stick just because he hangs out with us!

  • Karl

    Fear not, we are smearing feces across the entire series of tubes that is the Interweb.

  • ted dibiase

    everyone make a circle. GEEK FIGHT!!!!!

  • Jonathan

    Oh god what the fuck has happened here? Who in the hell bought M-1? Either tell us and let it be, or don’t tell us and just leave us the fuck alone. I hate having someone try and hold shit over my head. “I know a secret and you don’s nah nah nah nah.” That is what you are coming off to me as Sam. You know some news…wow…you’re cool. A-1. Jackass.

  • Trevor

    And as for another appeal to authority, I too was a journalism major (in Ottawa, Ontario), and I had been under the impression that we couldn’t use things sources told us off the record. Until I interviewed a candidate running for city council who told me many things “off the record” about how he believed his opposition had sabotaged his campaign (by stealing road signs and the like). When my professor/school newspaper editor saw this in my notes, and I told her it was off the record, so I couldn’t use it, she went on and on about how nothing is really off the record and that that’s a myth, essentially. She then made a point of having a class lesson about it. Somehow I doubt it’s just “different” in Canada.

  • Jonathan

    Also, I have learned that nothing is off the record. In fact, I had a dinner interview today with the paper, and I knew going in that EVERYTHING I said, whether her notepad was out or not, was going to end up the paper if it was juicy and scandalous enough. I was told the reporter that some stuff was “off the record” and I read about it in the paper next day and caught alot of flack for it.

  • kermit_01

    “Somehow I doubt it’s just “different” in Canada.”

    Sure it is, its 75 cents to a dollar.. :-p

  • GonzoDamon

    Hmmm…I’ve just been snooping around on the curiosity side of this whole M-1 Internet clusterfuck, but it really makes sense to me that this new company -COULD BE- called World Victory Road, Inc.

    Now, I haven’t seen anyone spell it out, but it would make sense that with the Japanese side of things secured with that name, the addition of M-1/Fedor/Red Devil, and the, as of yet, unknown US-based backer, this COULD make sense!

    That’s just where I am thinking. Obviously, in no way am I sure or does this really help with the rest, but it APPEARS to be a good start.

  • GonzoDamon

    Whatever and whoever it is, I just hope that they are smart businessmen and will end the UFC monopoly. As much as people like to say that MMA is a sport, which it is, it is completely different sport. I really don’t think that a competitor to the UFC crown would be anything like the XFL attempting to grab some NFL viewers.

    Now, the big question is, is MMA on a roll or is the UFC on a roll.

    When Xerox released their facsimile machines, if GE decided to get it, could they really sell in a market where the product’s name has become synonymous with a company?

    SO, to the average Joe – is MMA UFC or is MMA MMA by any company? Personally, I think that MMA is UFC right now, at least mostly. Hopefully, once people get involved and interested, MMA will become MMA.

    I just remember that I watched UFC for YEARS! I loved it! For me, MMA -was- UFC. I was oblivious. One day, I got on the Internet to look for interviews of a fighter I liked (can’t remember whom.) I do remember that it was a heavyweight. Once I found an interview, there was a comments section at the end. Most people were talking very highly of this UFC heavyweight, but there was this one guy that said something to the effect of “Man, if you think this guy is bad, you should check out Fedor Emelianenko.” Followed by a YouTube highlight. (This began my awe of a man, of whom I couldn’t even pronounce the name.)

    From that day on, my world was changed. Finding PrideFC was like getting a degree in MMA. I realized that there was more out there, offerings that the UFC couldn’t even begin to touch (at the time, at least). To be honest, the UFC felt watered-down from that point on. I still watched the UFC, but not religiously and the fervor was gone.

    Could it be the same for the rush of mainstream MMA fans? Sure it could! Now, all this new company has to do is make smart decisions!

  • Jonathan

    I have my inside sources…well, one actually, and he did not tell who was buying the M-1 organization, but he did tell me that they are a totally new group of guys that we have never heard of before. So there, you know as much as I know on the subject, but I do not think that it will be Mark Cuban, Bodog, the new Japanese company. If I had to guess, I think that it might be the new company that is being formed by the head of DEEP and another former Pride Exec.

    P.S. It is not the UFC either.

  • kermit_01

    My vote is the WWE.. Nothing would be better for MMA than 20 minute pre-match promos and a good chair shot from time to time..

  • kentyman

    Damn, I’m late to the party.

    So, uh, whose dick was bigger?

Follow Fightlinker

Archives