Comments Thread For: Fury: Joshua Has To Grow a Set of Nuts - Step Up, Fight Somebody

[Redgloveman]

(1) You made points that represented your assumptions of what DAZN did or didn't do. I responded with my thoughts and why. Simple enough. As I stated, your assumptions are such that slant your point if view that blame must be laid and laid on Team Wilder.

(2) You seemingly understand the importance of having a date on a contract and ASSUMED that there was a contractual date for the Joshua fight to happen. That then allows you to take the already stated "control" issue off the table of discussion, which as you know is paramount in boxing.

(1)
That’s manifestly wrong and you seem to have muddled things in your mind. I came in to respond to your initial post which is below:

“Why is this so hard for you guys?

The contract was great money, however it included no dates to actually get the money outside of the Breazeale fight money. Wilder would have been committing to fight on DAZN and letting Hearn determine WHEN he would fight Joshua and preventing him from fighting other lucrative fights like Fury Ortiz and Kownacki in the interim.

So Wilder said thanks but no thanks, but keep that same $40M guarantee energy when we are negotiating a one fight deal against Joshua with an actual date.”

I came in to say that that seemed highly improbable based on the facts that we have. It was you who made the initial claim and the initial assumptions and so the burden of proving those assumptions lies squarely on you. I haven’t seen any proof to back this up and frankly the assumption seems highly unlikely given that Finkel never mentioned it himself.

You can easily prove me wrong if he did in fact say it himself and then we can have another discussion on those terms; but at the moment you’re putting words into his mouth and (just as you accused me of earlier) based an argument on very shaky foundations (an unverified assumption)

(2)
actually no; a date isn’t strictly necessary to create an enforceable contract. The contract will eventually lapse if the fight didn’t take place within a reasonable time but (as is virtually certain to be the case) the contract would in any event have included a long-stop provision which would have been agreed by the parties during what were fairly long contract negotiations. It’s very basic stuff from a legal point of view and the fact that Finkel didn’t mention it rather suggests that it was never an issue. His problem, as was widely reported, was supposedly that he didn’t know what AJ was getting by way of money from the contact, which has nothing to do with dates

And lastly, no, I’m not necessarily looking to “place blame” as you apparently never would, I’m just pointing out the glaring weaknesses of your argument.

[Ake-Dawg]

(1)
That’s manifestly wrong and you seem to have muddled things in your mind. I came in to respond to your initial post which is below:

“Why is this so hard for you guys?

The contract was great money, however it included no dates to actually get the money outside of the Breazeale fight money. Wilder would have been committing to fight on DAZN and letting Hearn determine WHEN he would fight Joshua and preventing him from fighting other lucrative fights like Fury Ortiz and Kownacki in the interim.

So Wilder said thanks but no thanks, but keep that same $40M guarantee energy when we are negotiating a one fight deal against Joshua with an actual date.”

I came in to say that that seemed highly improbable based on the facts that we have. It was you who made the initial claim and the initial assumptions and so the burden of proving those assumptions lies squarely on you. I haven’t seen any proof to back this up and frankly the assumption seems highly unlikely given that Finkel never mentioned it himself.

You can easily prove me wrong if he did in fact say it himself and then we can have another discussion on those terms; but at the moment you’re putting words into his mouth and (just as you accused me of earlier) based an argument on very shaky foundations (an unverified assumption)

(2)
actually no; a date isn’t strictly necessary to create an enforceable contract. The contract will eventually lapse if the fight didn’t take place within a reasonable time but (as is virtually certain to be the case) the contract would in any event have included a long-stop provision which would have been agreed by the parties during what were fairly long contract negotiations. It’s very basic stuff from a legal point of view and the fact that Finkel didn’t mention it rather suggests that it was never an issue. His problem, as was widely reported, was supposedly that he didn’t know what AJ was getting by way of money from the contact, which has nothing to do with dates

And lastly, no, I’m not necessarily looking to “place blame” as you apparently never would, I’m just pointing out the glaring weaknesses of your argument.

Since you like numbering paragraphs:

1. My initial post can be summarized as control, which was explicitly mentioned by fighter and manager.

2. I said paramount, not necessary.

3. Again with your assumptions of how that contract was structured and what a lack of certain statements mean. You are assuming certain details as fact in order to substantiate your opinion. You speak of proving you wrong, you haven't proven yourself right. You've just stated multiple assumptions that if proved true, would support your position.

[Redgloveman]

Since you like numbering paragraphs:

1. My initial post can be summarized as control, which was explicitly mentioned by fighter and manager.

2. I said paramount, not necessary.

3. Again with your assumptions of how that contract was structured and what a lack of certain statements mean. You are assuming certain details as fact in order to substantiate your opinion. You speak of proving you wrong, you haven't proven yourself right. You've just stated multiple assumptions that if proved true, would support your position.

1. That’s a logical fallacy. You’re trying to hinge a very specific point on a very VERY vague premise.

2. That’s a technicality. In any case the word paramount is generally taken to mean “of the upmost importance”; I’ve shown that it’s not

3. That’s gibberish. But to counter the point which I think you’re trying to make. Assuming that two contracting parties are contracting in a normal and professional manner is hardly a wild leap of the imagnation. Your own position; which would essentially require that the parties were acting like a bunch of amateurs, despite the eye-wateringly high contract price of $120m, would require some kind of evidence which you have repeatedly refused to provide, apart from making vague waffling noises about “control”

You’re evidently a smart enough person so I don’t to be harsh, but if you’re going to keep pushing the point I feel the need to show why I’ve posted what I’ve posted.

I suggest we let bygones be bygones and look forward to Saturday night. I’ve got Wilder by knockout in the 6th round