slave contracts

First topic message reminder :

Haye made a lot of noise about the klitschkos offering slave contracts. However when haye fought harrisson im sure (correct me if im wrong) haye made 5 million and harrisson made 1. that means there was a pot of 6 million in total which means harrisson got just over 15 %.

If that is correct does that mean haye offers slave contracts?

(hayes contract had a rematch clause in it to in case he lost to harrisson)

Man, are we still doing this?

azania wrote:Have you got proof that those 4 boxers claimed that the called the contract a slave contract to get more money? I want to see documentary evidence of that.
One boxer saying it may be a wild claim. 2 could be a coincidence. But at least 4 boxers all claiming the same thing is not a coincidence. But you made a claim that they are saying so for money. Show me the proof.

Why don't you tell me the names of all the boxers who stated k2 offer slave contracts. Tell me their names and why they said they were slave contracts.

So far you have not proven they offer slave contracts you have just said some boxers have said they offer slave contracts and thats enough evidence lol. Prove they offer slave contracts and if you cannot stop going on about it.

A link was posted earlier on this thread.

SO far you have not proven they dont. This can be as circular as you want t to be.

But you made a claim that the boxers asked for more money. I suggest you prove that also. Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth.

The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

azania wrote:A link was posted earlier on this thread.

SO far you have not proven they dont. This can be as circular as you want t to be.

But you made a claim that the boxers asked for more money. I suggest you prove that also. Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth.

If you read the link you would know why I said that. Seems you have not read the link so i suggest you do.

And as stated before you came up with the statement that they offer slave contracts so it is up to you to prove it. Sayiing that a few boxers said they offer slave contracts is not good enough proof especially when other boxers (shannon Briggs) has come out and said that they do not offer slave contracts.

So prove they offer slave contracts. It is not enough for you to say you cant prove me wrong cos that doesn't prove what you are saying is true. So i am waiting for this proof.

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Unfair, but totally fair. The law of the jungle. When I'm negotiating for my business and I've got someone by the balls I don't let go to give him a break, I squeeze harder. K2 do the same. You don't work hard to become top dog only to let everyone walk all over you when you get there.

The original point was about Haye being a hypocrite for laying down the same harshness on Audley. And of course he is, if Haye had K2's bargaining chips he'd be dictating terms to all and sundry - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Unfair, but totally fair. The law of the jungle. When I'm negotiating for my business and I've got someone by the balls I don't let go to give him a break, I squeeze harder. K2 do the same. You don't work hard to become top dog only to let everyone walk all over you when you get there.

The original point was about Haye being a hypocrite for laying down the same harshness on Audley. And of course he is, if Haye had K2's bargaining chips he'd be dictating terms to all and sundry - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Bread and Butter

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Nothing to do with the payments but the options attached to the fighter. The various rematch clauses and probably future earnings also. And no I do not have their contract as evidence as some fool wants.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Unfair, but totally fair. The law of the jungle. When I'm negotiating for my business and I've got someone by the balls I don't let go to give him a break, I squeeze harder. K2 do the same. You don't work hard to become top dog only to let everyone walk all over you when you get there.

The original point was about Haye being a hypocrite for laying down the same harshness on Audley. And of course he is, if Haye had K2's bargaining chips he'd be dictating terms to all and sundry - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

No point in criticising Don King and his methods them. He had fighters by the balls and squeezed until they ended up broke a d he richer than all of them combined. For instance Witherspoon got paid $90k out of a $1m purse to fight Bruno. Nothing illegal about it.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:A link was posted earlier on this thread.

SO far you have not proven they dont. This can be as circular as you want t to be.

But you made a claim that the boxers asked for more money. I suggest you prove that also. Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth.

If you read the link you would know why I said that. Seems you have not read the link so i suggest you do.

And as stated before you came up with the statement that they offer slave contracts so it is up to you to prove it. Sayiing that a few boxers said they offer slave contracts is not good enough proof especially when other boxers (shannon Briggs) has come out and said that they do not offer slave contracts.

So prove they offer slave contracts. It is not enough for you to say you cant prove me wrong cos that doesn't prove what you are saying is true. So i am waiting for this proof.

Prove they dont and show their contract or belt up. You sound like a broken record. Show proof of what Briggs said.

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Unfair, but totally fair. The law of the jungle. When I'm negotiating for my business and I've got someone by the balls I don't let go to give him a break, I squeeze harder. K2 do the same. You don't work hard to become top dog only to let everyone walk all over you when you get there.

The original point was about Haye being a hypocrite for laying down the same harshness on Audley. And of course he is, if Haye had K2's bargaining chips he'd be dictating terms to all and sundry - he who pays the piper calls the tune.

No point in criticising Don King and his methods them. He had fighters by the balls and squeezed until they ended up broke a d he richer than all of them combined. For instance Witherspoon got paid $90k out of a $1m purse to fight Bruno. Nothing illegal about it.

That is Witherspoons employer shafting him. Different scenario to K2 being tough negotiators. I would never shaft an employee like King, but I would never sell myself short in business as per K2. There's a difference between being tough on a 3rd party and short changing someone whose interests you are supposed to be looking out for.

He wasn't shafted. It was all in the contract. His manager and lawyers all read it and agreed to it. Ergo no shafting done.

What K2 were doing is telling the boxer that the will take a portion of future earnings, who he will fight and when. If the boxer wants to win the HW title, that is what he has to go through. Call it good business, but slavery was hugely profitable also.

My concern is always for the boxers and want to see them all maximise their earnings and not for some bar steward take a huge chunk for doing nothing. Boxers deserve it.

azania wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Nothing to do with the payments but the options attached to the fighter. The various rematch clauses and probably future earnings also. And no I do not have their contract as evidence as some fool wants.

The rematch clauses are never invoked though so there's nothing slavish about it.

Besides Az someone asked you to provide evidence and you failed to do so then you said for them to provide evidence of K2 NOT offering slave contracts. The law is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. You failed to back up with evidence and I know how much you value your "evidence"

Azania you've been served!

azania wrote:He wasn't shafted. It was all in the contract. His manager and lawyers all read it and agreed to it. Ergo no shafting done.

What K2 were doing is telling the boxer that the will take a portion of future earnings, who he will fight and when. If the boxer wants to win the HW title, that is what he has to go through. Call it good business, but slavery was hugely profitable also.

My concern is always for the boxers and want to see them all maximise their earnings and not for some bar steward take a huge chunk for doing nothing. Boxers deserve it.

I know there was no illegal shafting, I'm talking from a moral perspective.

If a fighter doesn't like K2's terms he can work his way into a mandatory position. Yes it's tough but it's a dog eat dog world. The comparisons with slavery are OTT when we are talking about free men negotiating million dollar contracts.

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Nothing to do with the payments but the options attached to the fighter. The various rematch clauses and probably future earnings also. And no I do not have their contract as evidence as some fool wants.

The rematch clauses are never invoked though so there's nothing slavish about it.

Besides Az someone asked you to provide evidence and you failed to do so then you said for them to provide evidence of K2 NOT offering slave contracts. The law is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. You failed to back up with evidence and I know how much you value your "evidence"

Azania you've been served!

That's because no-one has beaten them since they became dominant.

Asking for their signed contracts is pretty silly. Besides I doubt if its public knowledge.

As far as I am aware, this is not a court of law. Its an opinion based message board and all the evidence I need to provide is circumstantial based evidence which has been provided by PBF earlier. He gave the words of 3 or 4 other boxers. That hombre asking me for the contract has namd Briggs yet provided nothing to back it up with.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:The pay is representative of the gulf in class. The best man makes the most money. Seems fair to me.

Nothing to do with the payments but the options attached to the fighter. The various rematch clauses and probably future earnings also. And no I do not have their contract as evidence as some fool wants.

The rematch clauses are never invoked though so there's nothing slavish about it.

Besides Az someone asked you to provide evidence and you failed to do so then you said for them to provide evidence of K2 NOT offering slave contracts. The law is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. You failed to back up with evidence and I know how much you value your "evidence"

Azania you've been served!

That's because no-one has beaten them since they became dominant.

Asking for their signed contracts is pretty silly. Besides I doubt if its public knowledge.

As far as I am aware, this is not a court of law. Its an opinion based message board and all the evidence I need to provide is circumstantial based evidence which has been provided by PBF earlier. He gave the words of 3 or 4 other boxers. That hombre asking me for the contract has namd Briggs yet provided nothing to back it up with.

You have not given any evidence you have only given your opinion. And the two links that were posted were just 2 boxers not 4.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=418999

link to a video where briggs says the contracts are not slave contracts.

But the matter is that you cannot make a statement about a contract if you have NEVER seen a contract of theirs. you cannot prove that they offer slave contracts and in any argument legal or non legal if you make a claim you have to back that claim up. saying you cannot prove my claim wrong is not good enough and just proves you have no evidence.

Victor, just give it up man he'll never back down even in the face of the most reasonable of logic.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Victor, just give it up man he'll never back down even in the face of the most reasonable of logic.

Cheers think I will leave it as it has dragged on far too long.

Lol gotta love the Az arguing tactic - "prove me wrong or I am right by default, irrespective or whether I can prove my own opinion is any more right or valid".

Let me get this straight. You want me to produce an original copy of their contract and will not take the word of 2 other boxers (I'm sure there are others). As you should be aware you are asking for the impossible but never mind.

Yet you bring up the word of another boxer to show otherwise yet produce none of the evidence you ask of me.

You accuse me of giving an opinion. Well pardon me, that's exactly what you have done albeit backed up by Shannon Briggs. Interestingly my opinions are also backed up by 2 other boxers. But my opinion is inadmissible yet yours is fine.

Strange logic. And of course mine is an opinion which is backed up by other boxers who have signed their contracts.

But you fall back on wanting original copies of their contract. Obviously it cannot be produced unless K2 are asked to by a court of law which posting on a message board disallows me from doing that. If that is a "win" for you, carry on with it. But in future be aware that whenever you post something opinion based you should back it up with hard evidence. The word of others will not suffice.

Also I suggest you post a copy of the contract Vitali and Briggs signed to show the legitimacy of what Briggs said. His words is not good enough. I am just asking for the same level of "evidence" you asked of me seeing that I have conceded that I cannot provide the actual contracts you asked for.

azania wrote:Let me get this straight. You want me to produce an original copy of their contract and will not take the word of 2 other boxers (I'm sure there are others). As you should be aware you are asking for the impossible but never mind.

Yet you bring up the word of another boxer to show otherwise yet produce none of the evidence you ask of me.

You accuse me of giving an opinion. Well pardon me, that's exactly what you have done albeit backed up by Shannon Briggs. Interestingly my opinions are also backed up by 2 other boxers. But my opinion is inadmissible yet yours is fine.

Strange logic. And of course mine is an opinion which is backed up by other boxers who have signed their contracts.

But you fall back on wanting original copies of their contract. Obviously it cannot be produced unless K2 are asked to by a court of law which posting on a message board disallows me from doing that. If that is a "win" for you, carry on with it. But in future be aware that whenever you post something opinion based you should back it up with hard evidence. The word of others will not suffice.

Also I suggest you post a copy of the contract Vitali and Briggs signed to show the legitimacy of what Briggs said. His words is not good enough. I am just asking for the same level of "evidence" you asked of me seeing that I have conceded that I cannot provide the actual contracts you asked for.

You just look stupid now.

I am going to make a claim that lennox lewis was in prison for murder in the 90's. I have no proof but you can't prove that what I am saying is false so therefore under azanias logic I must be telling the truth.

His words is not good enough.

---------------

They're a heck of a lot more valid than yours! A boxer who's fought the Ks versus a forum board dufus who keeps on going long after being owned..........

.............geez a tough one that!

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Let me get this straight. You want me to produce an original copy of their contract and will not take the word of 2 other boxers (I'm sure there are others). As you should be aware you are asking for the impossible but never mind.

Yet you bring up the word of another boxer to show otherwise yet produce none of the evidence you ask of me.

You accuse me of giving an opinion. Well pardon me, that's exactly what you have done albeit backed up by Shannon Briggs. Interestingly my opinions are also backed up by 2 other boxers. But my opinion is inadmissible yet yours is fine.

Strange logic. And of course mine is an opinion which is backed up by other boxers who have signed their contracts.

But you fall back on wanting original copies of their contract. Obviously it cannot be produced unless K2 are asked to by a court of law which posting on a message board disallows me from doing that. If that is a "win" for you, carry on with it. But in future be aware that whenever you post something opinion based you should back it up with hard evidence. The word of others will not suffice.

Also I suggest you post a copy of the contract Vitali and Briggs signed to show the legitimacy of what Briggs said. His words is not good enough. I am just asking for the same level of "evidence" you asked of me seeing that I have conceded that I cannot provide the actual contracts you asked for.

You just look stupid now.

I am going to make a claim that lennox lewis was in prison for murder in the 90's. I have no proof but you can't prove that what I am saying is false so therefore under azanias logic I must be telling the truth.

The difference is that Lennox being in prison will be public record and readily available. But to ask for a contract which is not in the public domain is entirely different. All one can go by for things which are not in the public domain are the words of others. It is common knowledge that K2 insert several rematch clauses into their contracts. Do we need the actual contract as evidence? If so, then much of the talk on this board will be redundant on many issues.

Super D Boon wrote:His words is not good enough.

---------------

They're a heck of a lot more valid than yours! A boxer who's fought the Ks versus a forum board dufus who keeps on going long after being owned..........

.............geez a tough one that!

Why is the word of Briggs more valid than the word of 2 boxers PBF provided? Its obvious you have not read anything on the thread. I have stated that boxers have claimed the K2 offer slave contracts. PBF posted the link showing a couple of boxers who said they do. Victor is saying he wants to see the actual contract, yet posts Briggs saying they dont offer slave contracts. Why doesn't he post the contract Briggs signed as proof. He is asking me to provide a higher burden of proof than he is yet you claim I am getting owned?

He knows very well that it is impossible to get the actual contract hence his banging on about it.

My claim was backed up by 2 boxers. His by one. I'm getting owned? Yeah right.

You've been owned because you were asked to provide evidence of these so called "slave contracts" that the K bros dish out and you failed to. All you've done is say two boxers said so, so therefore it's true. One boxer says no so there's suffiecient doubt in your testimony not even backed up by sufficient circumstantial evidence. Owned.

Now stop trying to have the last word all the time. Give up for once. You can't win 'em all!

Nonsense. What was asked is impossible to prove or disprove unless you have the actual contract. The only evidence one can use are the words of people directly affected. Right or wrong? All anyone can give are opinions backed up with the evidence available.

Bottom line is, only those directly involved can answer the question and even then it would be difficult to prove unless they are asked to do so by a court. Then the interpritation comes in and the presiding judge may have to decide.

Asking for the actual contract is pretty stupid on something based on opinion and second hand evidence. Then to come out and say that they don't offer slave contracts without seeing the contract is double standards at play. If you are going to disagree, state why. If you are going to say they do not offer slave contracts without any evidence to support your claim then you should prove it.

I cant prove one way or another, but boxers have complained of their slave contracts. Who to believe?

I'd probably believe one who has nothing to gain over two or four who do

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd probably believe one who has nothing to gain over two or four who do

So its a question of belief (as it should). So how can it be debated when asked to provide the actual contracts to support the opinion?

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd probably believe one who has nothing to gain over two or four who do

So its a question of belief (as it should). So how can it be debated when asked to provide the actual contracts to support the opinion?

All the people who claim the klitschkos offer slave contracts ended up signing the contracts to fight the klitschkos. Does that not prove that maybe they were not offered slave contracts?

And one of the people who you claim as evidence that k2 offer slave contracts was arguing it was a slave contract because he was not getting pad enough but the guy only had 15 fights and had lost 2 of them (chisora) hardly deserving of a massive pay packet is it.

Because they wanted a shot at the title and the riches that comes with it. Still doesn't make the contract less slavish. You wanted the contract as proof. Now you're shifting.

You gave one fighter. Two were provided by K2. Perhaps you should provide another plus the contract.

It is not about the pay for crissakes. Its the several rematches and extras they add to it, denying the fighter the right to earn and keep a fair chunk of future earnings.

azania wrote:Because they wanted a shot at the title and the riches that comes with it. Still doesn't make the contract less slavish. You wanted the contract as proof. Now you're shifting.

You gave one fighter. Two were provided by K2. Perhaps you should provide another plus the contract.

It is not about the pay for crissakes. Its the several rematches and extras they add to it, denying the fighter the right to earn and keep a fair chunk of future earnings.

But you argued K2 offer slave contracts and used chisora as evidence but he was calling it a slave contract over pay.

Anyway you have not proved that they offer slave contracts you just keep going on about guys who claim they offer slave contracts and yet those guys have agreed to fight K2.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Because they wanted a shot at the title and the riches that comes with it. Still doesn't make the contract less slavish. You wanted the contract as proof. Now you're shifting.

You gave one fighter. Two were provided by K2. Perhaps you should provide another plus the contract.

It is not about the pay for crissakes. Its the several rematches and extras they add to it, denying the fighter the right to earn and keep a fair chunk of future earnings.

But you argued K2 offer slave contracts and used chisora as evidence but he was calling it a slave contract over pay.

Anyway you have not proved that they offer slave contracts you just keep going on about guys who claim they offer slave contracts and yet those guys have agreed to fight K2.

Why dont you provide the same level of evidence you asked me to provide? You have not provided proof of anything other than the words of Briggs.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Because they wanted a shot at the title and the riches that comes with it. Still doesn't make the contract less slavish. You wanted the contract as proof. Now you're shifting.

You gave one fighter. Two were provided by K2. Perhaps you should provide another plus the contract.

It is not about the pay for crissakes. Its the several rematches and extras they add to it, denying the fighter the right to earn and keep a fair chunk of future earnings.

But you argued K2 offer slave contracts and used chisora as evidence but he was calling it a slave contract over pay.

Anyway you have not proved that they offer slave contracts you just keep going on about guys who claim they offer slave contracts and yet those guys have agreed to fight K2.

Why dont you provide the same level of evidence you asked me to provide? You have not provided proof of anything other than the words of Briggs.

You're the one making the claim so you prove it. not up to me to prove the claim for you.

Can you provide a contract for us all to discuss?

azania wrote:Can you provide a contract for us all to discuss?

so you have never seen a contract of theirs yet you are arguing that they offer slave contracts. you are so bright.

I didn't ask that.

Have you seen a contract if theirs to be so certain? Outside of the fighters and their reps, who else has seen a contract? Are you a K2 rep?

azania wrote:I didn't ask that.

Have you seen a contract if theirs to be so certain? Outside of the fighters and their reps, who else has seen a contract? Are you a K2 rep?

I am not the one arguing about what terms they offer. I am saying you cannot say they offer x terms when you have never seen any contracts and the only evidence you have is chisora who said he wanted more money and david haye who got a 50/50 split.

I am giving an opinion. What don't you understand by that? You trying to say that no-one can hold an opinion on this issue unless they have the proof in front of them? In that case it fails to be an opinion but an interpretation of the facts.

Muppet. Haye got 50/50 because he had the WBA belt and huge PPV money. If he had pushed for more he could have got it as he brought more of what most boxers fight for; money.

Read PBF's links. Its not just Haye and Chisora. But if you fel its only those two who have complained, knock yourself out.

azania wrote:I am giving an opinion. What don't you understand by that? You trying to say that no-one can hold an opinion on this issue unless they have the proof in front of them? In that case it fails to be an opinion but an interpretation of the facts.

Muppet. Haye got 50/50 because he had the WBA belt and huge PPV money. If he had pushed for more he could have got it as he brought more of what most boxers fight for; money.

Read PBF's links. Its not just Haye and Chisora. But if you fel its only those two who have complained, knock yourself out.

You're the muppet who is arguing about terms of a contract he has never seen.

Jaysus. I'm debating with an amoeba. I am giving my opinion on their contracts based on what others have said about it. That it is more than one boxer who has had issues with the contracts lends me to believe that they offer what has been referred to as slave contracts.

The bottom line is; its an opinion. OPINION. Not onion. But OPINION.

You're continuous referral to me not seeing the contract applies to you also. Yet it doesn't stop you arguing the opposite.

alma wrote:At the end of the day if a potential klitschko opponent doesn't like the contract they're offered, they might as well just not sign it and go and fight someone else. They must know they're going to lose to K2 anyway so they're not really losing out.

Although it is wrong that a champion offers a contract to someone to fight him. Just a ridiculous way of running a sport. Doesn't happen in other sports where there's proper governing bodies etc. If only boxing were centrally controlled by an organisation.

Go fight someone else and perhaps never fight for the biggest prize in sport. As you say it's wrong and doing damage to the sport.

And for the amoeba, its an opinion.

azania wrote:Jaysus. I'm debating with an amoeba. I am giving my opinion on their contracts based on what others have said about it. That it is more than one boxer who has had issues with the contracts lends me to believe that they offer what has been referred to as slave contracts.

The bottom line is; its an opinion. OPINION. Not onion. But OPINION.

You're continuous referral to me not seeing the contract applies to you also. Yet it doesn't stop you arguing the opposite.

K2 have fought nearly 100 opponents and you have found 2 saying they offer slave contracts.

You have never seen a contract of theirs so you can't argue that they offer x terms etc. You are a sheep if you believe what others say with no real proof.

Repeating same arguments for the sake of an argument. Mix it up a bit would you?

two_tone wrote:Repeating same arguments for the sake of an argument. Mix it up a bit would you?

Who are you appealing to? We know Az is a lost cause......hope yet for victor??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

two_tone wrote:Repeating same arguments for the sake of an argument. Mix it up a bit would you?

Who are you appealing to? We know Az is a lost cause......hope yet for victor??

I will assume my good deed for the day has been wasted...

two_tone wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

two_tone wrote:Repeating same arguments for the sake of an argument. Mix it up a bit would you?

Who are you appealing to? We know Az is a lost cause......hope yet for victor??

I will assume my good deed for the day has been wasted...

I was trying to see how long this debate would continue for. I am pretty sure AZ just wants to have the last word so it's quite funny to keep replying to him and stop him getting what he wants. The debate was over for me a while ago now I'm just replying to stop him getting the last word.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Jaysus. I'm debating with an amoeba. I am giving my opinion on their contracts based on what others have said about it. That it is more than one boxer who has had issues with the contracts lends me to believe that they offer what has been referred to as slave contracts.

The bottom line is; its an opinion. OPINION. Not onion. But OPINION.

You're continuous referral to me not seeing the contract applies to you also. Yet it doesn't stop you arguing the opposite.

K2 have fought nearly 100 opponents and you have found 2 saying they offer slave contracts.

You have never seen a contract of theirs so you can't argue that they offer x terms etc. You are a sheep if you believe what others say with no real proof.

I've just insulted an amoeba it seems. Read this carefully. Move your lips if that helps. You do not need to see the contract to form an opinion. The word of Chisora, Solis, Haye and others who say similar things is good enough for me.

Describing me as a sheep is far removed from the reality as many here will testify. Describing you as a waingro clone is possibly quite accurate.

Haye, Chisora, Solis, Wach, Charr and Povetkin...That is 6 boxers who have complained.

Think Victor is one of the Klitschko fanboys.

The genius of PBF wrote:Haye, Chisora, Solis, Wach, Charr and Povetkin...That is 6 boxers who have complained.

Think Victor is one of the Klitschko fanboys.

In 2010 Haye said he would show everyone he Klitschko contract offered to him, he never did. Chisora complained that he was not offered enough money, hardly a slave contract when chisora was coming off 2 losses in a 15 fight career.

Can't find a link where solis complained so please show me one.

But all of those boxers have never shown anyone a contract so it smells like crap especially haye

Read the thread there is links...Seems like Haye has something in common with you then.