Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Wilder-Fury Rematch Could Land on April 27 or May, Says Warren

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by WBC WBA IBF View Post
    No, he's refusing. But I assume if you're sincere about the wager that a contract would be to your liking?
    But you said you had a legally binding contract with Robbie.

    Comment


    • #82
      lets get to it then

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Toffee View Post
        To be fair, he said he would be making those improved offers to Wilder and Fury.

        He gave details of a 65-35 offer with a two way rematch. Wilder going to 30-70 in the US if he lost, or 50-50 in the US if he won.

        Assuming the 60-40 offer has similar clauses, and the WBC would allow it at Wilder's request, it seems like a great deal.
        If Wilder won in the UK, why would the rematch then be 50-50 in the US where the bulk of the revenue will be US revenue and Wilder would have all the belts?

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by EnglishOxide View Post
          Hearn came out literally in the last week stating he has a 60/40 offer, it's not hard to find, it's on this very site.
          I believe what Hearn said was that he "can" offer 60-40 to Wilder. I also believe Hearn said that terms like the ones Toffee mentioned were "fair" and that he may finally reveal details of his unresponded to email at the end of the month.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Toffee View Post
            I shouldn't respond, because you clearly just get off on it, but he's fought Parker, Klitschko and Povetkin. Say what you like about them but they were all highly ranked at the time and two of those fights were to unify belts.

            When you beat a highly ranked fighter, they move down the rankings. Doesn't mean they weren't highly rated at the time. That's what clearing out a division looks like.
            I disagree with that. Clearing out a division means beating all the top guys. Not randomly selecting some of the "highly ranked" fighters. The Klitschko win wasn't a clean out win as that win essentially established Joshua as a force at heavyweight. It was the end of an era. Parker was never considered a threat, although he did receive his due as a champion. Povetkin was only still respected by those who chose to ignore his obvious PED use. Particularly the meldonium.

            Cleaning out a division is beating any and everyone who tries to stake a claim as the best in division. That means beating guys like Wilder, Fury, Miller, or Ortiz.

            Comment


            • #86
              Future #1

              Looking forward to wilder vs fury II in my opinion the winner of which will be #1 in the division. I’m sure after 2 fights at this level for both is something they can take into a Joshua fight and will give them a slight edge.

              It will interesting to see the revenue post fight to determine how much their stock is worth and compare that closely to AJ next bout and see who who. I have to say at present Joshua has the edge in revenue but that surely looks set to drop without fury/wilder if your a betting man.

              The discussion of splits and offers from AJs camp seem to be curious as Frank Warren confirmed no such offer or contract or contact. If Eddie is serious I would have thought a quick chat with Frank would be the right move and in relation to wilder I believe they already set their standard from the outset of 50/50 and for Hearn to keep sending alleged upgraded offers is not the right move either. It does seem like Hearn is playing games here and the same can be said in reference to Whytes offer of a fixed fee perhaps he deserves better.

              Hearn has clearly mismanaged AJ and now is in a very tight spot at the centre of it all is boxing and no one is interested in watching AJ vs punching bag.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by kafkod View Post
                But you said you had a legally binding contract with Robbie.
                You're lying.

                I said we have a legally binding agreement.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by WBC WBA IBF View Post
                  You're lying.

                  I said we have a legally binding agreement.
                  What kind of legally binding agreement?

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by kafkod View Post
                    What kind of legally binding agreement?
                    doesnt matter. you wrote that i said contract. i didnt. stop lying.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by WBC WBA IBF View Post
                      doesnt matter. you wrote that i said contract. i didnt. stop lying.
                      Ok, no more bullshit.

                      I'm saying that if you start claiming Robbie renaged on your bet, you won't sue him over it.

                      And we can make our bet using the same kind of "legally binding agreement" you think you made with Robbie.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP