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

[PensionKiller]

Bro its not upto the fighter to put up money, i think it would be from promoters and investors putting the money together.
Im sure tgey could come up with 50mill for the biggest fight in boxing.

50 mil each is really not that easy to make... You got to be selling 2 mil ppv

[PensionKiller]

How can the be a contract if they haven't negotiated the details yet?

All team wilder is saying is to accept the $50M/50% no rematch clause offer verbally, then we can sit down together and make the contract. Let's not waste anyone's time. Yes or no?

"But but they want us to sign the contract without seeing it doe!!!"

Business doesn't work like that ffs.

If it works by email and mouth or Instagram then wilder should email himself and say I'll pay 50 mil to myself

[PunchyPotorff]

I'm with Hearn on this one. Wilder and team are just acting like unqualified con artists now. This thing can happen this year, but like Hearn says it has to happen the right way.

[Patsfan bri]

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.

I know what a guarantee is midget *** but Hearn doesn’t. For the last time AJ is guaranteed 50 million. He will get his money after the fight like all fighters and every fighter does. Why would AJ even ask for 50 million if they felt Haymon couldn’t produce it right after the fight.

[The plunger man]

All Eddie has to do was say yes. Spin it how you want . Money is money and Eddie didn’t say yes. Checkmate fella. Actually I’m American . I’m to cool to say fella. What was I thinking.

I know your american fellla.....i was actually being sarcastic because you dont seem to know how ppv works in your own country......there is no $50 million guarantee for joshua , it don't exist its kaiser sozay , harvey the rabbit and that's why they cancelled the meetimg with hearn and the contract was never sent.
Honestly fella you need to wake up and smell the coffee and admit it was a PR stunt gone wrong by wilders team.

[Robbie Barrett]

I know what a guarantee is midget *** but Hearn doesn’t. For the last time AJ is guaranteed 50 million. He will get his money after the fight like all fighters and every fighter does. Why would AJ even ask for 50 million if they felt Haymon couldn’t produce it right after the fight.

Hearn wants to know if they have the guarantee. Wilders team won't tell them. You said earlier the guarantee come from gate/PPV so no you didn't know what a guarantee is.

He asked for it because Wilders team were saying there's 100 mil to split and Joshua/.Hearn don't believe there is. It was to shut them up.

Now they've made a offer they can't back up. An attempted PR stunt that backfired.

[The plunger man]

Business doesn't work like that ffs.

If it works by email and mouth or Instagram then wilder should email himself and say I'll pay 50 mil to myself

Maybe wilder could get kaiser sozay to put up the $50 milllion and andy dufresne could guarantee it 🤣

[Redgloveman]

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?

Oral contracts are no less enforceable nor less legal than written contracts (as the Texaco case shows).

Having thought about it, the legal problem isn't so much with the formation of an oral contract per se, so much as it is with estoppel - which is a legal principle which essentially says that you can't go back on a contractual promise if the other side can prove that they relied on that promise. The Wilder side could use the principle of estoppel to disallow Hearn from negotiating a different price for the overall contract; which would put him in a terrible position when it comes to negotiating terms. And, as I've repeatedly said, there's also a PR issue to worry about.

Regardless of the reason, it doesn't make a difference to the legal advice that Hearn would be getting which would be "Do not be seen to accept this offer". It's a clear red flag situation where no lawyer (not even a **** one) would advise him to act in this way.

Regardless of this, if they want a promise which has no legal effect anyway then what is the point in insisting on it? They can't seriously argue that taking 2 hours for a meeting is going to be a waste of time, even if Hearn doesn't do exactly what they want with regard to the price. The meeting was already booked in, so it's not like they didn't have the time available.

[Ake-Dawg]

Oral contracts are no less enforceable nor less legal than written contracts (as the Texaco case shows).

Having thought about it, the legal problem isn't so much with the formation of an oral contract per se, so much as it is with estoppel - which is a legal principle which essentially says that you can't go back on a contractual promise if the other side can prove that they relied on that promise. The Wilder side could use the principle of estoppel to disallow Hearn from negotiating a different price for the overall contract; which would put him in a terrible position when it comes to negotiating terms. And, as I've repeatedly said, there's also a PR issue to worry about.

Regardless of the reason, it doesn't make a difference to the legal advice that Hearn would be getting which would be "Do not be seen to accept this offer". It's a clear red flag situation where no lawyer (not even a **** one) would advise him to act in this way.

Regardless of this, if they want a promise which has no legal effect anyway then what is the point in insisting on it? They can't seriously argue that taking 2 hours for a meeting is going to be a waste of time, even if Hearn doesn't do exactly what they want with regard to the price. The meeting was already booked in, so it's not like they didn't have the time available.

So in short, because if Hearn agrees to 50M and 50% now, he can't back out of it later and ask for more once he learns more of the details, he is justified in not committing to the split agreement?

I've said this multiple times, Team Wilder isn't going to share their plan to generate enough to guarantee Joshua 50M until that price point and split is locked in. If they did, they would be giving away negotiating leverage.

So what happens in this meeting after Hearn asks for details Finkel isn't going to share until the money split is locked in?

[BigZ44]

Shirley Winkle refusing to meet and offering some weird ultimatum on the offer stinks to high heaven of bull****. Thinking this was all just to save face on their end at that Wilder will be fighting Breazeale in July