mandatory or not. if the champion wants a rematch clause encase he loses then it should be apart of the fight contract.
Comments Thread For: Haye Feels Validated With Fury's "Mistake" of Rematch Clause
Collapse
-
comical how Haye with no career has opinions to give
Davey haye with no career and no respect in boxing has opinions and advice for everyone in boxing. Haye has done little and is laughed at for being more of a clown and wild Samoan looking deranged misfit that a boxing spokesperson. Haye obviously has a few screws loose.Comment
-
My assumption is that due to Fury's position as mandatory he WAS compensated for his agreeing to a rematch so its not like he walked away with the same deal if he wouldn't have agreed to a rematch. Kinda like how Arum was gonna give Chavez $12M or whatever vs GGG if Chavez resigned or $8M or whatever if he didn't resign.Mandatories are not obligated to do a rematch clause.
Haye is saying that if fury wouldn't have agreed to the rematch clause he could have dictated the terms of the rematch.
Being that he accepted the rematch clause, the terms were already locked in for a rematch if wlad lost.
So basically fury could have made more money in a rematch without the rematch clause.
That's all haye is saying.
And its always speculative on future dealings. I think it breaks down like this: he probably would have gotten more money on a 1 fight agreement for the rematch if he won, but he'd probably have walked away with less if he had loss so its a gamble either way to some extent, but the way he went seems like the more profitable route vs most fights vs guys who haven't lost in 11 years on fighting on their turf.
Seems like he took the win win option to me cuz he supposedly got $5.5M for the first fight & if he got guaranteed lets say $8M-$12M for a rematch if he won its a better deal than if he'd have gotten $3M without the rematch clause how much more would he have been able to get extra without the rematch agreement? Idk, but I know $5.5M is better than $3M for money up front in particular for a guy who's digs living in a caravan.Comment
-
Nice to see someone understands exactly what Haye was saying. Fury was mandatory for 2 belts so he didn't have to agree to the rematch terms. At worst he fights for a vacant title but he wanted the Klitschko payday. Sure he will make lots on the rematch but in hindsight he could of upped the ante being champion with potential fights out there with Joshua or Wilder. sure those fights wouldn't bring him the same money but K2 would have to step up the financial terms & accept all Team Fury terms. Haye turned down rematch terms before he even had the WBA title to dangle when he fought Wlad. He was the guy bringing the British pound PPV money & he didn't sign. Turned out well for him at the time as he made a lot more money when he had title to dangle. Haye is spot on in his comments...I would like to see Fury slap Haye around...Mandatories are not obligated to do a rematch clause.
Haye is saying that if fury wouldn't have agreed to the rematch clause he could have dictated the terms of the rematch.
Being that he accepted the rematch clause, the terms were already locked in for a rematch if wlad lost.
So basically fury could have made more money in a rematch without the rematch clause.
That's all haye is saying.Comment
-
Haye is right. Fury could of made way more money if he didn't have the rematch clause. He would force K2 to bring a lot more money to the table with other potential fights out there. Yes a rematch would be the most lucrative regardless but he could command a lot more money & be in control of everything which did not happen when he signed the K2 rematch clause giving them control again. Haye may be a loud mouth but he is spot on. If Fury was so confident going in you would think he would NOT except the terms being the mandatory for 2 titles. Team Fury simply caved in to K2 wanting the one big payday. I can't blame them it because nobody expected Fury to win.Comment
Comment