BREAKING: Bob Arum: We're NOT Paying Wilder, We'll Just GET RID OF HIM. Joshua vs. Fury in November or December

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • billeau2
    Undisputed Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jun 2012
    • 27643
    • 6,397
    • 14,933
    • 339,839

    #31
    Originally posted by deathofaclown

    Don’t you understand they were not to legally obligated to do a rematch until last night, They were stuck in a grey area until the decision was made.

    Would you offer somebody 15 million of your own money if you are not sure you’re even legally obligated to have any form of negotiation with them until a decision is made regarding it? Especially when the decision might’ve gone in your favour and you wouldn’t need to give them a penny.


    jesus, the low intelligence levels of people on here astounds me. I don’t know why I bother coming on here.
    People don't think it through. for example, How do we know what Wilder was offered effective the decision yesterday? Heres the big problem. The contract for Fury Vs Joshua calls for two fights. So, assuming Wilder was game to take money, how would he get his chance? And... He would effectively have to be paid to wait for two fights, unless Fury can either renegotiate the contract with Joshua, or void it because "due to arbitration there is no longer a reasonable expectation that he can follow through on a two fight deal. Of course Wilder could take his fight inbetween, But would he want the Fury fight if Fury lost?

    Under these conditions it seems that the simplest thing to do is indeed, fight Wilder first. BUT if Fury, or Joshua losses, what does that do to the financial value of hosting this fight? It seems to me the Saudis would not want to simply push the fight down a half a year, or so, because it would be taking a risk that both men came in to the fight as valuable as when the contract was first made.

    The thing they might do is offer the Saudis an option of sorts: Or, they could offer Wilder an option if allowed to follow through on the original fight, (changed to a one fight deal) WWilder would have the option of fighting the winner of the fight.

    Comment

    • jmrf4435
      Undisputed Champion
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • Jun 2014
      • 8397
      • 772
      • 14
      • 66,112

      #32
      This is weird--i can so so many scenarios play out

      Comment

      • mxtali
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Aug 2017
        • 2145
        • 433
        • 986
        • 34,126

        #33
        Bob looking like an absolute fool. Telling everyone for months Wilder didn’t have any legal footing. He either is an idiot or knew wilder would win and wants an excuse to duck the Joshua fight.

        Comment

        • mxtali
          Undisputed Champion
          Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
          • Aug 2017
          • 2145
          • 433
          • 986
          • 34,126

          #34
          Originally posted by sicko
          Starting to question if Bob Arum always wanted this to happen, I think he potentially makes MORE money off the Trilogy in Vegas at Alligiant Stadium where as I think he would only get a small % off of Fury fighting in the Middle East. Also if I remember correctly I think he mentioned this in the past and it could explain why he just always seemed negative about AJ vs Fury with all the "Dead In The Water" "Saudi Site Deal A Mirage" and Eddie came out and said nobody has lift a finger to help get a deal done. This sport is so dirty and corrupt you just never know and you can't trust anybody in it

          So convenient he already has Allegiant Stadium already booked for July 24th
          Agreed, it’s clear his side never wanted the Joshua fight.

          Comment

          Working...
          TOP