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.

Interesting thread, find it ridiculous to try and pick holes in the Klitschko's is bordering silly and petty.

Find it kinda funny the detractors would prefer a Floyd Mayweather demeanor, racist, wife beater, obnoxious the full works yet it's the Klitschko's who are the bad guys laughable.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:You've been given a free platform to present your case:
Which consists of:

"They tie up boxers careers with ridiculous rematch clauses and as for their charitable work it makes me want to vomit and anyway other boxers also do good deeds (including those who drive dangerously and injure people seriously in collisions and those who beat their ex girlfriend and threaten their child)"

Therefore they shouldn't be pedestalled.

This is the problem. Tyring to win an argument by deliberately misquoting me, leaving other things I've said out, and making up your own context.
But having said that, your argument for them is that all other boxers do the same thing and they give money to charity so they should be on a pedestal.

No its not you ignorant boor.

The argument is that in balance - K2 come off positively and well. Their boxing career, combined with political work, educational performance, charity work, social activism more than makes up for tough contracts.

Boor? You mean Saffer Boer? Meneer, nou het julle dit te ver geneem



You say the K2 come off positively well. Well I dont. I find them hypocritical. Many boxer carry out charitable work and donations (tax write offs), feed the poor but dont broadcast it to all and sundry within earshot, and certainly dont get the credit these two seem to want.



Its not just their contracts that are tough, but their subleties and that they tie you for the better part of your active career or until you lose. Is it any surprise that many other promoters have little time for them. If King, Booth, Warren and others say similar things about them, then something is not quite right. Its a case of your famous 99% walking one way ....

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boor

Boor

1. A person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement.
2. A peasant.

Bit nasty init

azania wrote:Boor? You mean Saffer Boer?

No - I mean Boor - as in ignorant boor

azania wrote:I find them hypocritical. Many boxer carry out charitable work and donations (tax write offs), feed the poor but dont broadcast it to all and sundry within earshot, and certainly dont get the credit these two seem to want.

You sound like a dailymail reader now. {*cue cackling housewife voice: "Ooh look at 'em, doing all that charity work and those nice fings. Doing it just for a li'l bit of attention, makes me sick"}

azania wrote:Its not just their contracts that are tough, but their subleties and that they tie you for the better part of your active career or until you lose. Is it any surprise that many other promoters have little time for them. If King, Booth, Warren and others say similar things about them, then something is not quite right. Its a case of your famous 99% walking one way ....

1. Booth doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as King and Warren.
2. 3 fights is not the better part of your active career - I know careers are shortening these days - but if 3 fights is the better part of a career then we really are in trouble. Further - I don't believe they've ever forced someone to fight them via a gun-to-the-head. If Haye hated getting 50:50, even though Wladimir was the established champion - he should have wandered on.

It is, indeed the famous 99%.

There are a few points you need to try and remember.

1: No-one is saying that they aren't tough negotiators - but that they're other achievements more than make up for it.
2: King, Booth, Warren (and Ohner) are all liars and thieves. So I don't tend to believe their opinions carry all that much weight. If 99 Kings, Booths and Warrens told me it was raining outside, I'd still wait until my hair got wet before putting up my umbrella

This "agenda" you claim for them - the "agenda" of wanting to be liked and respected - do you have any good evidence for it?

Steffan wrote:I watched a programme on Hitlers personal train last year. The death of Heydrich after an abush by the Czechs made Hitler get extra security. Dont know what happened in Namibia mind. Am currently studying African artifacts that are 600 years old. Not sure what anything I have said has to do with the Klitschkos mind

I will be glad when they both retire to be honest and hopefully some new fighters can come through. On saying that heavyweight boxing is pretty poor on the whole whoever is fighting in it nowadays

Many streets in Windhoek pre freedom were named after 3rd Reich leaders. Also the first organised genocide and extermination order was carried out on the San people in Namibia by Germans 30 years after the holocaust.

For African artifacts etc, look out for Benin bronzes, Malian carvings, Shona jewelry, Xhosa jewelry and carvings are amazing , Ashanti golden statues and artifacts and the Ashantihene stool. Read up on the history of Kingdon of Dahomey, the tuareg salt traders with their blue headress, the world's first reported spike in inflation when Mansa Musa took a camel train to do Hajj. And of course the ancient architecture of Axum in Ethiopia/ The History of Africa, not just its artifacts is simply stunning. So is the whole continent.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Boor? You mean Saffer Boer?

No - I mean Boor - as in ignorant boor

azania wrote:I find them hypocritical. Many boxer carry out charitable work and donations (tax write offs), feed the poor but dont broadcast it to all and sundry within earshot, and certainly dont get the credit these two seem to want.

You sound like a dailymail reader now. {*cue cackling housewife voice: "Ooh look at 'em, doing all that charity work and those nice fings. Doing it just for a li'l bit of attention, makes me sick"}

azania wrote:Its not just their contracts that are tough, but their subleties and that they tie you for the better part of your active career or until you lose. Is it any surprise that many other promoters have little time for them. If King, Booth, Warren and others say similar things about them, then something is not quite right. Its a case of your famous 99% walking one way ....

1. Booth doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as King and Warren.
2. 3 fights is not the better part of your active career - I know careers are shortening these days - but if 3 fights is the better part of a career then we really are in trouble. Further - I don't believe they've ever forced someone to fight them via a gun-to-the-head. If Haye hated getting 50:50, even though Wladimir was the established champion - he should have wandered on.

It is, indeed the famous 99%.

There are a few points you need to try and remember.

1: No-one is saying that they aren't tough negotiators - but that they're other achievements more than make up for it.
2: King, Booth, Warren (and Ohner) are all liars and thieves. So I don't tend to believe their opinions carry all that much weight. If 99 Kings, Booths and Warrens told me it was raining outside, I'd still wait until my hair got wet before putting up my umbrella

This "agenda" you claim for them - the "agenda" of wanting to be liked and respected - do you have any good evidence for it?

No - I mean Boor - as in ignorant boor

Phew. I can tolerate that.

You sound like a dailymail reader now.

That I cant

Its not the 3 fights. Its the options they have on you. Why should anyone be tied to fight them anyway. Rematch one is fine. But why insist on the other. Its like Khan negotiating with Bradley and insisting that should Bradley win he'd have to fight Maidans then Khan again (should he get past Maidana). And after that Khan gets to control who to fight and how much he will take from Bradley's purse (K2 will have promotional rights). That is wrong. When King did it it was wrong and many boxers complained about but their hands were tied and had to sign up or no fight. Indentured labour.

But K2 talk well, do charity so its all good. That should be made illegal.

So you believe K2 over 99 Kings, Booths etc.

Cool. Your choice. All liars imo, but when 3 liars say the same thing about another liar, I tend to believe the 3 liars over the one liar saying "not me guv".

No - you're missing it - again.

They don't force people to sign the rematch clauses. You can choose to fight someone else or become a mandatory.

As mentioned before - is the balance of all their good deeds - paying a former opponents medical bills for MS, charity work with Chernobyl victims, UNESCO ambassadors, political activism, chess boxing patronage, and world HW champions.

Is the balance in the negative because they are tough negotiators?

oxring wrote:No - you're missing it - again.

They don't force people to sign the rematch clauses. You can choose to fight someone else or become a mandatory.

As mentioned before - is the balance of all their good deeds - paying a former opponents medical bills for MS, charity work with Chernobyl victims, UNESCO ambassadors, political activism, chess boxing patronage, and world HW champions.

Is the balance in the negative because they are tough negotiators?

How naive are you pretending to be. You're acting as if we live in a perfect world where all are men of honour and merit wins out all the time. If that were the case, Haye would never get anywhere near a world title or Audley fight for one.

They sound like Amir Khan with all the charity work he does.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:No - you're missing it - again.

They don't force people to sign the rematch clauses. You can choose to fight someone else or become a mandatory.

As mentioned before - is the balance of all their good deeds - paying a former opponents medical bills for MS, charity work with Chernobyl victims, UNESCO ambassadors, political activism, chess boxing patronage, and world HW champions.

Is the balance in the negative because they are tough negotiators?

How naive are you pretending to be. You're acting as if we live in a perfect world where all are men of honour and merit wins out all the time. If that were the case, Haye would never get anywhere near a world title or Audley fight for one.

They sound like Amir Khan with all the charity work he does.

Stop trying to twist it - you were asked a simple enough question.

Is the balance of all their good deeds - paying a former opponents medical bills for MS, charity work with Chernobyl victims, UNESCO ambassadors, political activism, chess boxing patronage, and world HW boxing champions as well as 1 of them being an Olympic gold medallist - Is the balance in the negative because they are tough negotiators?

Of course its a good deed. Who on earth would discredit that? But its not just unique to them. Many boxers do similar things. Does it outweigh their character? For me its two seperate things. A shark remains a shark even after its been fed.

azania wrote:Of course its a good deed. Who on earth would discredit that? But its not just unique to them. Many boxers do similar things. Does it outweigh their character? For me its two seperate things. A shark remains a shark even after its been fed.

Doesn't that sound a little contemptible az?

"Many boxers do similar things" - true - but if the Klitschko's vice is to negotiate hard and Mayweather's vice is to beat up his ex girlfriend - which one deserves that "pedestal" as a man?

azania wrote:A shark remains a shark even after its been fed

Aye and after you've jumped it too.

Do you not think that maybe you're taking this a little too far? They have tough rematch clauses. That's it! They're money dealings aren't that unreasonable - certainly not by custom and practice. So its only the rematch clauses. Don't you think you're being a trifle extreme?

Incidentally - I don't really think anyone on here has "pedestalled" them. I think, on balance, that they are good men. That's all I can say.

Mayweather isone of money boxers. He's not the only other boxer who donates to charities. Your fixation of point scoring is a marvel.

My point stands regardless of how far its gone. K2 are gifted, alturistic boxers who are as sharkish as the great whites of the boxing world. I put them on par with the Warrens, Kings and Arum (promotionally) - do best for themselves and sod the other guy. But they give to charity and are formally educated. And its not just the rematch clauses. But the gallery is amused by your posturing.

On balance they are no different to other boxers/promoters.

azania wrote:Mayweather isone of money boxers. He's not the only other boxer who donates to charities. Your fixation of point scoring is a marvel.

My point stands regardless of how far its gone. K2 are gifted, alturistic boxers who are as sharkish as the great whites of the boxing world. I put them on par with the Warrens, Kings and Arum (promotionally) - do best for themselves and sod the other guy. But they give to charity and are formally educated. And its not just the rematch clauses. But the gallery is amused by your posturing.

On balance they are no different to other boxers/promoters.

Playing to the gallery am I?

As far as I can tell, the gallery thinks you're making a fool of yourself. I'm merely providing you with some legitimacy by trying to reason with you on a logical level.

If you're going to refuse to engage and continually come out with statements like the last - even though over the course of 6 pages that statement has been proven false over and over again - then there is no point me continuing.

There comes a time when by debating lunacy, you can become associated with it. So I'll leave this one there.

I leave it to you to provide your customary "last word"

So far you have said all other promoters are dishonest and K2 are morally right on because they engage in charitable activities. You've added that they are no different from other promoters/boxers. Slight contradiction there or somewhat confused. You tell me.

I have stated that most world level boxers engage in charitable activities. You mention floyd beating up on his wife (because I mentioned Floyd no doubt). I mentioned many boxers.....charities. You reiterrated Floyd. Point scoring but there you go.

Khan has been at the receiving end of a shellacking. That he also engages in various charities activities and on balance he is a good guy, gets ignored. K2s charitity activities makes them good guys and they are educated, say the right things when the cameras are pointed at them.

All that over-rides their less that gracious acts when offering other boxers indentured labour terms and conditions which becomes a take it or leave it offer.

They may be good guys for all I care with the wisdom of Solomon, the generocity of Cetswayo (Zulu King who decided that Brits were brave and thus deserved to live - and you guys called it a victory), the kindness of Ghandi. They may be all that and more. But behind the scenes they are just as dirty, selfish objectionable as all other boxers in their position. That they do it with a smile, charm and with class doesn't escape a simple facts that they are just as nasty as the rest.

On balance does that make them good guys. As much as it makes Warren, Arum, Khan et al good guys. After all, they also give to charities and do various good deeds without trumpeting it for all to hear.

Have a good evening and enjoy Montreal nightlife

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Mayweather isone of money boxers. He's not the only other boxer who donates to charities. Your fixation of point scoring is a marvel.

My point stands regardless of how far its gone. K2 are gifted, alturistic boxers who are as sharkish as the great whites of the boxing world. I put them on par with the Warrens, Kings and Arum (promotionally) - do best for themselves and sod the other guy. But they give to charity and are formally educated. And its not just the rematch clauses. But the gallery is amused by your posturing.

On balance they are no different to other boxers/promoters.

Playing to the gallery am I?

As far as I can tell, the gallery thinks you're making a fool of yourself. I'm merely providing you with some legitimacy by trying to reason with you on a logical level.

If you're going to refuse to engage and continually come out with statements like the last - even though over the course of 6 pages that statement has been proven false over and over again - then there is no point me continuing.

There comes a time when by debating lunacy, you can become associated with it. So I'll leave this one there.

I leave it to you to provide your customary "last word"

According to Einstein and this thread alone I think being associated with lunacy is a rather mild description

azania wrote: I put them on par with the Warrens, Kings and Arum (promotionally) - On balance they are no different to other boxers/promoters.

I can provide specific examples where Warren and King have failed to pay fighters the amounts in their contract, Warren with Calzaghe against Hopkins and King with Ali against Holmes (amongst others) These are documented facts, one of which was confirmed in a court of law, so the theft is a matter of legally documented FACT not opinion or conjecture. Given you have provided no evidence to suggest either brother has failed to pay out in full the amount contracted to an opponent I would guess on balance this is another of your assertions on here most would consider both demonstrably untrue and where the evidence does not really match the hyperbole.

I have no documentary evidence to show the K" team rip off boxers financially. In all honesty I doubt they do. Why rip them off when they pay such paltry amounts to voluntary defences? Plus I have never suggested that they rip off other boxers and dont pay them. What on earth gave you that idea that I said that?

Well when you say they are on a level with Warren and King who have robbed people and paid them less than they are contracted I would naturally assume to justify such billing the brothers would have to have done acts either as bad or on the same level, and to my mind paying someone what they have decided of their own free will to agree to fight for in full is some considerable way better than paying someone less than they have agreed to fight for of their own free will. However thats just my opinion, we all have our own sense of right and wrong.

The problem is azania, that King and to a lesser extent Warren (and almost certainly Gotti) carry with them a stigma in the boxing world that are generally bywords for evil rip off merchants with no concern for boxers welfare. Whether or not you agree with those perceptions isnt really the point. Thats just what they are seen to represent.

By lumping the Klitschkos in with these guys and sayng they are no better kind of tells its own story and isnt really supported by any evidence. The Klitschkos offer a contract to a fighter who is under no obligation to sign it. If they do sign it, the Klitschkos honour the terms. If they dont want to sign it, the Klitschkos move on. There are currently now 5 seperate avenues you can pursue if you want to become a mandatory for a Klitschko and guarantee yourself at least 25% with no strings attached. None of these avenues are particularly loaded with talent. If a fighter is either not good enough, not motivated enough or lacks the ranking to go out and do this then they probably shouldnt be complaining too loudly that they get offered the contract in the first place. Even one thats a 90/10 split with various clauses.

I also thinks its only fair to acknowledge that the kind of contract Chisora got is not really the norm. Its the very bottom rung due to Chisoras status. On the other end you have guys like Haye or Ibragimov who get 50/50 deals because they went out and brought something of note to the negotiations.

You say things like you would love to see how Wlad would react if he lost and was then offered one of his own contracts. You can actually see what he did when he lost. He went out and won interim titles and eliminators which entitled him to number 1 status and a shot at the title and fought his way back into the position hes in now.

I thought he lost and lost again then waited for Vitali to beat Sanders?

Its not a question of honouring the contracts. Its what's in the contract. Of course most HW boxers will sign it. If it represents a career high payday, who wouldn't. But fighting for the world HW title isn't something paying a career high payday. It a career high payday prior to fighting for the title was $75k, then offering $100k is a pittance even if its a voluntary defence. Boxers will take it in most occassions and hope to win or put up a good show so their marketability is increased.

Moreover their terms are ridiculous. Down to what ring entrance music? When to hold press confrences? All designed to suit K2. And then the games played just before the ring walk. Crooked.

rowley wrote:Well when you say they are on a level with Warren and King who have robbed people and paid them less than they are contracted I would naturally assume to justify such billing the brothers would have to have done acts either as bad or on the same level, and to my mind paying someone what they have decided of their own free will to agree to fight for in full is some considerable way better than paying someone less than they have agreed to fight for of their own free will. However thats just my opinion, we all have our own sense of right and wrong.

King will rob you after the contracts. These guys will rob you in the contracts.

Robbing someone after the contract is fraud, offering less than equitable terms in the contract isn't. If you can't see or acknowledge that distinction there really is little hope. Still also ignores the fact that nobody has to sign the contracts and there are a number of things fighters can do to improve the terms they are likely to be offered or the evidence that suggests when fighters do these things they receive markedly better terms.

azania wrote:Its not a question of honouring the contracts. Its what's in the contract. Of course most HW boxers will sign it. If it represents a career high payday, who wouldn't. But fighting for the world HW title isn't something paying a career high payday. It a career high payday prior to fighting for the title was $75k, then offering $100k is a pittance even if its a voluntary defence. Boxers will take it in most occassions and hope to win or put up a good show so their marketability is increased.

Moreover their terms are ridiculous. Down to what ring entrance music? When to hold press confrences? All designed to suit K2. And then the games played just before the ring walk. Crooked.

What was an equitable split then in your opinion. Given the respective positions and status of the two fighters?

Chisora earned 200k gbp. Vitali earned 2m gbp.

Now maybe something like 350k would have been a fairer amount but do you honestly think Chisora had deserved any more than that? Drop this "hes fighting for the hw championship" as a valid reason for simply paying a guy more money than he deserves for the sake of it.

I see the difference Az, I get the point you're making but in terms of being decent human beings, I don't think we can say that K2 are in the league of shadiness that Arum, King and Warren are in.

K2 - Ask you to sign a contract. very clear terms. Yes VERY one sided. But the contract doesn't have to be signed at all. Your choice.

Shady promoters - Ask you to sign a contract and then change things. They lure you in under the illusion you're getting a good deal, thats the only reason you signed it. But they change things and don't keep to the terms.

K2 are pretty unashamed about their terms. But its your choice. Promoters like Warren are leeches. Yes the K Bros ask for rematches, but you know about that. If Warren promoted them, then there would be no multiple rematch clause you knew about when you signed - but by god he would pull every single string possible to make that happen.

I think the difference is that K2 are just open and honest. No deception there.

The fact that he's fight ing for the world HW title is a valid argument. £200k is chickenfeed imo. He should be getting £500k. Look at it this way. Ghosty made the very valid point that when Ali fought Dunn, Ali recieved £1m and Dunn £200k. That was 30 years ago!!!

I'm not fussed too much about ratio. What Vit gets as he is controlling things is up to him. If he gets £25m, then fine. But for goodnes sake, £200k is silly and tight fisted.

Of course Del deserved the shot. He didn't earn it, but after being dicked around my Wlad, the shot was earned.

Jab

I dont buy this argument that you dont have to sign it. Either you sign it or get frozen out. Its what happens when they dominate the scene. Indentured labour contract. After that and if you have the tererity to win, they tie you up for about 6 fights. Ridiculous.

azania wrote:The fact that he's fight ing for the world HW title is a valid argument. £200k is chickenfeed imo. He should be getting £500k. Look at it this way. Ghosty made the very valid point that when Ali fought Dunn, Ali recieved £1m and Dunn £200k. That was 30 years ago!!!

I'm not fussed too much about ratio. What Vit gets as he is controlling things is up to him. If he gets £25m, then fine. But for goodnes sake, £200k is silly and tight fisted.

Of course Del deserved the shot. He didn't earn it, but after being dicked around my Wlad, the shot was earned.

Why is the split not relevant? Of course it is. Vitali should give up more money because he himself is getting less?

Answer the question, what was a fair amount for Chisora?

He brings no revenue, he brings no title, he has no ranking, he barely even brings a challenge on paper. What does he deserve for his golden opportunity and scarcely deserved title shot?

Can't freeze a mandatory out, four belts and a weak division, hardly impossible to gain mandatory status is it, and if you are not capable of acheiving mandatory status in this day and age you're obviously rubbish so who gives a flying one if you get frozen out.

Either you sign it or you get a belt/ become a mandatory.

rowley wrote:Can't freeze a mandatory out, four belts and a weak division, hardly impossible to gain mandatory status is it, and if you are not capable of acheiving mandatory status in this day and age you're obviously rubbish so who gives a flying one if you get frozen out.

5 belts including Wlads IBO. Agree, if you cant win an eliminator or become a mandatory with any of 5 governing bodies you have some balls to complain about a contract you are not forced to sign.

rowley wrote:Can't freeze a mandatory out, four belts and a weak division, hardly impossible to gain mandatory status is it, and if you are not capable of acheiving mandatory status in this day and age you're obviously rubbish so who gives a flying one if you get frozen out.

Now who is being naive? Look at the runaround King gave Lewis. Froze him out for years. When you have one dominant champ (count K2 as one) then all manner of games will be played and have been played.

As for "if you dont like it dont sign it", rather a silly argument. Its not a job interview where you dont like the contract.

ShahenshahG wrote:Either you sign it or you get a belt/ become a mandatory.

Ooooh lookie here. A perfect world believer.

How many of the chasing pack have the brothers shut out of acheiving mandatory status thus far? Or once someone has battled through all the obstacles the brothes put in front of them to gain mandatory status how many times have the brothers refused to fight them. It seems to me on one side of the debate we deal in arguments supported by evidence: We say if you improve your circumstances you get a better deal, and put forward Haye and Ibgrabimov as evidence, you say they can freeze a fighter out and give us an example from 15 years ago involving a different fighter and promoter.

Please give us examples of any fighters the brothers have "frozen out"

manos de piedra wrote:

rowley wrote:Can't freeze a mandatory out, four belts and a weak division, hardly impossible to gain mandatory status is it, and if you are not capable of acheiving mandatory status in this day and age you're obviously rubbish so who gives a flying one if you get frozen out.

5 belts including Wlads IBO. Agree, if you cant win an eliminator or become a mandatory with any of 5 governing bodies you have some balls to complain about a contract you are not forced to sign.

Taking the moral highground in boxing is career shortening.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Can't freeze a mandatory out, four belts and a weak division, hardly impossible to gain mandatory status is it, and if you are not capable of acheiving mandatory status in this day and age you're obviously rubbish so who gives a flying one if you get frozen out.

Now who is being naive? Look at the runaround King gave Lewis. Froze him out for years. When you have one dominant champ (count K2 as one) then all manner of games will be played and have been played.

As for "if you dont like it dont sign it", rather a silly argument. Its not a job interview where you dont like the contract.

More waffle. Bowe dodged him as a mandatory and the result was Lewis became world champion by winning the vacated title. Frozen out? No.

Tyson dodged him. The outcome was Lewis got paid 1m step aside money (which he accepted) and got Holyfield (and Tyson) at a later date.

This is the problem for me. I respect your entitlement to not like the Klitschkos or think they are theiving businessmen or whatever. Thats your opinion which is fine. But you are backing up your arguments with bluster which is ill informed, easily disprovable and falls considerably short of telling the full story.

Its easily shown that the heavyweight scene a the moment is very accomodating to becoming mandatories hence why gys like Povetkin, Peter, Ruiz, Thompon, Arreola resurface as challengers again with mandatory status of multiple times.

After Lewis lost to McCall King who controlled the HW scene froze lewis out because Lewis refused the options that came with King.

I wouldn't say Tyson dodged him. He went after a more lucrative fight.

Paying £200k for a world HW title fight is chicken stuff. Tying up fighters with rematches and options is plain wrong. Wrong when King did it and wrong now. There isn't a trade union to claim restrict of trade where they can refuse to sign or whatever. The K2 control the division and have stacked it to their advantage. Credit to them for being good businessmen. But still sharks.

Christ, is this still going?

Boxtthis wrote:Christ, is this still going?

No commitment you young whippersnappers, you should have been around for a Hatton Witter argument, nigh on 300 posts would not have got the opposing sides past their opening statements.

rowley wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:Christ, is this still going?

No commitment you young whippersnappers, you should have been around for a Hatton Witter argument, nigh on 300 posts would not have got the opposing sides past their opening statements.

Bum ducker ducker bum bummer duck duck bummer junior shi**er ricky fatton until post 299. Then it would be - witter dont make money sense.

Have it right Shah, the correct term is Vicky Fatton.

You can't say they're wrong - they give the choice to sign. If you're not a mandatory - you have no divine right to fight for the belt until you've earned it. They are setting out definitive stipulations allowing you the freedom to sign or not. Right now, if Manny Pacquiao offered me £3k to fight him for a title - I'd take it even if I had to fight him until he beat me to win it back. I'd have a bloody title so I'd be raking it in if we foguth again. The rematch clauses only apply if they win against someone who didn't deserve the shot anyway. You can't stipulate a rematch against a mandatory unless you'll become the #1 contender.

This is different from King "freezing out Lewis" - no contracts were signed. The K bros do not "freeze out" anyone. If you're a mandatory, they'll give you mandatory terms. if you beat them, you've beaten them fair and square and they'll offer to fight you again. If you didn't deserve the shot in the first place, you're obligated by contract to give them a shot at redemption, or the other brother. You know this before you have the opportunity to fight.

I get what you're getting at but you're completely blowing them into this whole other world that they're not part of. They're quite fair in comparison to most promoters.

ah yes my mistake. Loved the slew of football fans who only supported ricky hatton can you imagine the abuse k2 would have got had they not given haye his fight. Hatton got a serious pass on witter even though i reckon he'd have scraped past him.

Azania, Lewis was not frozen out of the title picture. He spent 5/6 years of the 1990s as heavyweight champion when King was going strong.

When Bowe ducked him, he got a shot at the vacant.

When he lost to McCall, McCall lost to Bruno, Bruno lost to Tyson. Tyson dropped the belt and again Lewis fought for the vacant. He missed on the Bowe/Tyson fights but it didnt have any bearing on his title opportunity because the result was he fought for the vacated title both times.

All of which is largely beside the point in any case because the Klitschkos have not done this. The argument that the Klitschkos can freeze out mandatories is another of your arguments that not only has little or no supporting evidence, but has reasonable evidence to the contrary as has been shown by a host of fighters that have gone down the mandatory route, sometimes on multiple occasions.

We arent going to agree on this methinks, but I think there are issues that you find people willing to meet you halfway or even agree with you on. But we seem to be bouncing from one unfounded argument to the next. You have decided your position on the Klitschkos as businessmen but you seem to trying to hammer a square peg through a round hole on many of your accusations in order to support this position. This is more what the issue I have is rather than your actual position to begin with.

I would agree that 200k for Chisora was on the low side. However I think you have to lend credence to the respective situation and circumstanced. You havent really offered a figure you think Chisora was entitled to but in my mind he was certainly not entitled to anymore than 400k and that 300-350k would have been about right all things considered. That would be in the region of an 85/15 split. I also think you should acknowledge the point that there have been many occasions where it can be shown when a fighter does bring more to the table he can expect a better split and that using the mandatory route is a fairly straightforward means of getting at least 25%.

A shocked Vitali who said he was ashamed of what happened was seen shaking hands with Haye and laughing. Slowly the mask is slipping. Just left for his doctor to out him.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25022012/58/haye-chisora.html