Comments Thread For: Wilder: I Won't Accept Flat Fee; Now It's 50-50 for Joshua Fight

[kafkod]

that is flawed logic..... because, the contract was shht

the ONLY question is..... why was the contract shht ?

Joshua (/Hearn) is running around saying that he made every effort to sign that fight..... and yet, they offered Wilder less than they offered Parker

that is NOT how to make a super-fight, and you know it

in his 2-fight offer to Wilder, why did Hearn refuse to guarantee Joshua next?




I think that they will fight Wilder after Povetkin..... mostly because, they have pretty much run out of options..... maybe Miller could be an option, or Fury when he is fit..... but there really is only Wilder left

Eh? Fighting AJ in April is part of the 2 fight deal Hearn offered. $5million for anybody in the WBA top 15, then $15million for AJ.

$15million is substantially more than Parker made from AJ, but I agree .. if Hearn had really wanted the fight next, he would have offered a percentage cut.

By the same token, if Wilder's team had really wanted it next - and they were really confident of winning - they would have told Wilder to accept the $15million.

[aboutfkntime]

Eh? Fighting AJ in April is part of the 2 fight deal Hearn offered.

$15million is substantially more than Parker made from AJ, but I agree .. if Hearn had really wanted the fight next, he would have offered a percentage cut.

By the same token, if Wilder's team had really wanted it next - and they were really confident of winning - they would have told Wilder to accept the $15million.

nah

you cannot blame the guys who refused short-money, and excuse the guys who offered short-money

but props for your admission'

it's just timing

the guys who are calling AJ a coward are just dumb

I can see exactly what they are doing

I heard that Hearn refused to guarantee Joshua after Povetkin

but if you are correct, then that kinda proves my earlier point

I think that they will fight Wilder after Povetkin

Hearn stalling that fight is a great idea for a pile of reasons

1) they will make more money, because interest in that fight is still peaking

2) Joshua will bank another HUGE payday before risking his titles in a much more dangerous fight with Wilder

3) Joshua is NOT experienced..... it does not matter that he may be more experienced in big fights than Wilder..... because neither of them are hardened vets who have answered every question..... Povetkin IS a hardened vet, that fight will serve Joshua well and could provide invaluable experience as Wilder is a dangerous proposition

[EnglishOxide]

There's a big problem with that excuse. Boxing contracts are signed all the time without an EXACT date. The contract could have said, "fight to be held, without any interim fights, in October or November, with an exact date to be confirmed on no less than 10 weeks notice."

Finkel wasn't demanding an EXACT date for the contract, just some sort of language that guaranteed the fight would be next. Hearn kept stalling until he eventually admitted he wasn't willing to do the fight until April.

Aha!

So you finally admit a date and venue is not required in the contract.

Finkel had a problem with the language used specifying the fight was NEXT.

Why would it have taken 11 days to send the contract back with the comment on it? Finkel already said he was happy with Hearns answer to the two 'minor points'. Presumably meaning an ********* to the contract is acceptable.

Yet he stated he would send the contract back without specifying if it was signed. 11 days...

[aboutfkntime]

really, who cares ?

if they are just stalling that fight until after Povetkin, then big deal

you guys know how this game works, that fight is not due yet

2 years ago..... Wilder was preparing for Arreola, and Joshua had just fought Brezeale..... it would be nearly a year before the Joshua/Klitschko fight happened

who cares ?

I mean..... it's not like Joshua ducked his mando to run off and fight Vanes or anything

[kafkod]

The contract said something else because Hearn didn't know exactly what the date and venue was going to be. He was working on it. He had the WBA hanging over him so needed to get the contracts signed quickly before they got in the way. You know it would have taken too much time for Hearn to get the exact date and venue ready before signing due to the WBA. All Hearn was doing was saving time.

Hearn wasn't going to say Oct or Nov time then switch it to April next year.

There's a big problem with that excuse. Boxing contracts are signed all the time without an EXACT date. The contract could have said, "fight to be held, without any interim fights, in October or November, with an exact date to be confirmed on no less than 10 weeks notice."

You're choosing to believe Hearn's excuse even though Hearn's excuse doesn't make any sense if you know how boxing typically operates.

Finkel wasn't demanding an EXACT date for the contract, just some sort of language that guaranteed the fight would be next. Hearn kept stalling until he eventually admitted he wasn't willing to do the fight until April.

Hearn confirmed the fight was next a few times you dip*****. It's only now he's saying April because he wants to do the fight at Wembley.

As I have tried to get you to respond multiple...why doesn't the contract say that. Stating it in an interview means nothing if the contract doesn't say it.

So they were supposed to sign the contract based on the presumption that Hearn wouldn't screw them over. I don't think they nor most trust Hearn as much as you do. In business you trust what's in writing.

If Hearn said it was next then it was next. Do you know how damaging it would be to his brand if he did that?

Aha!

So you finally admit a date and venue is not required in the contract.

Finkel had a problem with the language used specifying the fight was NEXT.

Why would it have taken 11 days to send the contract back with the comment on it? Finkel already said he was happy with Hearns answer to the two 'minor points'. Presumably meaning an ********* to the contract is acceptable.

Yet he stated he would send the contract back without specifying if it was signed. 11 days...

"WBC WBA IBF" is spinning a lie here.

The contract Hearn sent was obviously for a fight between Wilder and AJ to happen next - before the mando with Povetkin. Otherwise, why would the WBA have given Hearn a deadline to get it finalised and signed?

If it was for a fight in April, after AJ fights Povetkin, the WBA wouldn't have needed to get involved in that at all.

[Ake-Dawg]

Whether it was signed at that point made no difference. What matters is that it was definitely happening next.

It wasn't definitely happening next when Hearn sent the contract to Wilder. If Wilder had signed it, he would have been fighting AJ next.



The exemption was from having to fight Povetkin next, if a deal with Wilder could be finalised and signed.

The extensions were on the time Hearn had been given by the WBC to negotiate and finalise the deal.

It's fun seeing you wriggle like a maggot on a hook!


There will be no purse bid for AJ vs Povetkin. What part of that do you not understand?

And what part of this do you not understand:

"The WBA have allowed over a month extension to negotiations with Povetkin and also ongoing discussions with Deontay Wilder.

"It appears the Wilder team have not returned the contract for the fight and therefore we are requesting a date for the Joshua versus Povetkin fight with immediate effect." Gilberto Mendoza, WBA President.

I would think that once an exception is granted, the 30 day timeline for establishing a deal with Povetkin ends and there would be no timeline on the Wilder Joshua deal. Accordingly, extensions were only pushing the 30-day Povetkin deadline.
According to WBA rules, exceptions can be granted with conditions. However Hearn is saying that the condition for granting the exception was a signed contract, but that doesn't quite align with the WBA rules (see page 17).

Mendoza didnt deny an exception request, he just enforced the 30 day deadline for which extensions were granted. I have been wondering why it appears Hearn didn't communicate to the public that an exception hadn't been granted and that the WBA could call a purse bid any moment. Which they haven't even though that 24hr deadline has passed as well.

[rickJen]

Translation: "I'm pricing myself out forever."
And you think the Hearns will budge, eh, clown?

[Ake-Dawg]

"WBC WBA IBF" is spinning a lie here.

The contract Hearn sent was obviously for a fight between Wilder and AJ to happen next - before the mando with Povetkin. Otherwise, why would the WBA have given Hearn a deadline to get it finalised and signed?

If it was for a fight in April, after AJ fights Povetkin, the WBA wouldn't have needed to get involved in that at all.

When did the WBA give Hearn a deadline to finalize Wilder Joshua? The deadline in April was 30 days for Povetkin Joshua for which Hearn said he received many extensions. I am not aware of there ever being a Josha Wilder deadline.

I think the presumption everyone has is that the contract was for Wilder to be next, but the contract language didn't indicate that per Finkel.

[kafkod]

I would think that once an exception is granted, the 30 day timeline for establishing a deal with Povetkin ends and there would be no timeline on the Wilder Joshua deal. Accordingly, extensions were only pushing the 30-day Povetkin deadline.
According to WBA rules, exceptions can be granted with conditions. However Hearn is saying that the condition for granting the exception was a signed contract, but that doesn't quite align with the WBA rules (see page 17).

Mendoza didnt deny an exception request, he just enforced the 30 day deadline for which extensions were granted. I have been wondering why it appears Hearn didn't communicate to the public that an exception hadn't been granted and that the WBA could call a purse bid any moment. Which they haven't even though that 24hr deadline has passed as well.

The WBA ordered their mando at the begining of April, and gave Hearn 30 days to make a deal before ordering a purse bid. They then extended that deadline several times to allow Hearn to negotiate and finalise a deal with Wilder.

Hearn did comunicate to the public that the WBA were in contact with him on a daily basis after the 30 days was up, urging him to finalise a deal with Povetkin or, if not Povetkin, then Wilder, asap, to avoid a purse bid on their mando being being called.


Wilder didn't sign, of course, but no purse bid was ordered between Hearn and Ryabinski because they already agreed terms for AJ/Povetkin before the deadline ran out.

[GhostofDempsey]

Where are all the GGG haters who insisted he was delusional for not accepting a $15M offer for the Canelo fight?