Wilder to AJ: Just say Yes and the Meeting is On

Its called al haymon The same guy that cannot arrange for wilder's pay to be opt by showtime?

Whos ever accepted 50 Million dollars when refused stipulations when inquiring and 24 hr dead lines on top of it including denied meetings?:burnout: #1 - It wasn't a 24 hour deadline. It was a "by the end of tomorrow" deadline, the same exact deadline Hearn gave Wilder. If you knew anything about negotiating, you would know these types of ego games are played all the time. Nobody takes these deadlines seriously. But if you find it so offensive, scold Hearn for doing it first. #2 - All of the most important deal points where spelled out in the offer. Any smaller deal points would be silly to sit down to discuss before knowing if 50 million was going to be acceptable or not. Don King even laughed at that and asked what stipulations are involved bc you CANT agree on such a deal if your fighter generates 20 Million a fight.. If you were an actual promoter that you CLAIMED you know that would be idiotic !:poke: I worked for Don for many years and consider him the most brilliant promoter that's ever lived. But for you to quote him in this instance is soooo funny because Don for years would have fighters sign BLANK CONTRACTS and he would then fill in the numbers later.

Deontay why you let white man milk you and play with your balls?

Sounds like Al Haymon is taking the lead on this deal. Says he will get Hearn the answers he needs soon. It's clear Finkel didn't have them answers ready when Eddie wanted to meet. Also, proof of funds has not yet been proved. Another lie from thaboxingvoice.

Id actually like to see the lowest paid champions in HW history bc in 7 title defenses Wilders avg . has been 1.4 Million i believe ,he has even a 900 K fight . Thats one of the strangest things ive seen in boxing for a HW champion K.O artist . I think Joshuas opponents make more then that ? Joshua's opponents definitely get paid more than Wilder does. There's big money there. With Wilder, not so much. The only way Wilder gets a big payday is against either Whyte or Joshua. Outside of these 2, Wilder's pay won't rise by much if at all.

You cant ! Yes you can. People accept one deal point in principle before moving on to other deal points all the time. How else would you ever get a deal done?

How can you say YES before discussing the deal on a MEETING?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcSlNmfV0AASldn.jpg

because i wont allow you to trap me in a vortex. you said all four equal. i proved you wrong. now youre moving the goal posts. if i humor that tactic, it can become never ending. every time i prove you wrong you can just change your position again. What do you mean every time? I accept the WBC was seen in the past as being the more valuable title. But these days, not so much. With the WBC being corrupt and making up rules as they go along to suit their cause, I don't see how being WBC champ over being WBO champ is better. You don't get a higher ranking because of it because that would be pure stupidity. A fighters ranking should be based on who you beat, not some stupid bauble you have. You tried to claim you earned more money for being WBC champion over being IBF and WBA champion, so I want to see you give me examples of fighters being paid more money on the basis of having the WBC over the other 2. You can't because it doesn't happen. I've never seen any TV company or promoter pay their fighters more on the basis of what title they own. They're paid on how big a star they are, how many viewers they bring to TV and by how many tickets they sell. Saying anything else is just pure nonsense.

Yeah, sure. You keep telling me you could but can't for what ever reason. because i wont allow you to trap me in a vortex. you said all four equal. i proved you wrong. now youre moving the goal posts. if i humor that tactic, it can become never ending. every time i prove you wrong you can just change your position again.

I can, but I'm refusing to, because as I already explained, I'm not going to allow you to move the goal posts. Yeah, sure. You keep telling me you could but can't for what ever reason. It's complete nonsense that's why. No WBA or IBF champion was paid less because of the title they held but would have been paid more for having the WBC title regardless of the opponent. It just never happened.

So you can't answer me on fighters being paid more money on the basis of having the WBC over the IBF and the WBA? I can, but I'm refusing to, because as I already explained, I'm not going to allow you to move the goal posts.

If your new position is that the big 3 are equal and the WBO is a little less valuable, I'm not interested in arguing with you. The difference in value between the WBC and the IBF are not large enough for me to be able to quickly and easily disprove your position and it's not something I'm passionate enough about to spend the time digging very deep to show the differences. WBC vs. WBO is so easy to expose that it doesn't take much time or thought. WBC vs. IBF isn't as easy. The WBA on the other hand has tarnished themselves so much with the super belt & world belt that I think the damage they've done to their brand is very obvious. When a WBA title is at stake, the average fan is very confused as to whether it's a proper title, a secondary title, a super title, etc. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of countries where due to tradition, the WBC & WBA are seen as the real belts, that the IBF suffers a little bit. In my opinion, the WBA and IBF are essentially equal at this point. The super mess allowed the IBF to catch up to the WBA, not to mention a lot of promoters really liking how strict the IBF is so you know exactly what you're going to get when you deal with them. Keep in mind in Japan, the IBF & WBO have only recently been allowed. Until 5 years ago, only the WBC & WBA were recognized in the country. As for why the WBC has the most value, there's a few reasons. #1 - The WBC has always done the best job of catering to the biggest stars. #2 - The WBC heavyweight champion has never lost a unification fight ever. #3 - The WBC was formed by so many of the world's governments, including the previously most prestigious groups like the BBBoC, EBU, NYSAC, etc that it was the closet thing to a true world title as so many of the most powerful agencies joined forces to recognize just one world champion. #4 - The WBC has spent the most time, money and energy marketing their trademark as well as marketing that green belt. It's the most recognizable belt. It's the belt most fighters dream of holding. It's the belt the TV networks think of as the top belt. These are things that have been ingrained in boxing culture for decades, and before the WBC even existed, it was ingrained in boxing culture that the NYSAC was the top title (which was merged into the WBC). So the WBC's lineage traces back to the most prominent titles for nearly a century. #5 - The WBC does the most to facilitate the biggest fights. This stems from father Sulaiman being independently wealthy before taking over the WBC and having the ability to put long term success over a few extra dollars in the short term. This is why the WBC is the only group that's never had a bribery scandal. Back in the day, a few grand could get you major favors in the WBA or IBF. In the WBC, Sulaiman would laugh at a few grand and never consider something like that. #6 - During boxing's Don King/Bob Arum heyday, the WBC was essentially Don King's toy and the WBA was essentially Bob Arum's toy. Since Don King was the #1 promoter with the biggest fights, the WBC ended up seeming like a bigger deal than the WBA, which was aligned with the #2 promoter, who had slightly less important fights overall. #7 - Mike Tyson won the WBC title first, then went on to demolish the other champions. This really helped to continue the perception that the WBC was the top title. #8 - Riddick Bowe and Mike Tyson both blatantly ducked Lennox Lewis and vacated to avoid him. Since Lewis went on to become undisputed champion, it proved the WBC correct for standing behind him as the mandatory and later as champion. It was also the belt Lewis held on to the longest, retiring as WBC champion, having discarded the WBA and IBF previously. #9 - Wladimir Klitschko held the other titles, but his brother Vitali was WBC champion and most experts believed Vitali was the superior fighter and would beat his brother Wladimir. Even though Wladimir was unified, since Vitali was considered the best fighter on the planet, it continued the WBC's history as the top belt. #10 - Corrie Sanders vacated the WBO heavyweight title so he could fight for the vacant WBC title, one of the most blatant examples of how much more seriously the fighters take the WBC. #11 - Mayweather spent his entire career tirelessly devoted to the WBC. Since he's the most successful fighter who ever lived and spent decades as WBC champion in five classes, unifying in multiple classes and beating champions of other organizations, it was another example of the WBC getting the most attention and recognition. #12 - With the BBBoC being considered the one true British title and the EBU being considered the one true European title, and the WBC having been founded by the BBBoC and EBU as the one true world title, the WBC in Europe has always been a step ahead of the others in terms of desirability and prestige. It's the only world title that was created by the official British & European entities. So you can't answer me on fighters being paid more money on the basis of having the WBC over the IBF and the WBA? You've just wasted your time on a load of nonsense. But i especially love your "A WBC Heavyweight champ has never lost a unification" Haha. Like that has anything to do with what I asked you. Maybe next time you'll get to the point.

Don't understand some people here. The Wilder team is making a big offer and the AJ team appears to have no interest. Why even care about each guy finances, this fight should get done period before it loses its luster by one of them losing. Remember that this is the HW division and anything can happen.

OK, the WBO is not seen as being as valuable as the WBC. Now give me these fighters who were paid less money on the basis of them having the IBF or the WBA over that of the WBC? If your new position is that the big 3 are equal and the WBO is a little less valuable, I'm not interested in arguing with you. The difference in value between the WBC and the IBF are not large enough for me to be able to quickly and easily disprove your position and it's not something I'm passionate enough about to spend the time digging very deep to show the differences. WBC vs. WBO is so easy to expose that it doesn't take much time or thought. WBC vs. IBF isn't as easy. The WBA on the other hand has tarnished themselves so much with the super belt & world belt that I think the damage they've done to their brand is very obvious. When a WBA title is at stake, the average fan is very confused as to whether it's a proper title, a secondary title, a super title, etc. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of countries where due to tradition, the WBC & WBA are seen as the real belts, that the IBF suffers a little bit. In my opinion, the WBA and IBF are essentially equal at this point. The super mess allowed the IBF to catch up to the WBA, not to mention a lot of promoters really liking how strict the IBF is so you know exactly what you're going to get when you deal with them. Keep in mind in Japan, the IBF & WBO have only recently been allowed. Until 5 years ago, only the WBC & WBA were recognized in the country. As for why the WBC has the most value, there's a few reasons. #1 - The WBC has always done the best job of catering to the biggest stars. #2 - The WBC heavyweight champion has never lost a unification fight ever. #3 - The WBC was formed by so many of the world's governments, including the previously most prestigious groups like the BBBoC, EBU, NYSAC, etc that it was the closet thing to a true world title as so many of the most powerful agencies joined forces to recognize just one world champion. #4 - The WBC has spent the most time, money and energy marketing their trademark as well as marketing that green belt. It's the most recognizable belt. It's the belt most fighters dream of holding. It's the belt the TV networks think of as the top belt. These are things that have been ingrained in boxing culture for decades, and before the WBC even existed, it was ingrained in boxing culture that the NYSAC was the top title (which was merged into the WBC). So the WBC's lineage traces back to the most prominent titles for nearly a century. #5 - The WBC does the most to facilitate the biggest fights. This stems from father Sulaiman being independently wealthy before taking over the WBC and having the ability to put long term success over a few extra dollars in the short term. This is why the WBC is the only group that's never had a bribery scandal. Back in the day, a few grand could get you major favors in the WBA or IBF. In the WBC, Sulaiman would laugh at a few grand and never consider something like that. #6 - During boxing's Don King/Bob Arum heyday, the WBC was essentially Don King's toy and the WBA was essentially Bob Arum's toy. Since Don King was the #1 promoter with the biggest fights, the WBC ended up seeming like a bigger deal than the WBA, which was aligned with the #2 promoter, who had slightly less important fights overall. #7 - Mike Tyson won the WBC title first, then went on to demolish the other champions. This really helped to continue the perception that the WBC was the top title. #8 - Riddick Bowe and Mike Tyson both blatantly ducked Lennox Lewis and vacated to avoid him. Since Lewis went on to become undisputed champion, it proved the WBC correct for standing behind him as the mandatory and later as champion. It was also the belt Lewis held on to the longest, retiring as WBC champion, having discarded the WBA and IBF previously. #9 - Wladimir Klitschko held the other titles, but his brother Vitali was WBC champion and most experts believed Vitali was the superior fighter and would beat his brother Wladimir. Even though Wladimir was unified, since Vitali was considered the best fighter on the planet, it continued the WBC's history as the top belt. #10 - Corrie Sanders vacated the WBO heavyweight title so he could fight for the vacant WBC title, one of the most blatant examples of how much more seriously the fighters take the WBC. #11 - Mayweather spent his entire career tirelessly devoted to the WBC. Since he's the most successful fighter who ever lived and spent decades as WBC champion in five classes, unifying in multiple classes and beating champions of other organizations, it was another example of the WBC getting the most attention and recognition. #12 - With the BBBoC being considered the one true British title and the EBU being considered the one true European title, and the WBC having been founded by the BBBoC and EBU as the one true world title, the WBC in Europe has always been a step ahead of the others in terms of desirability and prestige. It's the only world title that was created by the official British & European entities.

I'm not willing to do that as long as you continue to maintain the position that all four belts are equal. As long as that's your position, I'm going to continue to point out the most glaring inaccuracies. Since the WBC is the most valuable and the WBO is the least valuable, comparing them is the easiest way to prove the four belts aren't of equal value. If you want to change your position and concede that they aren't all equal, let me know and then I can offer you my thoughts on your new position. And if all the big names had the IBA or WBU instead of the WBO, the IBA and WBU would quickly become more valuable than the WBO. If your position is that the WBC is more valuable because they more consistently get bigger names to fight for them, I'd actually agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that the WBC is more valuable, it just explains why. As long as your position is that all four are of equal value, you can't simultaneously try to argue what the reasons are for why they're not of equal value. You're destroying your own argument. OK, the WBO is not seen as being as valuable as the WBC. Now give me these fighters who were paid less money on the basis of them having the IBF or the WBA over that of the WBC?

You keep sticking to the WBO title. I asked you to do the same with the IBF and the WBA. Give me these fights where they would have earned more holding the WBC over the other 2. I'm not willing to do that as long as you continue to maintain the position that all four belts are equal. As long as that's your position, I'm going to continue to point out the most glaring inaccuracies. Since the WBC is the most valuable and the WBO is the least valuable, comparing them is the easiest way to prove the four belts aren't of equal value. If you want to change your position and concede that they aren't all equal, let me know and then I can offer you my thoughts on your new position. The list of fighters for the WBC are just bigger names to the ones for the WBO. If those bigger names had the WBO, they would still be big names getting the big fights. And if all the big names had the IBA or WBU instead of the WBO, the IBA and WBU would quickly become more valuable than the WBO. If your position is that the WBC is more valuable because they more consistently get bigger names to fight for them, I'd actually agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that the WBC is more valuable, it just explains why. As long as your position is that all four are of equal value, you can't simultaneously try to argue what the reasons are for why they're not of equal value. You're destroying your own argument.

WBCWBAIBF What are your thoughts on WBC champion Adonis Stevenson not having a mandatory fight since 2013?

I shouldn't have to. Your position is that all four belts are equal. If I prove the WBC is more valuable than the WBO, then your position is proven to be faulty. Why should I let you move the goal posts? What qualifies you to say that? How much experience do you have negotiating with television networks? How much experience do you have negotiating with promoters? How would you have any idea what goes on behind the scenes, what the networks value, what the promoters value, etc? Here is your statement: "BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO." You couldn't possibly know if that's true or not and it's amazing that you even think you could know that. Let's look at the WBC and WBO middleweight champions from the last 10 years: WBC Kelly Pavlik Sergio Martinez Sebastian Zbik Julio Cesar Chavez Jr Sergio Martinez Miguel Cotto Canelo Alvarez Gennady Golovkin WBO Kelly Pavlik Sergio Martinez Dmitry Pirog Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam Peter Quillin Andy Lee Billy Joe Saunders Which of the two belts do you think generated the largest sanctioning fees in the last decade? Which belt was involved in the biggest fights the last decade? Which belt was held by the biggest names the last decade? Which belt was most prominently featured by the largest television networks the last decade? Which belt garnered more attention with the public the last decade? Last three WBC champs: Cotto, Alvarez, Golovkin. Last three WBO champs: Quillin, Lee, Saunders. You don't see a big difference? Never said not interested in. Said less interested in. Big difference. HBO was interested in Golden Boy buying the belt as an insurance policy if Canelo lost to GGG. Would have allowed Canelo to get an easy belt from Lemieux and when you're as big a star as Canelo is, the belts become a lot more interchangeable. If Saunders had the WBC, GGG would have been far more aggressive in pursuing a fight with him, as would have Canelo and others. A WBO champion hiding in Europe is often out of sight out of mind. You have to remember that for decades the WBO was not even a recognized title and was essentially a fake belt Warren tricked the UK into considering a world title. In the rest of the world, it's still not thought of as being fully equal to the others and the purse bids for the various belts bear that out time and time again. You keep sticking to the WBO title. I asked you to do the same with the IBF and the WBA. Give me these fights where they would have earned more holding the WBC over the other 2. What qualifies me to say that? Then give me the fights that are not open to BJS due to him having the WBO? I've not seen any promoter, fighter or TV company say that BJS is a fight they are not interested in because of the WBO title he owns, and that they would be if he owned the WBC. You're the one making these outrageous claims, not me. The list of fighters for the WBC are just bigger names to the ones for the WBO. If those bigger names had the WBO, they would still be big names getting the big fights. Trying to tell me otherwise is silly. It's like me saying the WBO is bigger than any other title because HBO had big interest in Naseem Hamed over the other world champs. Naz was a star regardless of what title he had, and the others were never going to be stars regardless of what title they had either. If BJS is hiding out in Europe, wouldn't he be still hiding out in Europe with the WBC title? You claiming other fighters would have pursued BJS if he had another title is nothing more than opinion with zero substance. None of those fighters have said anything of the sort to make what you're saying valuable.

Give me examples of WBC champs getting paid more money because of the belt over fighters holding the WBA and the IBF? I shouldn't have to. Your position is that all four belts are equal. If I prove the WBC is more valuable than the WBO, then your position is proven to be faulty. Why should I let you move the goal posts? No, BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO. To say otherwise is clearly crazy. What fights are not on offer because he holds the WBO that would be open if he held the WBC? What qualifies you to say that? How much experience do you have negotiating with television networks? How much experience do you have negotiating with promoters? How would you have any idea what goes on behind the scenes, what the networks value, what the promoters value, etc? Here is your statement: "BJS would have had the same fights on offer to him that he does have with holding the WBO." You couldn't possibly know if that's true or not and it's amazing that you even think you could know that. Let's look at the WBC and WBO middleweight champions from the last 10 years: WBC Kelly Pavlik Sergio Martinez Sebastian Zbik Julio Cesar Chavez Jr Sergio Martinez Miguel Cotto Canelo Alvarez Gennady Golovkin WBO Kelly Pavlik Sergio Martinez Dmitry Pirog Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam Peter Quillin Andy Lee Billy Joe Saunders Which of the two belts do you think generated the largest sanctioning fees in the last decade? Which belt was involved in the biggest fights the last decade? Which belt was held by the biggest names the last decade? Which belt was most prominently featured by the largest television networks the last decade? Which belt garnered more attention with the public the last decade? Last three WBC champs: Cotto, Alvarez, Golovkin. Last three WBO champs: Quillin, Lee, Saunders. You don't see a big difference? HBO were interested in Golden Boy buying the belt? You mean the belt that they're not interested in according to you? Never said not interested in. Said less interested in. Big difference. HBO was interested in Golden Boy buying the belt as an insurance policy if Canelo lost to GGG. Would have allowed Canelo to get an easy belt from Lemieux and when you're as big a star as Canelo is, the belts become a lot more interchangeable. Saunders would have had to travel regardless of what title he held because Golden Boy were willing to pay more money for the fight than Warren. To suggest Warren would have put up more money for Saunders if he held the WBC is nothing short of preposterous. If Saunders had the WBC, GGG would have been far more aggressive in pursuing a fight with him, as would have Canelo and others. A WBO champion hiding in Europe is often out of sight out of mind. You have to remember that for decades the WBO was not even a recognized title and was essentially a fake belt Warren tricked the UK into considering a world title. In the rest of the world, it's still not thought of as being fully equal to the others and the purse bids for the various belts bear that out time and time again.