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)

Or more appropriately rat-ion - as they have to spread out what theyve got to spare to poor fighters because theyve beaten everyone

That was a lovely quote by Larry that. One of the best quotes in boxing.

azania wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I would like to meet a slave who signed a contract

I see someone has taken to use the litteral meaning of slave. Ah well. It's a term used for an unfair contract one feels coerced to sign.

As opposed to its figurative meaning?!

Super D Boon wrote:That was a lovely quote by Larry that. One of the best quotes in boxing.

Ha ha, yep. Nearly as good as Marlon Starling's line of "I'll fight Lloyd Honeyghan for nothing if the money's right."

Now that would be a 'slave contract.'

Starling after he was knocked out(punch after the bell) "What round did I win"

Jack Dempsey - "A champion is someone who gets up when he can't."

Ha! Poor Marlon. Well and truly jobbed against Molinares. Hard to believe that the WBC (or was it the WBA? I forget) kept Molinares as champion after that farce.

Didn't have a great way with words, Starling, but a damn fine fighter.

His beating of Honey was nasty. Plus he showed Breland who was the man when Mark was heavily touted as the next Sugar Ray. Awesome fighter. Just shows how good Curry was for beating him twice.

Those two fights with Curry were the sort of ones which a casual fan could never enjoy or appreciate - and yet if you were really in to your boxing, they were essential viewing. The pair of them were so technical and economic in their punching it was scary.

The only thing Starling lacked was a bit of speed.

Don't know if Starling was too technical with his cash though considering he drives taxis now or something.

Limos I think, Boon. Certainly went through all his money and then some, but he's not alone in that group!

azania wrote:Asking for proof is a cop out. How on earth can I get a copy of their contract?

Don't talk about the klitschkos offering slave contracts if you have never seen a contract of theirs. Someone posting links to a boxing website or a newspaper is not proof.

Post a link to a copy of their contracts. Surely if they were so bad a boxer would make it public. Surely Haye would have released a copy of the contract to show the world that they are slave contracts.

I get sick of heavyweights talking about "slave" contracts....

When you look at guys like Julio cesar chavez and Rosario.....(the best 130er against the best 135er) getting $400,000 for fighting eachother....

Then Spinks and Cooney got $5 million each..you realise what a load of guff it is...

Contracts are funny things......It takes a pen and a wrist movement to sign them!!!

Don't sign themselves....

I dont agree with options in principal but its a fairly common thing in the world of boxing promotion. The differance with the Klitschkos is that they are mainly self promoted but King, GB, Arum, Sauerland etc all employ similar options. Haye wasnt complaining bout the options Sauerland had on him for the shot at Valuev for instance. Its the cost of doing business in boxing.

What is a big differance with K2 is that they arent on ppv so the pot size for the fights is quite small in comparison with the big names in the U.S. Vitali for instance earned 5 million last year from boxing purses for a couple of fights. Not shabby but nothing like what Mayweather or Pacquaio could command. Even an opponent for those guys like Ortiz would bag more for a one off fight. So some opponents of the Klitschkos are getting sums that seem small but are actually just proportionate to what is in the pot.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Asking for proof is a cop out. How on earth can I get a copy of their contract?

Don't talk about the klitschkos offering slave contracts if you have never seen a contract of theirs. Someone posting links to a boxing website or a newspaper is not proof.

Post a link to a copy of their contracts. Surely if they were so bad a boxer would make it public. Surely Haye would have released a copy of the contract to show the world that they are slave contracts.

I tell you what. You post a copy of their contract to prove it is not a slave contract. Prove that their contracts do not include a clause that the winner gets to sh@g Wlad's ex missus.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Asking for proof is a cop out. How on earth can I get a copy of their contract?

Don't talk about the klitschkos offering slave contracts if you have never seen a contract of theirs. Someone posting links to a boxing website or a newspaper is not proof.

Post a link to a copy of their contracts. Surely if they were so bad a boxer would make it public. Surely Haye would have released a copy of the contract to show the world that they are slave contracts.

I tell you what. You post a copy of their contract to prove it is not a slave contract. Prove that their contracts do not include a clause that the winner gets to sh@g Wlad's ex missus.

You're the one who said they offer slave contracts and I asked you to prove it. You cannot prove it so stop going on about it. Just admit that you believe they offer slave contracts cos david haye said so.

You're the one saying they don't. Why not prove. Get a copy of their contract. An original one also and post it for all to see.

You cannot prove otherwise. You believe they don't because K2 said so.

Now see how stupid this is?

felix sturm used to offer some real slave contracts, some opponents had to give 40% of their next 2 years purses to him if he lost, normally though he'd buy the decision anyways (probably)

i dont have prove btw, hbo's commentary mentioned it during one of his fights.

eddyfightfan wrote:felix sturm used to offer some real slave contracts, some opponents had to give 40% of their next 2 years purses to him if he lost, normally though he'd buy the decision anyways (probably)

i dont have prove btw, hbo's commentary mentioned it during one of his fights.

Some fool above will want to see transcripts and the written contract.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:Asking for proof is a cop out. How on earth can I get a copy of their contract?

Don't talk about the klitschkos offering slave contracts if you have never seen a contract of theirs. Someone posting links to a boxing website or a newspaper is not proof.

Post a link to a copy of their contracts. Surely if they were so bad a boxer would make it public. Surely Haye would have released a copy of the contract to show the world that they are slave contracts.

I tell you what. You post a copy of their contract to prove it is not a slave contract. Prove that their contracts do not include a clause that the winner gets to sh@g Wlad's ex missus.

At least you've given out a fantastic prize...

That hoochie is HOT!!!

Hoochie????

what an offensive label for a woman. Lets not get sexist this is a good thread.

I think many woman would be deeply offended at such a term it degrades them.

So?

I could make a big thing about this Az and remind you of your choice of degrading sewer rat language but I respect your right to free speech and do not feel the need to go over the top and label people sexist, racist, homophobic or the other.

Lets banter as men and if you say something derogatory or offensive be man enough to apologise as I have and move on.

Back to boxing.

That hoochie is damn fine. From my neck of the woods it's a term of endearment. No 'jokes' about wishing anyone dead.

Lesson 1 in the cultural exchange tutorial.

Ah boy....

I know what you mean.

Can you find the signed contract of K2 against any of their opponents?

I find K2's "slave contracts" very difficult to measure by, in one instance you can say it is unfair basically dictating someone into terms in which you are practically controlling somebody for an entire year or perhaps more with rematches and controlling you finances for that period of time also.

However, if you are a voluntary defence, and you haven't earned a genuine clear shot in terms of making yourself a mandatory challenger, you should realistically bow down to whatever terms the dictator wants to make, and you should either accept them, or decline them. Because, you have the choice of doing two things, fighting difficult fights and genuinely testing yourself with the men that are ranked in the top ten and make yourself a mandatory where you can take a slightly bigger cut, due to you earning it. Or do what Haye did, (Though this option was only available at the time, not now) win a different portion of the world title, build a large fanbase and take over an awful lot of money for the fight. Of course not as many have been in such privilaged positions to do that ala Haye.

Basically, my view is, the contracts in terms of the amount of rematch clauses that are in there is a bit OTT, however if you're in the position to apply it, you can't blame the brothers too much for it. You could also ask the challenger, "If you're so upset about it, why don't you go and prove yourself and make yourself a mandatory?" The truthful answer is that they would rather not have to work so hard at it and just turn up and take a paycheque against a Kbro.

My issue with options (yes common practice) is that it is almost legalised bribery/blackmail. Yes have a rematch clause, but to request a percentage of future earnings should you have the cheek to win takes it to another level entirely. Boxing is hard enough without this added to it.

If you are a voluntary defense, take the short end of the deal. Have a rematch clause. That's it. But to fight the brother, then rematch the loser and then have options on future earnings is a p take.

They're making it look like a mafia operation. What other sport or business deal do such terms apply? Slavery and prostitution.

Like I said I disagree, with controlling somebodies finances and the amount of rematch clauses that are put into it, the opponents at the end of the day are the ones that are signing it willingly. If they hated it so much, they would fight hard and prove themselves to attain mandatory status, if you are too lazy to do that, then I just don't feel you can complain about the amount of clauses that are in the deal as you do have another option, which is essentially the option that most fighters had to take looking at it in the "Good old days"

azania wrote:You're the one saying they don't. Why not prove. Get a copy of their contract. An original one also and post it for all to see.

You cannot prove otherwise. You believe they don't because K2 said so.

Now see how stupid this is?

I'm telling you that you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. You are the one who has made a statement about something so the requirement is on you to prove it. So far you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. If you have never seen a copy of their contract don't say they offer slave contracts. You need to stop listening to david haye and believing everything he says

azania wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:felix sturm used to offer some real slave contracts, some opponents had to give 40% of their next 2 years purses to him if he lost, normally though he'd buy the decision anyways (probably)

i dont have prove btw, hbo's commentary mentioned it during one of his fights.

Some fool above will want to see transcripts and the written contract.

you're the fool who believes everything a loud mouthed boxer says. If david haye said they offer slave contracts then it must be true hahahah

It isn't just Haye, it's a large portion of the voluntary defences that have complained.

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:You're the one saying they don't. Why not prove. Get a copy of their contract. An original one also and post it for all to see.

You cannot prove otherwise. You believe they don't because K2 said so.

Now see how stupid this is?

I'm telling you that you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. You are the one who has made a statement about something so the requirement is on you to prove it. So far you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. If you have never seen a copy of their contract don't say they offer slave contracts. You need to stop listening to david haye and believing everything he says

I'm telling you that you have no proof otherwise. Why don't you pipe down about listening to Haye. I've been saying this for a while and that people have posted the opinions of other boxers is enough for me. If you think they are wrong, post a contract. Otherwise belt up.

Fighting for the HW title could be a road to riches. If you have to give up a large chunk of your future earnings to the dethroned champion, that is legalised robbery.

azania wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

azania wrote:You're the one saying they don't. Why not prove. Get a copy of their contract. An original one also and post it for all to see.

You cannot prove otherwise. You believe they don't because K2 said so.

Now see how stupid this is?

I'm telling you that you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. You are the one who has made a statement about something so the requirement is on you to prove it. So far you have no proof that they offer slave contracts. If you have never seen a copy of their contract don't say they offer slave contracts. You need to stop listening to david haye and believing everything he says

I'm telling you that you have no proof otherwise. Why don't you pipe down about listening to Haye. I've been saying this for a while and that people have posted the opinions of other boxers is enough for me. If you think they are wrong, post a contract. Otherwise belt up.

it's not about having proof that they don't. Legally you need proof that they do in order to win an argument. you need to prove what youa re saying is true. you can't just state something and then say even though I have no proof you can't prove me wrong so it must be right. Otherwise I could come and say that Lewis offered slave contracts and so did mike tyson and cos you can't prove otherwise I am right. The requirement would be on me to prove lewis and tyson offered slave contracts because I am the one making the statement that they do.

So if you can't prove that they offer slave contracts and the only proof you have is david haye's mouth then that is not good enough.

This is tedious. Prove they dont. Get over yourself. It's nothing about Haye's mouth. Haye was not offered a slave contract so I don't know what you're on about.

If you don't have the same level of proof you ask of me, I suggest you pipe down.

azania wrote:This is tedious. Prove they dont. Get over yourself. It's nothing about Haye's mouth. Haye was not offered a slave contract so I don't know what you're on about.

If you don't have the same level of proof you ask of me, I suggest you pipe down.

You don't go into a court of law and say 'this man killed another man I have no proof but because you can't prove he never you must find him guilty'. The requirement would be on you to show proof as you are the one making the accusation.

Now I suggest you stop listening to David Haye because not everything he says is true.

This isn't a frigging court of law. Why are you spewing Haye stuff. Can't you read? You're asking the impossible. Something you cannot do.

If everyone followed your burden of proof on a message board, there will be nothing to discuss. Are you suggesting all boxers who have said similar things are all lying?

azania wrote:This isn't a frigging court of law. Why are you spewing Haye stuff. Can't you read? You're asking the impossible. Something you cannot do.

If everyone followed your burden of proof on a message board, there will be nothing to discuss. Are you suggesting all boxers who have said similar things are all lying?

You have such a strong view that they offer slave contracts when you have seen no evidence to confirm this. It is amazing that someone can believe something so stronglyy and argue with a stranger about it when they have never actually seen any proof to confirm that what they believe is the truth.

I don't believe that K2 offer slave contracts because I have never seen any proof to suggest that they do. Just like I don't believe lewis or tyson or holmes offered slave contracts because I have not seen any proof.

I am off on a night out but I shall be back in a few hours

I would suggest scrolling up and reading some of the links the genius of PBF posted, a fair amount of proof there.

The Klitschkos stack the contracts in their favour, because they are top dogs and hold the bargaining power. That's called good business. When Haye was fighting a guy well below himself in the pecking order he stacked his own contract.

It's harsh, but life is like that, it's just business. The term 'slave contract' is unfortunate, no matter how unfavourable the contract there is always the option to decline. I doubt too many actual slaves ever had that option.

If many boxers all claim the same thing about their terms offered, I tend to believe them. It is common knowledge that K2 offer a fight with either brother as part of the deal. But requesting future earnings is low.

Lewis et al didn't offer anything. They had King etc doing their bidding. King offered options and was rightfully roundly criticised for it. And before you crawl back I am aware Lewis was not managed or promoted by King.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:The Klitschkos stack the contracts in their favour, because they are top dogs and hold the bargaining power. That's called good business. When Haye was fighting a guy well below himself in the pecking order he stacked his own contract.

It's harsh, but life is like that, it's just business. The term 'slave contract' is unfortunate, no matter how unfavourable the contract there is always the option to decline. I doubt too many actual slaves ever had that option.

There's stacking the contract in their favour, but to deny a boxer the right to keep most of his money earned in the hardest sport is a joke. Maybe good business, but I call if legal blackmail.

Slaves had owners. Boxers have promoters and managers. Sometimes I can't tell the difference.

For me its all about the person doing the fighting and taking the punches. I can't see for the life of me how what K2 do can be morally justified.

victorgarco wrote: I am off on a night out but I shall be back in a few hours

Sounds like a rubbish night out.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

victorgarco wrote: I am off on a night out but I shall be back in a few hours

Sounds like a rubbish night out.

azania wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:The Klitschkos stack the contracts in their favour, because they are top dogs and hold the bargaining power. That's called good business. When Haye was fighting a guy well below himself in the pecking order he stacked his own contract.

It's harsh, but life is like that, it's just business. The term 'slave contract' is unfortunate, no matter how unfavourable the contract there is always the option to decline. I doubt too many actual slaves ever had that option.

There's stacking the contract in their favour, but to deny a boxer the right to keep most of his money earned in the hardest sport is a joke. Maybe good business, but I call if legal blackmail.

Slaves had owners. Boxers have promoters and managers. Sometimes I can't tell the difference.

For me its all about the person doing the fighting and taking the punches. I can't see for the life of me how what K2 do can be morally justified.

You are just making things up now you have admitted that you have never seen a klitschko contract yet you act like you know all the terms they offer. I can't take you seriously when you argue about something you have never seen before.

Have you seen a K2 contract to prove otherwise? Yet you argue as if you wrote the bloody thing yourself.

Look, other boxers have said almost exactly the same thing. Are they all lying? If you think so, I suggest you provide one of their contracts to prove it. I may not have a contract to show, but others have posted the words of other boxers who signed one. They say similar things.

Asking for me to provide a contract (when its not public knowledge) is a cop out. If you don't know its a cop out then I question your intelligence.

azania wrote:Have you seen a K2 contract to prove otherwise? Yet you argue as if you wrote the bloody thing yourself.

Look, other boxers have said almost exactly the same thing. Are they all lying? If you think so, I suggest you provide one of their contracts to prove it. I may not have a contract to show, but others have posted the words of other boxers who signed one. They say similar things.

Asking for me to provide a contract (when its not public knowledge) is a cop out. If you don't know its a cop out then I question your intelligence.

It's not a cop out it's just very stupid of someone to make such claims as yourself that K" offer slave contracts when you have never seen any of their contracts and you are basing all your evidence on 3/4 different disgruntled fighters who have made such claims in the hope of getting more money or to just avoid a big beat down and use the contract as a get out.

Shannon Briggs who fought Vitali has also said that the slave contract is a myth and fighters just say it to either get paid more or to get out of the fight but still have face.

I question your intelligence that you believe someone does something when you have no real evidence to prove it.

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.