Comments Thread For: Hearn on Wilder's Offer: Wonderful PR Move, We Need a Contract

[Ray*]

We shall see, Obviously they need something to sign. As it’s an agreement that as already been ok’ed on. Signing the contract makes it real in their world. I don’t see Team Wilder offering that money without a contract and a 24 hours deadline. So let’s see how this plays out, Hearn isn’t offering a counter offer here he is saying let’s see the contract... simple request.

[P4Pdunny]

Have you not listened to the comedy acts that are Wilder's callouts over the last few years?

Everything, EVERYTHING Wilder says, has a condition and fine print. He just knows that most of his fans have no clue how to read it.

They’re too emotionally involved and can’t see the wood through the trees. Plus, they make it them v the UK. No, its AJ v Wilder.

[Digital Mouth]

This offer is as real as Dana White's $100 MILLION offer to AJ. I smell a dirty rat.

[billeau2]

Contracts 101

Lets put this in perspective because a whole lot of nonsense is flying around, lets cut to the real matter at hand. There might be members here who are lawyers and I would defer to them but I know a few things about contracts and this is a very simple matter that is already being muddied up.

When hearns talks about wanting to see a contract...that is a diversion. Asking to see a contract is simply not important. What is important is consideration. What thing of value is being used to guarantee the promise made?

In this case what guarantees performance? That is what is important. It may be a sum of money acting as a bond, It might be the insurance of a claim by a network, etc. The big question really is how can Wilder guarantee his sum to Joshua?

Once that is done, if intended then the contract itself is boiler plate...it is a formality. Contracts are the original provinence of the "G." Money talks and bull**** walks. If I tell you I want to buy your 300k house, you get a deposit from me and a guarantee that money will be delivered a certain way at a certain time. Otherwise you have no reason to give me any special consideration as a buyer of your property.

[lolasif]

I hope Hearn can keep calm enough to sign the contract when it comes and refrain from dancing around in delight until afterwards.

[EnglishOxide]

Did you just say looking at a contract is not important?

[Holler]

When hearns talks about wanting to see a contract...that is a diversion. Asking to see a contract is simply not important. What is important is consideration. What thing of value is being used to guarantee the promise made?

In this case what guarantees performance? That is what is important. It may be a sum of money acting as a bond, It might be the insurance of a claim by a network, etc. The big question really is how can Wilder guarantee his sum to Joshua?

Exactly. Which is why the critical point in Hearn's response isn't 'show me the contract' but 'show us the money, where it comes from, what conditions are attached to it etc'.

He's prepared the ground for this scenario here:

https://********/y8OZeTxJQ7k?t=1395

I think the choice of Beyonce may have been deliberate mischief on his part, maybe he reads here...

In order to guarantee AJ's $50m Hearn will ostensibly, justifiably, want to see proof of funding for the entire show, minus Wilder's cut. That's a lot more than AJ's 50...

Does that money exist outside of a signed AJ, the proven draw in this fight? Hearn's guess is not, what they want is an AJ signature for them then to go to finance and say 'we have this guy signed'.

Do they have the money in a guarantee that doesn't say 'subject to the signature of Anthony Joshua'? It's unlikely, unless Haymon or similar is putting it up and that's a big risk.

All of which means each party has now offered a bid that's unlikely to see a fight delivered. Wilder won't sign to a flat fee, AJ isn't really going to sign the boxing equivalent of a blank cheque.

If we are to get a fight they will need to effectively start again at this meeting and negotiate in good faith a fair deal for all parties. That's the only way this or any other deal gets made. Everybody needs a win at that meeting so everyone has to give a little to get there. If they want it they'll reach a place where everyone wins and we get to see them fight.

If they don't then each of them now have their exit strategies:

Eddie Hearn 'They turned down 5 times Wilder's biggest payday guaranteed. A solid costed offer. They already signed with Breazeale, he don't want it'

Wilder's team 'We gave him the deal he wanted but he refused to sign. He shook'

But lets hope we don't get to that point, if only for the rubbish that will be posted here in the aftermath...

[hogwash]

If you're serious you don't put a 24 hours deadline on it.

[billeau2]

Exactly. Which is why the critical point in Hearn's response isn't 'show me the contract' but 'show us the money, where it comes from, what conditions are attached to it etc'.

He's prepared the ground for this scenario here:

https://********/y8OZeTxJQ7k?t=1395

I think the choice of Beyonce may have been deliberate mischief on his part, maybe he reads here...

In order to guarantee AJ's $50m Hearn will ostensibly, justifiably, want to see proof of funding for the entire show, minus Wilder's cut. That's a lot more than AJ's 50...

Does that money exist outside of a signed AJ, the proven draw in this fight? Hearn's guess is not, what they want is an AJ signature for them then to go to finance and say 'we have this guy signed'.

Do they have the money in a guarantee that doesn't say 'subject to the signature of Anthony Joshua'? It's unlikely, unless Haymon or similar is putting it up and that's a big risk.

All of which means each party has now offered a bid that's unlikely to see a fight delivered. Wilder won't sign to a flat fee, AJ isn't really going to sign the boxing equivalent of a blank cheque.

If we are to get a fight they will need to effectively start again at this meeting and negotiate in good faith a fair deal for all parties. That's the only way this or any other deal gets made. Everybody needs a win at that meeting so everyone has to give a little to get there. If they want it they'll reach a place where everyone wins and we get to see them fight.

If they don't then each of them now have their exit strategies:

Eddie Hearn 'They turned down 5 times Wilder's biggest payday guaranteed. A solid costed offer. They already signed with Breazeale, he don't want it'

Wilder's team 'We gave him the deal he wanted but he refused to sign. He shook'

But lets hope we don't get to that point, if only for the rubbish that will be posted here in the aftermath...

Yeah the conditions on the funds are primary. We already know some of them... Paranoid as I am, why would either guy want to eliminate the rematch clause? Was that just put in there so JOshua would balk? I do think Wilder is a lot better off with home cooking because the judges really do sway for the home guy.

[Holler]

Yeah the conditions on the funds are primary. We already know some of them... Paranoid as I am, why would either guy want to eliminate the rematch clause? Was that just put in there so JOshua would balk? I do think Wilder is a lot better off with home cooking because the judges really do sway for the home guy.

No rematch clause raises the stakes, which makes this initial fight more marketable. Maybe they think that plays into a US PPV sale.

'One night, everything on the line, no comebacks, Ain't gonna be no rematch'

Wilder risks less, one belt from a tame organisation that he can rapidly get back to mandatory status. So from a risk / reward viewpoint no rematch benefits him far more.

But I think this one is more about how it looks. Hearn would have to be the one insisting on a rematch clause being included to protect AJ's investment in the other belts. That looks weak.