Comments Thread For: Frank Warren Reacts To John Fury's Anger Over Wilder Trilogy Fight

[davefromvancouv]

You're talking nonsense, Joshua and Hearn didn't have any contractual obligations to Wilder, so how could they have tried to cheat him out of anything?

That's like saying that if a married man takes off his wedding ring, tells everybody he's single and gets himself a girlfriend, then she is just as guilty of "cheating" as he is!

Shelley Finkel explains it best about Hearn's potential liability:

“The reason, obviously someone told him, ‘You better not say things, because if Fury fights you, your guy instead, you have massive, massive liability.’ You have induced a breach of a contract adjudicated in court. You induced him to do it by hanging Joshua out there for it.

“It became evident to Eddie because he’s smart, I better shut up, and I had nothing to do with it.

“But they knew there was an arbitration case. Everyone knew it, and there was at one point, Arum went for a summary [quicker] judgment. They denied it. Once denied, you’ve got to know something the judge is thinking because he would have given you an indication the case was over."

Link:
https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2021/05/30/deontay-wilder-hearn-aj-liability/

[kafkod]

Shelley Finkel explains it best about Hearn's potential liability:

“The reason, obviously someone told him, ‘You better not say things, because if Fury fights you, your guy instead, you have massive, massive liability.’ You have induced a breach of a contract adjudicated in court. You induced him to do it by hanging Joshua out there for it.

“It became evident to Eddie because he’s smart, I better shut up, and I had nothing to do with it.

“But they knew there was an arbitration case. Everyone knew it, and there was at one point, Arum went for a summary [quicker] judgment. They denied it. Once denied, you’ve got to know something the judge is thinking because he would have given you an indication the case was over."

Link:
https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2021/05/30/deontay-wilder-hearn-aj-liability/

Finkel is one of the most egregious liars in boxing. You're talking about a snake who has been sued multiple times by fighters he represented.

Did Shirley send any "cease and desist" warnings to Hearn for trying to make a fight with Fury?

No, he didn't.

Did he ever even mention that Eddie's actions could get him in legal trouble while the Fury/AJ negotiations were going on?

No, he didn't.

The reason is that Eddie did nothing wrong by trying to make a fight between his client and another fighter who's promoter assured him, and the media, that there was no legal obstacle to the fight being made.

[davefromvancouv]

Finkel is one of the most egregious liars in boxing. You're talking about a snake who has been sued multiple times by fighters he represented.

Did Shirley send any "cease and desist" warnings to Hearn for trying to make a fight with Fury?

No, he didn't.

Did he ever even mention that Eddie's actions could get him in legal trouble while the Fury/AJ negotiations were going on?

No, he didn't.

The reason is that Eddie did nothing wrong by trying to make a fight between his client and another fighter who's promoter assured him, and the media, that there was no legal obstacle to the fight being made.

What's more snake-like than trying to slither your way in between two fighters contractually obligated to fight each other, and being in support of such an action?

Hearn was loving the prospect of freezing Wilder out and got burned. Now he's trying to pin the blame on Arum, but Hearn had lawyers too. He knew that Fury-Joshua could be scrapped by the Wilder arbitration, but assured everyone it wasn't a problem. Everybody who was on board with the steal ran with it and ridiculed anybody who said otherwise.

Hearn also knew he couldn't make Fury-Joshua official, otherwise he would be liable. So every two weeks, every weekend, he would tease an announcement. There are a lot of people who are pissed off at Hearn right now. So he brings up this garbage story about Arum refusing to terminate the contract in December so he can shift the blame to Arum, knowing full well it was never an option because of the legal mess that would ensue.

[billeau2]

Its time for the boxers to take back their power of their careers like we had during the Ali-Frazier era and the 80s-90s with Leonard, Hagler, Duran, and Hearne. The best fought the best without the promoters putting all the political red tape and BS delaying fights.

I wish that were true... Yes the best fought the best. King and Satanic Bob controlled the roost. King was horrible to fighters, usually left them high and dri but alas we got good cards. It is important that we got good cards, but King's reign was awful.

[billeau2]

You seem to be stuck in this "you can't exit a contract" loop".

You're wrong. Every single contract ever signed up to will provide for it in certain circumstances.

It's now practically confirmed that there was an opportunity for Team Fury to terminate the contract and they didn't take it. Instead they pretended a Joshua fight was on the cards then claimed to be shocked by the arbitration ruling.

I don't think Fury is afraid of Joshua. But I do think he's ducked him.

He could have got rid of Wilder by either fighting him at the end of 2020 or by terminating the contract. He'd now be in a position to sign up to fight Joshua.

But he didn't do any of those things. And now he's signed up to fight Wilder for a fraction of what he could have earned, for no more championships, and no additional legacy.

That's a duck.

Team Joshua, in the meantime, took care of a mandatory in front of about 1,000 fans, negotiated with the WBO, and presented an offer that even Fury himself acknowledged was real and acceptable. They are the actions of a guy who wants the fight.

Your confusing two different legal truths. Contracts are binding. That is true. All the way from common law, Starting in Rome, up to the present... There are also provisions to renegotiate, buy out, compensate, for the performance obligated in a contract. One cannot simply "loop out" of a contract. King Gilgimesh gave you, or another poster, a great example of how these principles coexist when he talked about the entertainment industry. Even when a contract is exploitive, and voidable! (against the law) it is not always easy to get out of them. Great example, the singer Keisha... Who had to prove her handler, contract holder was abusing her, to get out of her contract.

And any exigency in a contract has to be within the contract. I think you are being as naive as the people who don't think Eddie was aware of arbitration, when you say, the Wilder contract could have been voided... That would have just been Waterloo at an earlier time...it was always coming to this,whether people accept it, or not. Furthermore, all the parties were aware that arbitration could go either way...

[billeau2]

This is a false narrative promoted by Hearn to deflect blame from him to Arum. Recall that it was Arum who postponed the fight from July to October because of Wilder's injury, then to December because of the pandemic, then ESPN postponed it to February because of the football schedule. Now the fake narrative is that there was a termination clause that could have been invoked in December.

Well if Arum and ESPN postponed the fight to February, then how could they then turn around and said the contract should be terminated in December? It was never an option because they themselves postponed the fight, and they would have been responsible for significant damages...

Awesome Post! Absolute correct!!! And if people would just LOOK at the REASONING, as you did... And to think that when the fight was postponed... Arum, would want to start a legal pleading to terminate fight... why? Arum would, as any smart legal professional would do, wait until he had leverage... the leverage to do a buy out, the leverage to win, or lose and arbitration... etc.

So, not only was there no magic termination clause... there was no reason to create a legal battle at the time, and no real leverage to offer anything to the other party,. So what does Satanic Bob do? Get the fight set up...knowing it will either take place sooner, or later. If Fury forced, he fights Wilder first, they fight in December... What else would a rational person do in this situation? Knowing that Satanic Bob works for Fury.

[billeau2]

Evidence:

Arum moves fight to December:
https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/...-bob-arum-says

ESPN moves fight to February:
https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/...ew-date-sought

Dave... Of Robbie calls you a clown best know you are barking up the right tree.

[billeau2]

Have you lost your mind???
Read it again. Hell, read the title!!!

The fact is there was no termination clause that could be enforced without incurring substantial penalties. Their only course of action was arbitration. So for Hearn to blame Arum for not terminating the contract is just his way of shifting blame to avoid the backlash of promising a fight he couldn't deliver, all the time knowing that it hinged on a favorable arbitration outcome.

Robbie, like his kid brother Redeemer have no knowledge about contracts. To Robbie "poof! I don't wanna do what the contract says wah wah!" then the other person says "ohhh...ok no problem!" It does not even occur to them that the reason for a contract in the first place, is to provide for the other party trying to get out of their obligation. How ****** can you be? Well Redeemer showed what might be a limit... and Robbie is a close second.

[billeau2]

Hearn didn't mention a clause to extinguish the rematch in December while promoting Fury Joshua for 6 months because he didn't know about it, he found out about it from the arbitrators ruling, how would he know about it previous, it was in a private contract he wasn't a party to?

Fury's own father is raging about it, and Warren very obviously failed to deny it.

How can you fail to understand that?

You seem to intent on building a narrative you like with no supporting facts, while actually ignoring what has been reported, it might be time to stop digging in this hole.

You think this clause was a magic "get out of jail card" like you get in a monopoly game? Really? Do you know anything about how one gets out of a contract? There are substantial penalties. You have to satisfy the aggreived party! Arum would have had the same situation he had at arbitration with one exception: There would be no leverage: With the arbitration one could make a deal for step aside based on the possibility that the ruling came down for Fury. Think man!

If you ever have gone to court, been involved with a contract dispute, most times things are settled before it comes to the judge... provided one side can get some leverage. Arum had no leverage to exersize this clause... Think it through and it will make sense.

[billeau2]

Yeah, only problem with that is you are making it up with no supporting evidence. You have no idea what remedy if any was in the contract for extinguishing the rematch clause, and the reporting that has mentioned the ability to exit the rematch has made no mention of any costs.

You are stating these things as facts when they are baseless opinions.

Your right... For the first time in history there could have been a clause to get out of a contract that harmed the other party's interests with no substantial penalty incurred... Its theoretically possible. You know how dumb that is? ask any poster here who ever had legal contract disputes, etc. The only way this ever happens is with a technicality. The evidence for the assertion is legal precedent. one does not have to know what the remedy was to know it would be substantial.