Comments Thread For: Hearn To Team Wilder: Is a Contract & Meeting Too Much To Ask?

[Robbie Barrett]

we just have a different opinion. Mayweather got paid after the fight per your own words , not upfront. All fighters have money waiting for them after the fight but no one has it upfront in any form. It’s all good man. I’m not here to argue with anyone. I’m a boxing fan and want to share my opinion and thoughts and want hear those of others.

The money was there waiting. It was UPFRONT. He didn't have to wait until it came in from the gate or the PPV. That's what Hearn/Joshua wants. The money GUARANTEED. The clue is in the FUCKING NAME.

[Ake-Dawg]

No. It has an obvious negative financial consideration but it doesn't trigger the same kind of concerns a blanket yes to Finkel's pre condition would.

That said, If I were in that position I may object to the notion of such a pre condition to talks on either case.

It's not a precondition to talks, it's a precondition to having a sit down meeting. Big difference.

[Redgloveman]

There is ZERO legal responsibility accepted when you say "I agree to the proposed money split and letting you pick the location. All other terms are subject to negotiation."

But as I have said; if they want a sign that Hearn is willing to negotiate on the basis of those conditions they already have it - it's in the public domain. An agreement to agree the price alone is probably legally unenforceable but no-one would advise Hearn to expose himself to that level of legal risk anyway.

For instance, an argument could be brought that Hearn has agreed the price, so would be legally estopped from negotiating on the price thereafter. To have to negotiate terms when the other side know that you are pinned down to a specific price would put you in an extremely weak negotiating position: is Hearn likely to want to tie one arm behind his back before he goes into battle? No...
It's basic common sense. I can't really believe that people are still arguing about this.

Even besides this, accepting the offer unquestionably comes with a whole heap of PR problems down the line which Hearn does not want to expose himself to. It's quite a reasonable thing to ask to see proof of funds and request a meeting. It's just common business sense.

[Redgloveman]

But as I have said; if they want a sign that Hearn is willing to negotiate on the basis of those conditions they already have it - it's in the public domain. An agreement to agree the price alone is probably legally unenforceable but no-one would advise Hearn to expose himself to that level of legal risk anyway.

For instance, an argument could be brought that Hearn has agreed the price, so would be legally estopped from negotiating on the price thereafter. To have to negotiate terms when the other side know that you are pinned down to a specific price would put you in an extremely weak negotiating position: is Hearn likely to want to tie one arm behind his back before he goes into battle? No...
It's basic common sense. I can't really believe that people are still arguing about this.

Even besides this, accepting the offer unquestionably comes with a whole heap of PR problems down the line which Hearn does not want to expose himself to. It's quite a reasonable thing to ask to see proof of funds and request a meeting. It's just common business sense.

In case I wasn't clear enough with my point,

I'd disagree that there is ZERO legal responsibility - lawyers are crafty, and particularly when it comes to business deals rather than deals between a business and a consumer the law can be very harsh with keeping contracting parties to their word (I've cited the Texaco v Pennzoil case here before, where an oral contract was enforceable resulting in a $9 Billion dollar suit being won)

But if you are asking Hearn to show that he is happy to negotiate along those lines whilst giving no legal responsibility, he has already done it - why should he have to be any more explicit that he already is?

[Ake-Dawg]

The money was there waiting. It was UPFRONT. He didn't have to wait until it came in from the gate or the PPV. That's what Hearn/Joshua wants. The money GUARANTEED. The clue is in the FUCKING NAME.

Can the money be there waiting on the fighter via prepaid revenue streams (site fees, prepaid ticket sales, sponsorships, advertisements, etc)? Or do you think it's gotta be there at the signing of the contract? Typically it's the former, but I think Hearn is asking for the latter. Is that normal? Has that happened before?

[Ake-Dawg]

In case I wasn't clear enough with my point,

I'd disagree that there is ZERO legal responsibility - lawyers are crafty, and particularly when it comes to business deals rather than deals between a business and a consumer the law can be very harsh with keeping contracting parties to their word (I've cited the Texaco v Pennzoil case here before, where an oral contract was enforceable resulting in a $9 Billion dollar suit being won)

But if you are asking Hearn to show that he is happy to negotiate along those lines whilst giving no legal responsibility, he has already done it - why should he have to be any more explicit that he already is?

Oral contract is different from agreeing to TERMS of a future contract. Especially when you are explicit that you're only agreeing to that part of a future deal. And Hearn hasn't been explicit at all. All he has said is that he is interested in hearing more detail. Having interest is not agreeing.

I agree to start negotiations for a deal on the basis that my guy gets 50M plus 50% and Team Wilder picks the location.

Where is the legal risk in that?

[rckdees]

If he doesn’t like the take it or leave 50 million then leave it .....cowards

[Patsfan bri]

The money was there waiting. It was UPFRONT. He didn't have to wait until it came in from the gate or the PPV. That's what Hearn/Joshua wants. The money GUARANTEED. The clue is in the FUCKING NAME.

stop it already . I thought you knew boxing but it’s real clear you don’t . Actually you are right . Fighters don’t get paid from live gates, PPV, sponsors. All that money just goes to the promoters , cousins, aunts, uncle, nephews. No fighter eve ever get money from profits of a fight . Your right it has never happened in the history of prize fighting. You win cause you can’t fix ******. FYI Mayweather gets paid after fights.

[Robbie Barrett]

stop it already . I thought you knew boxing but it’s real clear you don’t . Actually you are right . Fighters don’t get paid from live gates, PPV, sponsors. All that money just goes to the promoters , cousins, aunts, uncle, nephews. No fighter eve ever get money from profits of a fight . Your right it has never happened in the history of prize fighting. You win cause you can’t fix ******. FYI Mayweather gets paid after fights.

Mayweathers guarantee is sat waiting in an account. He can access it straight away, he doesn't have to wait for the money to come in from the gat/ppv. That's what a guarantee is you clown. Guaranteed money the fighter will receive no matter what the fight draws. 99% of fights are made this way. That's what the purses are when they're released before the fights. You believe it's never been done.

[Holler]

But as I have said; if they want a sign that Hearn is willing to negotiate on the basis of those conditions they already have it - it's in the public domain. An agreement to agree the price alone is probably legally unenforceable but no-one would advise Hearn to expose himself to that level of legal risk anyway.

For instance, an argument could be brought that Hearn has agreed the price, so would be legally estopped from negotiating on the price thereafter. To have to negotiate terms when the other side know that you are pinned down to a specific price would put you in an extremely weak negotiating position: is Hearn likely to want to tie one arm behind his back before he goes into battle? No...
It's basic common sense. I can't really believe that people are still arguing about this.

Even besides this, accepting the offer unquestionably comes with a whole heap of PR problems down the line which Hearn does not want to expose himself to. It's quite a reasonable thing to ask to see proof of funds and request a meeting. It's just common business sense.

I've just been trying to make this point in another thread but you've made a better fist of it.

The pre-condition is a rather transparent way of saying 'we don't want this fight'. Amazing that it's not universally recognised as such.