Contracts

First topic message reminder :

After another victory for the Brothers K this weekend, quite a few posters have been highlighting the Klits contracts as the stumbling block to a fight with David Haye amongst others.

The term "slave contract" has been bandied about and the general feel was that the contracts were heavily favoured towards the champs.

On another thread discussing Samuel Peter, a poster mentioned about after his first loss, he went away and got a few wins to make himself the mandatory challenger again. Something that David Haye doesnt want to do.

So my question is, how much power do the champions have in the contract negotiations when facing a mandatory?

If Chisora had been a mandatory, what would have been the difference in purse and contract details for example.

azania wrote:Manos, I'm not going on about the venues, home fighting etc. I've conceded that point and you are correct there. Point taken.

As for your point about Wlad wanting to go through with it but for Haye. Haye wasnt contracted to fight Chisora. Normal contracts will include compensation for such eventuality or at least an offer for a fight on the undercard. Chisora got nothing. He was screwed over. Cant blame Haye for that. Totally Wlad's doing. 100% his doing.

It doesn't matter that they eventually gave him a title fight. The point is that Chis went to full training camp, sparring etc ll at his expense and Wlad renaged. That's the bottom line. Offered nothing in return. Poor show. Classless.

I agree that Haye is talking his way into a title fight. He doesn't deserve one. But that doesn't excuse K2 dicking Chisora.

You will find that I am very consistent on this subject. When something is wrong I'll call it wrong. I wont call a spade a digging impliment.

Point is Chis lost money on the proposed Wlad fight and fights that could have happened.

The reason Im going on about the home venues is because you threw it out there in the first place. Why? It wasnt because it happene to fit nicely with portraying the Klitschkos in a negative light was it?

Chisora ended up getting a shot that at no point in his career did he deserve. Again, portraying Chisora as this appalling victim when he actually got a career high pay day and easy title opportunity and plenty of exposure in the end. All things considered, hardly horrific. Whatever inconvinience was incurred from the withdrawals, was some way compensated by the fact that he was made good on his title opportunity. Especially at a time where it would be easy to dismiss him (and everyone did).

Also, the fact Wlad tried to push the Chisora fight through, and the fact the K2 ended up giving Chisora his title shot is hardly consistent with your portrayol of them as despicable people. Due to Hayes bogus retirement, July date or nothing, no Chisora fight beforehand policy Wlad was backed into an unwinnable position. Had he followed though with the Chisora fight, you know full well the outcry from Haye and his supporters would have been defeaning. Now that he didnt, its become a case of shafting Chisora. Had Chisora never got a title shot in the end, Id be inclined to agree he was very much a victim. But getting one when he had lost two fights in a row was ample compensation.

ShahenshahG wrote:azania - can you provide a link for chisora not recieving compo please

I cant post Buncie's boxing hour. It was discussed there earlier today. Between 7.30 and 8pm.

D

As boxers I admire them. They dont excite me, but they are damned good. Wlad more so that Vit imo. But as people, their aloof portrayal of themselves is totally false and far from the actuality.

They did not offer Chis compo. Chis lost shed loads of money because of that. That is totally classless behaviour. And to somehow pin some of the blame on Haye is ridiculous. More likely Wlad used Chis as a pawn to make Haye concede more terms. Poor showing.

It doesn't matter if they later granted a fight later. A career high payday> £100k is a pittance for a world HW title challenger should be offered. But yes a career high payday. If Khan had behaved like that, this board wold be on meltdown mode.

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:azania - can you provide a link for chisora not recieving compo please

I cant post Buncie's boxing hour. It was discussed there earlier today. Between 7.30 and 8pm.

D

K2 claimed they paid compensation earlier.

What a surprise - we're back to that familiar position. Who do you believe. Last week - Warrencorp were the biggest liars in boxing. The week before it was the house_that_Bob_built. Now its K2 and Boente.

Who next week? I'd just like to stay informed.

One more insult gets thrown - the author gets a ban. One more attempt to beat the swear filter - the author gets a ban.

Am I being clear?

Its bad enough that some people are choosing to distort the truth with mendacious and wicked propaganda.

To do it with bad language is a breach of house rules too far.

You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebodys gonna end up crying

Of course Team K2 never tell lies and are very honourable and classy guys. Of course.

Warren knows more than most the power oflitigation after King took him to the cleaners. I doubt he would make allegations like that if it was not true. Frankly the way in which K2 have behaved lends me to believe Warren in this instance.

Is Beonte a liar? Well on sky sports he said tha Haye was told 2 weeks ago that Vit was not interested in a fight. Interestingly Vit was still promoting a potential fight even on thursday. I know, Vit never actually said he wanted to fight Haye, or those exact words. But he was continually speaking of Haye.

But carry on. K2 good all else bad.

Why is the red lettering in response to my post?

azania wrote:Of course Team K2 never tell lies and are very honourable and classy guys. Of course.

Stop it. Just stop it. No-one's saying that. You're painting them as the Devil's assistants - which is unfair and untrue as nothing they've done is anything worse than anyone else in boxing today - and in some respects - they are more generous with their dealings than most in boxing today. See above posts with regards to contracts, unification money, fighting abroad etc.

azania wrote:Is Beonte a liar?

Who cares - you asked me when Haye's team had lied the other day - I've just pointed out an example. I'm "retired". Funny retirement that one. I'll be trying for something more relaxing myself.

azania wrote:But carry on. K2 good all else bad.

No-one's saying that, stop making things up.

azania wrote:Why is the red lettering in response to my post?

A general warning to all az, not just yourself.

100k for a heavyweight is not generous by any stretch of the imagination, Richard Dunn got 200k nearly 30 years ago and that was against Ali who coincidentally only got about 1mil. Now Dunn getting a higher proportion than Chisora when facing Ali doesn't seem right to me.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:100k for a heavyweight is not generous by any stretch of the imagination

Is that all Chisora got then?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Of course Team K2 never tell lies and are very honourable and classy guys. Of course.

Stop it. Just stop it. No-one's saying that. You're painting them as the Devil's assistants - which is unfair and untrue as nothing they've done is anything worse than anyone else in boxing today - and in some respects - they are more generous with their dealings than most in boxing today. See above posts with regards to contracts, unification money, fighting abroad etc.

azania wrote:Is Beonte a liar?

Who cares - you asked me when Haye's team had lied the other day - I've just pointed out an example. I'm "retired". Funny retirement that one. I'll be trying for something more relaxing myself.

azania wrote:But carry on. K2 good all else bad.

No-one's saying that, stop making things up.

azania wrote:Why is the red lettering in response to my post?

A general warning to all az, not just yourself.

I'm not painting them as anything other than what they are. Unscrupullous businessmen who are very ruthless and will screw another boxer just to make a buck. They have previous in the chisora case.

I'm not saying that other promoters haven't done worse. My point is that those guys are not the classy, humble, bratwurst eating saints as many portray them to be. The hypocracy is vile and they're playing a game and play it well.

During the Haye/Wlad buildup, everyone was saying how classless Haye was and how classy Wlad is. Public persona. The guy is no better or classy that anyone else. He's a snake oil salesman.

100k? In some reports I heard it was 400-700k.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:100k for a heavyweight is not generous by any stretch of the imagination, Richard Dunn got 200k nearly 30 years ago and that was against Ali who coincidentally only got about 1mil. Now Dunn getting a higher proportion than Chisora when facing Ali doesn't seem right to me.

I'd like to know the terms of the contract in case Chis won. Probably indentured labour terms.

100k is a p take.

azania wrote:As boxers I admire them. They dont excite me, but they are damned good. Wlad more so that Vit imo. But as people, their aloof portrayal of themselves is totally false and far from the actuality.

They did not offer Chis compo. Chis lost shed loads of money because of that. That is totally classless behaviour. And to somehow pin some of the blame on Haye is ridiculous. More likely Wlad used Chis as a pawn to make Haye concede more terms. Poor showing.

It doesn't matter if they later granted a fight later. A career high payday> £100k is a pittance for a world HW title challenger should be offered. But yes a career high payday. If Khan had behaved like that, this board wold be on meltdown mode.

Its an absolute fact that Haye gave Wlad an ultimatum that he ditch the Chisora fight and either fight him in July or the fight was off. Wlad even offered to stick to Hayes July date and fight Chisora beforehand but Haye insisted he drop the Chisora fight as it was too much of a risk (not unreasonable in my view, he had a point).

Do you really see Chisora as huge victim in this? He got delayed but lets not pretend Haye had 0 impact on this. It was his ultimatum that forced Wlad to choose between the two. Even Haye testifies to this. Wlad chose Haye, the whole world was happy at the time.

Chisora was compensated for his initial loss of the fight, by recieving it at a later date. A massive bonus when his career was at a low. Its not the sob story being suggested and Wlads reasons for it were circumstantial and not fully in his control. If Chisora had 1. Been deserving of a title shot and 2. Ended up not getting one then my sympathy would be greater. But he got it in the end and the fact that he did shows the K2 didnt completely shaft him.

I agree with you on the money - a reported 120k from what I read. Too stingy for a world title affair for my liking. But theres scarcely been a challenger that brought less to the table. 300k-400k would have been about fair for me.

Khan did incidentally offer McCloskey some kind of pittance for his title fight. I cant confirm it but something like 50k/60k is in my head. There reasoning was it was over twice McCloskeys highest payday to date.

Manos

Richard Schafer said tv companies would not have accepted Chisora 9 weeks before Haye as it was too much of a risk...got nothing to with Haye giving Wlad a ultimatum.

Actually sorry what Chisora got was 300,000 dollars as reported by the Ring Magazine and WBC who are holding 100,000 of it pending investigation.

Still too stingy for me but indicates a 90/10 split.

yes about 320k or 200k gbp

Wlad had the choice. Either that or pay step aside money. He chose to screw Chisora. Its all about choices. Wlad chose to do that.

It didn't get delayed. The fight was scrapped. He fought a different guy in the end. That's not compensation. He was supposed to fight the IBF/WBO champion. Instead he fought for the wbc title. Unless they are a tag team that is.

Chisora lost money from the earnings he would have got from that fight. Lost earnings having to pay for the training camp and lost earnings because he lost out on potential fights. He was royally shafter.

As for the purse. £100k for the world hw title is derisory. Khan paid McK 3 times his career best. And he was still criticised for that. Considering he a LW who historically dont get as much as HW's the figure McK is in a better light. As Ghosty pointed out Dunn got 200k 30 years ago.

I cant see how anyone cannot call that offer derisory.

I read last week that he was gettig $150k gross.

The Klit bros do annoy me nowadays

They make all these demands and clauses in a contract and in a situation like this Chisora has not earned anywhere near as much as his opponent even though he risked his health the same as Vitali and put up a good performance

Plus they always seem like one cant even take a leak without the other one looking over his shoulder saying how good he is at taking a leak

Vitali is the most self-righteous of the two. His entrance against Sam Peter was disgusting. The way the man bigged himself up after doing naff all for 4 years

azania wrote:Wlad had the choice. Either that or pay step aside money. He chose to screw Chisora. Its all about choices. Wlad chose to do that.

It didn't get delayed. The fight was scrapped. He fought a different guy in the end. That's not compensation. He was supposed to fight the IBF/WBO champion. Instead he fought for the wbc title. Unless they are a tag team that is.

Chisora lost money from the earnings he would have got from that fight. Lost earnings having to pay for the training camp and lost earnings because he lost out on potential fights. He was royally shafter.

As for the purse. £100k for the world hw title is derisory. Khan paid McK 3 times his career best. And he was still criticised for that. Considering he a LW who historically dont get as much as HW's the figure McK is in a better light. As Ghosty pointed out Dunn got 200k 30 years ago.

I cant see how anyone cannot call that offer derisory.

Give me a break. The difference between the titles is meaningless and are you not always telling us Vitali is the worse brother. Even better odds for Chisora especially as you tipped him to win (but get robbed).

How do you know K2 didnt informally agree to give Chisora his title shot at a later in compensation. Getting an unwarranted title shot later on far exceeded the benefit of getting step aside money.

And how much did Haye compensate Wlad for when he bailed on their first fight?

$300k was almost certainly 3 times Chisoras career best. You brought up Khan, as usual, and he offered McCloskey no better than what Chisora got. Most of what I read said that McCloskey would be foolish to turn it down and I agree. I doubt McCloskeys end of their deal was any better than the 90/10 split Chisora got.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Wlad had the choice. Either that or pay step aside money. He chose to screw Chisora. Its all about choices. Wlad chose to do that.

It didn't get delayed. The fight was scrapped. He fought a different guy in the end. That's not compensation. He was supposed to fight the IBF/WBO champion. Instead he fought for the wbc title. Unless they are a tag team that is.

Chisora lost money from the earnings he would have got from that fight. Lost earnings having to pay for the training camp and lost earnings because he lost out on potential fights. He was royally shafter.

As for the purse. £100k for the world hw title is derisory. Khan paid McK 3 times his career best. And he was still criticised for that. Considering he a LW who historically dont get as much as HW's the figure McK is in a better light. As Ghosty pointed out Dunn got 200k 30 years ago.

I cant see how anyone cannot call that offer derisory.

Give me a break. The difference between the titles is meaningless and are you not always telling us Vitali is the worse brother. Even better odds for Chisora especially as you tipped him to win (but get robbed).

How do you know K2 didnt informally agree to give Chisora his title shot at a later in compensation. Getting an unwarranted title shot later on far exceeded the benefit of getting step aside money.

And how much did Haye compensate Wlad for when he bailed on their first fight?

$300k was almost certainly 3 times Chisoras career best. You brought up Khan, as usual, and he offered McCloskey no better than what Chisora got. Most of what I read said that McCloskey would be foolish to turn it down and I agree. I doubt McCloskeys end of their deal was any better than the 90/10 split Chisora got.

He was signed to fight Wlad but got Vit instead. Its not ridiculous. They're treating the world belts as a personal property.

This is not about how classless othes are. Its aboutr how classless the Ks are. I dont give a hoot about Haye ripping off anyone else. It wouldn't surpsie me. The aloof, gentlemanly nonsense of K2 is what I am referring to. They are frauds. Alomst like pimps.

If you dont like them, think they are pimps or phoneys, hate the clothes they were or whatever that fine. But you are banging on about other stuff thats completely inconsisted and designed to fit this negative profile you have of them. You brought up the home fight thing - bogus, all the more so compared with other top fighters that dont get any flak.

Then its the purse split with Chisora. 90/10 split. First off - hardly the rule with the Klitschkos. The majority of their opponents get 80/20 or above. You said the board would be in uproar if Khan did the same - he more or less did but strangely you arent putting the boot in on him. Lets look at some other top fighters splits when they are holding all the cards against opponents - two recent examples:

Pacquaio $12m, Clottey $1.2m (circa 90/10)
Mayweather $25m, Ortiz $2m (circa 95/5)

Like I said above, if you dont like the Klitschkos personality or style thats fine. Theres plenty of athletes whos personality I dont like for one reason or another.

But you are firing abuse or accusations at them from all sides most of which is either not particularly true, distorted or consistent with what other fighters in similar positions do. If you dont like them thats fine. Your entitled to that. My problem is with the other stuff which I think is being manipulated to paint them as something overly negative because you have a dislike for them.

They arent beyond criticism, I just think yours are somewhat irrational and disproportianate to the offences.

In many ways, az, you're doing them the best service you can.

By attacking them with such venom, the rest of us reasonable folks are forced to defend them and be drawn into a partisan position we wouldn't otherwise take.

Your BS goes too far.

Its the same as with D4. Before he started banging the Pacquiao drum - most of the board were Manny fans. By the end of that time, everyone was sick of the filipino dynamo.

By the end of your self-righteous tirade - the brothers Grimm are going to be creeping up that all time list.

Are you secretly being paid by K2?

so you change your opinion on boxers just because others dont like them!!

i am sorry ox- i just cannot understand that mentality- its like arguing for the sake of it!

the problem with the k2's is very simple.

There are all butter wouldnt melt, they are all 'thats not good for boxing', they realese statements that haye and chis should be dealt with - yet at the time are laughing at them!!

What is very very clear to almost everyone is that they are not good for boxing!- they are the top two fighters, they wont fight each other, they allways want to comment on whats going on in some 'statement'. Yet never talk when talked to! They screw other fighters over. Its not about other fighters being or doing the same, its about them! They are not likable to many! let it lie

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: These guys are unsavoury characters who make Don King appear a reincarnation of Jesus (or Muhammed PBUH).

As we have now reached the point of comparing the brothers with someone who kicked a man to death over a gambling debt think the shark has been well and truly jumped on this one. Got to say your lack of objectivity is staggering on this Az. You say they didn't pay Chisora compensation but provide zero evidence to suggest any other promoter or fighter would have done differently in this circumstance, you say they pay people 95-5% contracts despite Manos providing ample data to suggest this represents the exception rather than the norm, say they are stay at home champions despite this, in terms relative to other dominant champions not really being statistically correct and say the brothers bully folk with options in their contracts despite acknowledging yourself that this is pretty common practice in the sport, baffling.

I'm referring to their business practices rowley. But if you want to score cheap, hooker points, be my guest. 2 can play that childish game also. I wont bite though.
.

OK Az lets look at your real claims, would hate to misrepresent you. You claim in their business practices the brothers make King look like a saint. These are a few of the business practices King has been involved in according to Newfields biography of him

1 - Screwing Ali out of a percentage of his purse for the Holmes fight and when Ali looked like suing persuading a close family friend to get Ali to sign away his rights for the money for a significantly lower cash amount.

2 - Threatening to have Holmes shot when Holmes threatened to fight for another promoter

3 - Making an under the counter deal with South African fighters at the height of apartheid and in strict contravenance of the international sporting sanction being applied at the time

4 - Bribing the ring magazine to fix the ratings of certain fighters affiliated to King to ensure they could go into the ABC tournament he was arranging.

Please proivide examples the brothers have done which prove or even suggst they are worse than King, would be grateful if you could provide specific examples and not those which have already been debunked.

Sounds about right to me Rowley although I'm sure Az will come out with more "facts" to prove you wrong.

oxring wrote:In many ways, az, you're doing them the best service you can.

By attacking them with such venom, the rest of us reasonable folks are forced to defend them and be drawn into a partisan position we wouldn't otherwise take.

Your BS goes too far.

Its the same as with D4. Before he started banging the Pacquiao drum - most of the board were Manny fans. By the end of that time, everyone was sick of the filipino dynamo.

By the end of your self-righteous tirade - the brothers Grimm are going to be creeping up that all time list.

Are you secretly being paid by K2?

Personally I couldn't care less where people rank them. I have Wlad in my top 15 ATG. Fantastic boxer but hypocritical personality. People say he is humble, classy etc. He is not.

So the main criticism of them is their practices when round the negotiating table do not match their public image. Is that not true of most business people. I have seen some of the folk from Dragons Den on panel shows and chat shows and thought they come across as nice enough chaps, would be pretty confident they would not be so easy going was I to end up on the other side of a negotiation to them.

manos de piedra wrote:If you dont like them, think they are pimps or phoneys, hate the clothes they were or whatever that fine. But you are banging on about other stuff thats completely inconsisted and designed to fit this negative profile you have of them. You brought up the home fight thing - bogus, all the more so compared with other top fighters that dont get any flak.

Then its the purse split with Chisora. 90/10 split. First off - hardly the rule with the Klitschkos. The majority of their opponents get 80/20 or above. You said the board would be in uproar if Khan did the same - he more or less did but strangely you arent putting the boot in on him. Lets look at some other top fighters splits when they are holding all the cards against opponents - two recent examples:

Pacquaio $12m, Clottey $1.2m (circa 90/10)
Mayweather $25m, Ortiz $2m (circa 95/5)

Like I said above, if you dont like the Klitschkos personality or style thats fine. Theres plenty of athletes whos personality I dont like for one reason or another.

But you are firing abuse or accusations at them from all sides most of which is either not particularly true, distorted or consistent with what other fighters in similar positions do. If you dont like them thats fine. Your entitled to that. My problem is with the other stuff which I think is being manipulated to paint them as something overly negative because you have a dislike for them.

They arent beyond criticism, I just think yours are somewhat irrational and disproportianate to the offences.

What is irrational is the hypocracy around them. Their business practiices and intimidation prior to fights is disgusting. Forcing Chis to change wraps because Wlad didn't see it even though the WBC guy did. Denying the same for Vit. All goes against their claim and status as being honourable gentlemen. Hypocracy hypocracy hypocracy. Nothing irrational about my dislike.

Khan etc may hold unsavoury business practices. But they are not help to such exhaulted esteem. They are criticised for whatever they do.

So please lets not pretend the brothers are somehow above the dirty business that goes on in pro boxing because as things stand now, they are probably the worse.

rowley

King was a bad dude. K2 are great guys.

Come back when you can take things in context.

These guys are unsavoury characters who make Don King appear a reincarnation of Jesus

Your words Az not mine. You call it context I call it hyperbole easily disproven. However have been on here long enough not to expect you to admit the statement was just plain wrong.

azania wrote: Khan etc may hold unsavoury business practices. But they are not help to such exhaulted esteem. They are criticised for whatever they do.

So please lets not pretend the brothers are somehow above the dirty business that goes on in pro boxing because as things stand now, they are probably the worse.

The thing for me is Az is that Khan hasn't dominated a division yet let alone for close to 8 years. A lot of the dislike for Khan comes from his comments and attitude in build ups, on social networks, in the press and generally whenever there is a microphone in a 100 yards. The Klits being quite the opposite of this are what make people like and respect them. They've earned their right to dictate contracts as they see fit, through longevity and being head and shoulders above the rest of the competition. As has been said already if you want a bigger slice you either have to bring something to the table or become mandatory.

azania wrote:rowley

King was a bad dude. K2 are great guys.

Come back when you can take things in context.

OK Az this is how I saw the exchange going, please correct me if I am wrong. You said the brothers made King look like a reincarnation of Jesus, I pointed out comparing them to a man who had kicked a guy to death was ridiculous, you got in a fury saying you were referrring solely to their business practices so I addressed the claim solely from a business practices perspective adn to my mind proved yet again the statement was ridiculous, you then made some unclear comment about context, probably due to a complete inability to address the points I have raised with any specific, substantive rebuttals.

Azania, your never shy about telling us that boxing is a business and money talks. Now I am happy to concede the Klitschkos play hard ball when negotiating contracts. What do you expect? Them to be handing out 50/50 contracts to whoever fights them? Be reasonable. Business is business and the Klitschkos take advantage of the dominant position they hold. Being tough negotiators hardly makes them bad people. Most successful business men can be ruthless in business.

Lets be fair here. A 90/10 split to Chisora is not way out of line with what other top boxers in similar positions offer. Bear in mind Chisora is about as scarcely deserving a challenger there is and the Klitschkos are selling all of the fight and have all the status. 80/20 would be better, but as I pointed out - the majority of cases the Klitschkos offer 80/20 or better when their opponent is either more established or is a mandatory. 90/10 is the exception rather than the rule. Chisora getting any more than 80/20 would make the Klitschkos registered charities.

You see you are ignoring or dismissing all this. Focusing on all the negatives and giving no credit for any positives or any possible reasons or relativity. It seems like the Klitschkos are subected to unique rules.

Now there are people out there that dont like Ali. That think he was a fake and behind his image a nasty peice of work. This is their opinion and thats just the way it is. So what if they come on and say "Ali was a nasty peice of work. Dodged serving his country, had ties to extremest, racists and terrorists, treated Joe Frazier despicably, taunted opponents, cheated on his wife and treated her badly. All in all nowhere near the great guy that people think he is". None of this, incidentally is particularly false. But Im sure you would agree its a pretty gross manipulation of the mans image which takes about every negatve thing, puts a negative spin on everything, acknowledges none of the good he did and fails to account for any of the reasons behind it. Every so oftenI get someone who isnt a fan of boxing thats watched the Thrilla documentary and tells me "Guess what Ali wasnt all that good a guy afterall" as if its a big close kept secret. Given the status Ali enjoys as both a boxer and a human being which goes far beyond what the Klitschkos will ever enjoy it seems an overly one sided and negative portrayal of him and not actually all that consistent with him as a person on the whole.

But this is the impression I get when you describe the Klitschkos. Negative context on everything. Their crime seems to be that they are tough negotiators which you take as basically proof their image is just manufactured. No accounting for the awards they have won for humanitarian work, the millions given to their charities, their use of their image to try and promote the sport in a positive light or the countless other elements that could all be used to indicate they are, actually good people and not just canniving businessmen.

As I said in a previous post, if you think they are fakes thats ok. If you think that they should offer generous purses to bit part challengers in order to preserve their image fair enough. But the backlash and representation you have contructed of them isnt really proportional to whatever there offence is, which now seems to be reduced to simply being tough businessmen.

The conclusion I draw from our discussion is essentially that you think they are tough/extortianate negotiators and because they offer contracts that give themselve big cuts and demand options to prospective challengers that this must mean their clean image is completely false. I would disgree with this because without going into too much details there is plenty to suggest from both guys they are legitimately decent people and the accusations levelled at them are manipulated to make them appear alot worse than what the offence is as well as basically dismissing any potential reasons why nd ignoring most of the positives about them.

manos de piedra wrote:Azania, your never shy about telling us that boxing is a business and money talks. Now I am happy to concede the Klitschkos play hard ball when negotiating contracts. What do you expect? Them to be handing out 50/50 contracts to whoever fights them? Be reasonable. Business is business and the Klitschkos take advantage of the dominant position they hold. Being tough negotiators hardly makes them bad people. Most successful business men can be ruthless in business.

Lets be fair here. A 90/10 split to Chisora is not way out of line with what other top boxers in similar positions offer. Bear in mind Chisora is about as scarcely deserving a challenger there is and the Klitschkos are selling all of the fight and have all the status. 80/20 would be better, but as I pointed out - the majority of cases the Klitschkos offer 80/20 or better when their opponent is either more established or is a mandatory. 90/10 is the exception rather than the rule. Chisora getting any more than 80/20 would make the Klitschkos registered charities.

You see you are ignoring or dismissing all this. Focusing on all the negatives and giving no credit for any positives or any possible reasons or relativity. It seems like the Klitschkos are subected to unique rules.

Now there are people out there that dont like Ali. That think he was a fake and behind his image a nasty peice of work. This is their opinion and thats just the way it is. So what if they come on and say "Ali was a nasty peice of work. Dodged serving his country, had ties to extremest, racists and terrorists, treated Joe Frazier despicably, taunted opponents, cheated on his wife and treated her badly. All in all nowhere near the great guy that people think he is". None of this, incidentally is particularly false. But Im sure you would agree its a pretty gross manipulation of the mans image which takes about every negatve thing, puts a negative spin on everything, acknowledges none of the good he did and fails to account for any of the reasons behind it. Every so oftenI get someone who isnt a fan of boxing thats watched the Thrilla documentary and tells me "Guess what Ali wasnt all that good a guy afterall" as if its a big close kept secret. Given the status Ali enjoys as both a boxer and a human being which goes far beyond what the Klitschkos will ever enjoy it seems an overly one sided and negative portrayal of him and not actually all that consistent with him as a person on the whole.

But this is the impression I get when you describe the Klitschkos. Negative context on everything. Their crime seems to be that they are tough negotiators which you take as basically proof their image is just manufactured. No accounting for the awards they have won for humanitarian work, the millions given to their charities, their use of their image to try and promote the sport in a positive light or the countless other elements that could all be used to indicate they are, actually good people and not just canniving businessmen.

As I said in a previous post, if you think they are fakes thats ok. If you think that they should offer generous purses to bit part challengers in order to preserve their image fair enough. But the backlash and representation you have contructed of them isnt really proportional to whatever there offence is, which now seems to be reduced to simply being tough businessmen.

The conclusion I draw from our discussion is essentially that you think they are tough/extortianate negotiators and because they offer contracts that give themselve big cuts and demand options to prospective challengers that this must mean their clean image is completely false. I would disgree with this because without going into too much details there is plenty to suggest from both guys they are legitimately decent people and the accusations levelled at them are manipulated to make them appear alot worse than what the offence is as well as basically dismissing any potential reasons why nd ignoring most of the positives about them.

Can I just say that this is a fantastic answer to Az's ramblings. I would have gone with this to describe Az's contribution on this thread so far:

Spoiler:

Can someone actually get back to the OP now! How much difference to the contract does being the mandatory bring?

Adam, according to the WBO, the split for champion challenger is 75/25 if the champion defends his title at home, or 80/20 if the champion defends it away. The IBO operate a 75/25 split aswell.

Im not sure if thats the same for all organisations, others have 65/35 in their head so it may vary slightly.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned but Boente is saying that the reason they wouldn't agree with Haye was Haye still wants 50% of the UK PPV sales. Correct me if I'm wrong but 50% of 0 is 0.

trottb wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned but Boente is saying that the reason they wouldn't agree with Haye was Haye still wants 50% of the UK PPV sales. Correct me if I'm wrong but 50% of 0 is 0.

I a guessing he means the UK TV rights

rowley wrote:These guys are unsavoury characters who make Don King appear a reincarnation of Jesus

Your words Az not mine. You call it context I call it hyperbole easily disproven. However have been on here long enough not to expect you to admit the statement was just plain wrong.

No problem. When a commentator says a footballer runs like the wind, be sure to pick him up on that also. When fans say Tony Adams is a donkey, be sure to disprove that also.

The bottom line is manos, the Ks are no different from any other active boxer or past boxer (manager team promoter whatever). One thing for sure, this butter wouldn't melt in their mouth, holier than thou public mannerisms they have is a front. Behind the scenes they are like all other promotional teams (if not worse). They treated Chisora badly prior to their fight, in the build up to the fight and the hours before the fight. No surprise Chis did what he did in the ring. Vile habit (spitting) but there you go.

Adam D wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Azania, your never shy about telling us that boxing is a business and money talks. Now I am happy to concede the Klitschkos play hard ball when negotiating contracts. What do you expect? Them to be handing out 50/50 contracts to whoever fights them? Be reasonable. Business is business and the Klitschkos take advantage of the dominant position they hold. Being tough negotiators hardly makes them bad people. Most successful business men can be ruthless in business.

Lets be fair here. A 90/10 split to Chisora is not way out of line with what other top boxers in similar positions offer. Bear in mind Chisora is about as scarcely deserving a challenger there is and the Klitschkos are selling all of the fight and have all the status. 80/20 would be better, but as I pointed out - the majority of cases the Klitschkos offer 80/20 or better when their opponent is either more established or is a mandatory. 90/10 is the exception rather than the rule. Chisora getting any more than 80/20 would make the Klitschkos registered charities.

You see you are ignoring or dismissing all this. Focusing on all the negatives and giving no credit for any positives or any possible reasons or relativity. It seems like the Klitschkos are subected to unique rules.

Now there are people out there that dont like Ali. That think he was a fake and behind his image a nasty peice of work. This is their opinion and thats just the way it is. So what if they come on and say "Ali was a nasty peice of work. Dodged serving his country, had ties to extremest, racists and terrorists, treated Joe Frazier despicably, taunted opponents, cheated on his wife and treated her badly. All in all nowhere near the great guy that people think he is". None of this, incidentally is particularly false. But Im sure you would agree its a pretty gross manipulation of the mans image which takes about every negatve thing, puts a negative spin on everything, acknowledges none of the good he did and fails to account for any of the reasons behind it. Every so oftenI get someone who isnt a fan of boxing thats watched the Thrilla documentary and tells me "Guess what Ali wasnt all that good a guy afterall" as if its a big close kept secret. Given the status Ali enjoys as both a boxer and a human being which goes far beyond what the Klitschkos will ever enjoy it seems an overly one sided and negative portrayal of him and not actually all that consistent with him as a person on the whole.

But this is the impression I get when you describe the Klitschkos. Negative context on everything. Their crime seems to be that they are tough negotiators which you take as basically proof their image is just manufactured. No accounting for the awards they have won for humanitarian work, the millions given to their charities, their use of their image to try and promote the sport in a positive light or the countless other elements that could all be used to indicate they are, actually good people and not just canniving businessmen.

As I said in a previous post, if you think they are fakes thats ok. If you think that they should offer generous purses to bit part challengers in order to preserve their image fair enough. But the backlash and representation you have contructed of them isnt really proportional to whatever there offence is, which now seems to be reduced to simply being tough businessmen.

The conclusion I draw from our discussion is essentially that you think they are tough/extortianate negotiators and because they offer contracts that give themselve big cuts and demand options to prospective challengers that this must mean their clean image is completely false. I would disgree with this because without going into too much details there is plenty to suggest from both guys they are legitimately decent people and the accusations levelled at them are manipulated to make them appear alot worse than what the offence is as well as basically dismissing any potential reasons why nd ignoring most of the positives about them.

Can I just say that this is a fantastic answer to Az's ramblings. I would have gone with this to describe Az's contribution on this thread so far:

Spoiler:

Can someone actually get back to the OP now! How much difference to the contract does being the mandatory bring?

Fantastic contribution Adam.

Irrelevnat totally. The K2 are not the saints people likt to portray them to be. What Haye does is not the point. You are others already have Haye an a tab below K2 in the honour/class/humility/humble stakes. These guys are unsavoury characters who make Don King appear a reincarnation of Jesus (or Muhammed PBUH).

Your exact words Az, if you want to argue there was a context there fair enough, as you know calling footballers a donkey is common footballing parlance, as run like the wind is a common turn of phrase. Saying they are worse than King is neither of these, when discussing boxing promotion to say they are worse than Don King suggests you consider them to be guilty of business practices worse than King, I believe that to be complete balderdash and have provided examples which I think amply support my argument, when you have been asked to do likewise you have mumbled on about context and provided examples inappropriate to the debate being held.

If you had any character you would either admit you were talking rubbish or provide the examples to support your claim. I would expect you to do neither and continue to provide irrelevant examples, if however you do intend to do this when people say it is raining cats and dogs it does not mean it is, you can use that one.

rowley wrote:Irrelevnat totally. The K2 are not the saints people likt to portray them to be. What Haye does is not the point. You are others already have Haye an a tab below K2 in the honour/class/humility/humble stakes. These guys are unsavoury characters who make Don King appear a reincarnation of Jesus (or Muhammed PBUH).

Your exact words Az, if you want to argue there was a context there fair enough, as you know calling footballers a donkey is common footballing parlance, as run like the wind is a common turn of phrase. Saying they are worse than King is neither of these, when discussing boxing promotion to say they are worse than Don King suggests you consider them to be guilty of business practices worse than King, I believe that to be complete balderdash and have provided examples which I think amply support my argument, when you have been asked to do likewise you have mumbled on about context and provided examples inappropriate to the debate being held.

If you had any character you would either admit you were talking rubbish or provide the examples to support your claim. I would expect you to do neither and continue to provide irrelevant examples, if however you do intend to do this when people say it is raining cats and dogs it does not mean it is, you can use that one.

Fair enough. I concede. K2 are wonderful gentlemen and you are a man of great character and substance.

azania wrote: K2 are wonderful gentlemen and you are a man of great character and substance.

I claimed neither of those things but would have to guess that is as near as you're likely to get to conceding the point with anything approaching grace.

I dont mind Wlad so much but Vitali is really annoying and totally self righteous

Think I would actually cheer on Haye if he fought him now as Haye has proven that he actually does have some heart

If Haye wants Vitali though he needs to learn to keep that trap of his shut and just get in the ring and fight unlike what he did with Wlad

azania wrote:If Khan had behaved like that, this board wold be on meltdown mode.

*Disclaimer: This might have been said, but I can't be bothered reading all the lengthy posts below*

The Khan example is pretty poor. Khan hasn't dominated the division for the best part of a decade to the point where it's a real struggle to find someone who can even remotely challenge him. If he had, I'd be willing to bet that he'd be giving everybody terrible contracts.

Az I don't think anyone here disagrees with your 'the Klitschko's aren't saints' argument. In terms of stipulations and negotiating tactics it appears to me that they are roughly as 'bad' as other promoter/crook types. They get away with it more (than, say, Don King or Bob Arum) probably because they are polite and intelligent - but more because at least as fight fans we can respect them as athletes, whereas King and Arum are strictly promoter/business/behind-the-scenes/shark types. You seem to be responding badly to the hypocrisy of their nice guy image.....which is understandable. But, I think most people here have agreed with you on that. They've just disagreed with how negatively you've painted them - you've made them sound like the devil incarnate - and with some of the evidence you've used, which has some holes in it.

It seems to me that it's standard practice for any boxing/promoting team that's top of their game to screw challengers down on contracts. Unfair? Yes. Not in-keeping with the image of a sporting gentleman? Definitely. But, when a division and the negotiations that surround it are being dominated by one party, it's up to challengers to take their shot and regain some power. No one in the HW division has come remotely close to doing this.

The fact that they rip off others in a polite manner makes them worse in my eyes. The fact that they try to con (and have succeeded) much of the boxing public that they are gentlemen that they are fair guys is a charade. I'm not going to take Frank Warren's word as much but when he and Booth (no love lost there) say exactly the same thing about the K2 team (and King) then you know you are dealing with less that honest players.

But some want actual written and sworn testimony first.

The most nervous time for a boxer is when he is having his hands wrapped. That's when he starts to psyche himself up, focusses and relaxed also. K2 are notorious for disrupting that time and not permitting the other boxer the same priveliges. Wlad demanded that Chisora re-wrap his hands an hour before the fight. He started an argument in the dressing room and attempted to impose his will over the WBC. It disrupted Chis. When his team asked to go into Vits room for the same thing, they were refused. No wonder Chis did what he did. Classless. But Wlad is classless also so he met his match.

If it were Khan or Warren doing that. Meltdown. Oh I forget. Neither has dominated.

azania wrote:The bottom line is manos, the Ks are no different from any other active boxer or past boxer (manager team promoter whatever). One thing for sure, this butter wouldn't melt in their mouth, holier than thou public mannerisms they have is a front. Behind the scenes they are like all other promotional teams (if not worse). They treated Chisora badly prior to their fight, in the build up to the fight and the hours before the fight. No surprise Chis did what he did in the ring. Vile habit (spitting) but there you go.

Yes but no mention of the fact they donate and contribute to organisations set up to look after boxers that have fallen on hard tmes. That in the past they have paid for medical treatment and hospital bills for injured fighters that cant afford treatment. That their contributions and work in charities in Africa and South America have literally saved lives. None of this perspective matters because they gave a scarcely deserving challenger the opportunity of his life and a career high purse that didnt quite fit your criteria of being fair. Must all be an act. Chisora was at worst inconvinienced by the Klitschkos but he got a title shot in the end which he didnt have to do much for.

I dont mind that you think they are sanctimonious frauds but your labelling them with accusations that are either not true are fall considerably short of the whole truth and the big picture just to fit your opinion.

When people come on and say I cant stand the Klitschkos I think they act superior and sanctimonious, I disagree with them, but I wouldnt really argue the point because thats just their subective opinion of them which they are entitled to. But when they start getting labelled as scumbags and compared to Ottke and King - which can fairly easily be disproven, then I fel obliged to try and balance it out by providing some actual evidence that this is not the case.

azania wrote:The fact that they rip off others in a polite manner makes them worse in my eyes.

That's up to you and it's a fair enough opinion to have.

The crux of this argument seems to be:

Az: The Klitschko's are hypocritical and are not the nice guys they pretend to be. They use hard, and at times, underhand negotiating tactics to screw their opponents down and unsettle them.

Majority of 606v2: Agreed that the K-bros are no angels. but, they perhaps deserve to make the lion's share because they dominate the division so utterly.

Az: No, it's not enough for you to recognise that they aren't nice guys all the time. I have to get it across that they are amongst the worst people in the sport (worse than Don King).....here's some more evidence to this effect....

Majority of 606v2: Some of that evidence is shaky/selective/one sided. Again, accepted that they're no angels, but they're not as bad as you're making out.

Az: No, it's not enough for you to recognise that they aren't nice guys all the time. I have to get it across that they are amongst the worst people in the sport (worse than Don King).....here's some more evidence to this effect....

And repeat....

I must say Az your ability to flog a dead horse and hold on doggedly to one strand of an argument is at times quite impressive.

azania wrote: Fair enough. I concede. K2 are wonderful gentlemen and you are a man of great character and substance.

Although it seems pretty clear that this was the moment in this debate when you realised that your arguments pretty much had no legs left....

So what? Don King gives much to charity. John Gotti fed the homeless in Little Italy and Brooklyn.

Chisora lost money. For someone like him, its a huge loss. Did they compensate him for the money he spent gathering his training camp and sparring partners? No. For guys who spout on about the honour and integrity of boxing its a tad hypocritical.

Don King has also paid med bills for injured fighters. I believe he covered a chunk of G Mac's bills. Contributed to Obama's campaign fund also.

I have never referred to them as scumbags. But their business dealings does not fit in with the characters they sell themselves as.