Hearn sets the record straight

[that g]

I think the 24 hours was BS but who am I? its also weird that hearn said he couldn't do the fight for September with wilder because aj wanted it at wembley and it was too late to book wembley... then it comes out aj vs pedvtkin is at wembly in sept, but im sure you will all have an excuse and defend that too. having a few questions about a contract is not stalling. that contract was pathetic. only DANZ no showtime, they pick the refs and officials, only a guaranteed rematch if AJ loses, if wilder wins hes still the B side in a mandatory rematch that will have to be on DANZ, for a future date in 2019 meaning that if by chance pedvtkin beats aj hes still locked into it. Wilder agreed with the flat fee for the fight to be next. if wilder knew those terms and then agreed but didn't sign the contract id be right along with you all asking him to sign it but its simply not the case and you all are running with it!

let's not debate what's weird. that's pointless and is just gonna get subjective. lets use facts.
even if wilder didn't know much about the terms, his promoter did (and doesn't that suggest that wilder may have some issues with his mental acumen? why would he accept a fight without knowing the details?). finkel accepted the terms on TV on an interview he organized himself, however "pathetic" they were. in addition, amongst all those "pathetic" terms, finkel had ONLY TWO comments. yea, i'd say him and his team knew the terms. lets not go over that.

[N/A]

again, it's not about what makes sense, but what both sides have said on camera.

No, it's totally about what makes sense, because Finkel rarely goes on camera and Haymon NEVER goes on camera. Meanwhile, Hearn goes on camera daily and lies nonstop.

Hearn's story is that because of the WBA deadline, he had to pull the fictional November date that he'd never delivered on, and switch to April.

But we know that makes no sense because the worst thing that happens if the deadline passes is that the WBA orders a purse bid, which often takes weeks.

There is absolutely no reason Wilder couldn't have signed that Friday other than Hearn refused to allow the fight to be next.

Hearn's story can't be true because it doesn't make any sense. Only the IBF blocks a unification before a purse bid. WBC, WBA & WBO onlock block unification after a purse bid.

[uppercut510]

let's not debate what's weird. that's pointless and is just gonna get subjective. lets use facts.
even if wilder didn't know much about the terms, his promoter did (and doesn't that suggest that wilder may have some issues with his mental acumen? why would he accept a fight without knowing the details?). finkel accepted the terms on TV on an interview he organized himself, however "pathetic" they were. in addition, amongst all those "pathetic" terms, finkel had ONLY TWO comments. yea, i'd say him and his team knew the terms. lets not go over that.

do you actually think those terms are fair? he accepted the 15 mil for a fight NEXT with aj, the contract had different terms and NO DATE. they wanted to question the date and a few other things but the WBA comes with this 24 hour crap which we all know was complete BS. its amazing how you all find a way to defend hearn no matter what. hes the ones who said a unification trumps a mandatory.

[that g]

No, it's totally about what makes sense, because Finkel rarely goes on camera and Haymon NEVER goes on camera. Meanwhile, Hearn goes on camera daily and lies nonstop.

Hearn's story is that because of the WBA deadline, he had to pull the fictional November date that he'd never delivered on, and switch to April.

But we know that makes no sense because the worst thing that happens if the deadline passes is that the WBA orders a purse bid, which often takes weeks.

There is absolutely no reason Wilder couldn't have signed that Friday other than Hearn refused to allow the fight to be next.

Hearn's story can't be true because it doesn't make any sense. Only the IBF blocks a unification before a purse bid. WBC, WBA & WBO onlock block unification after a purse bid.

ah ok. so shall we just go ahead and ignore what Wilder's promoter said (which, btw, is congruent with some of hearns points) on an espn interview the one time he appeared?
again, where's the proof or facts that show Hearn is lying? doesn't have to be on camera.
the worst thing that happens for the deadline is for Joshua to vacate the belt, not purse bids. both wilder and joshua shouldn't want that.

again, FINKEL HIMSELF said they would respond back with comments, not with a signature. but you are right, there's no reason wilder couldn't have signed that friday... or the friday before. so, why didn't he? oh, dates? so why didn't he respond officially with comments? or better yet, plug in the provision for the fight happening next and in november? the could have had hearn dead to rights if they did.

that hearn's story doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true, or that it doesn't make sense to others. that's purely subjective. that's why i said stick to facts.

[that g]

do you actually think those terms are fair? he accepted the 15 mil for a fight NEXT with aj, the contract had different terms and NO DATE. they wanted to question the date and a few other things but the WBA comes with this 24 hour crap which we all know was complete BS. its amazing how you all find a way to defend hearn no matter what. hes the ones who said a unification trumps a mandatory.

oh come on man. finkel only had two comments on the whole contract, and one of them was the date issue. so there's no way the contract had different terms from the terms agreed to. stop it.
yes, a unification should trump a mandatory, but when the B side is actively refusing to progress with negotiations, then we all can't just sit for a whole year watching them go back and forth with no other fights, can we? a unification trumps a mandatory, but that's merely a courtesy, not a requirement.

[N/A]

the worst thing that happens for the deadline is for Joshua to vacate the belt, not purse bids.

Wrong. That's not how it works. Why are you under the impression that would happen?

If an ordered fight isn't signed by a deadline, a purse bid is ordered. The fight can still be signed until 15 minutes before the envelopes are opened. In the WBA, WBC & WBO, a unification exception can trump a mandatory until the purse bid.

Only the IBF no longer allows the unification once the purse bid is ordered.

If you don't know the intricate machinations of the sanctioning bodies, that's fine. There's no reason you should know. But for those that know the rules, they know Hearn is lying. The WBA deadline was absolutely meaningless and every major promoter in the world knows that.

The Povetkin fight wasn't signed in 24 hours, but AJ wasn't stripped. If you were correct, the title would already be vacant.

[juggernaut666]

Wrong. That's not how it works. Why are you under the impression that would happen?

If an ordered fight isn't signed by a deadline, a purse bid is ordered. The fight can still be signed until 15 minutes before the envelopes are opened. In the WBA, WBC & WBO, a unification exception can trump a mandatory until the purse bid.

Only the IBF no longer allows the unification once the purse bid is ordered.

If you don't know the intricate machinations of the sanctioning bodies, that's fine. There's no reason you should know. But for those that know the rules, they know Hearn is lying. The WBA deadline was absolutely meaningless and every major promoter in the world knows that.

The Povetkin fight wasn't signed in 24 hours, but AJ wasn't stripped. If you were correct, the title would already be vacant.

"Wrong. That's not how it works. Why are you under the impression that would happen? "

Joshua would vacate and Hearn made that very clear if it went to purse bids in Russia so actually your wrong as usual .

[that g]

Wrong. That's not how it works. Why are you under the impression that would happen?

If an ordered fight isn't signed by a deadline, a purse bid is ordered. The fight can still be signed until 15 minutes before the envelopes are opened. In the WBA, WBC & WBO, a unification exception can trump a mandatory until the purse bid.

Only the IBF no longer allows the unification once the purse bid is ordered.

If you don't know the intricate machinations of the sanctioning bodies, that's fine. There's no reason you should know. But for those that know the rules, they know Hearn is lying. The WBA deadline was absolutely meaningless and every major promoter in the world knows that.

The Povetkin fight wasn't signed in 24 hours, but AJ wasn't stripped. If you were correct, the title would already be vacant.

1. if there was no risk of losing his belt, you are pretty much accusing sky sports, sporting news, review journal, espn, and a host of other reputable sports reporting agencies of lying then. that's what they all reported. i guess we all don't know how this works.

2. how do you know the povetkin fight wasn't signed already?
3. even if it wasn't, which may well be true, all hearn has to show the WBA is that povetkin and joshua have agreed in principle, and that all he's doing is firming up the dates and venue.

[N/A]

"Wrong. That's not how it works. Why are you under the impression that would happen? "

Joshua would vacate and Hearn made that very clear if it went to purse bids in Russia so actually your wrong as usual .

AJ & Povetkin can sign a deal up until 15 minutes before the purse bid envelopes are opened.

So the purse bid being ordered just buys everyone an extra two weeks.

Meaning that the WBA's "deadline" wasn't the reason Hearn took the Wilder fight off the table for 2018. It absolutely proves Hearn is lying about why he refused to do the fight in 2018.

[EnglishOxide]

So all Hearn had to do was confirm that 50 million would be an acceptable purse if the other details were worked out to his satisfaction. Hearn refused to do that. Hearn likes to play coy, commit to nothing, and then pull a switcheroo on you at the last minute. Which is exactly what we just saw with him trying to move the fight to April.

You've been telling us that Hearn must verbally, or in writing say yes to something without knowing full details regarding the 50m offer to push ahead with the fight. And criticising Hearn in the process for not doing so, stating he's playing a PR move and going against normal procedure to avoid the fight.

But when it comes to Finkel doing the exact same thing, and not just saying yes/signing a contract based on a verbal or written confirmation (in this case, assurances of Wilder getting the fight next), you have no criticism for him and it's Hearns fault again?

There's a clear bias and contradiction here. No two ways about it.