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

[Toffee]

John Skipper wouldn't be the first to offer a bamboozled contract. Nor one to leave out KEY details. Nor one to offer everything except what the other party is really interested in - a ONE fight contract (with or without rematches). Skipper and DAZN knew trying to offer money to take over Wilder's career was gonna be denied, that's exactly why they offered it that way.

If they REALLY want the fight, it's TOO EASY to write an acceptable contract.

He was offered Breazeale, Joshua, Joshua rematch.

Or Joshua, Joshua rematch.

It's all in the public domain. You don't need to come up with conspiracy theories.

Again, John Skipper isn't some bloke with three cups telling Wilder to guess which one the ball is under (Tip: it's actually in his pocket). He's a reputable businessman making an offer for a fight.

If it's that easy to make the fight then it would have happened. It won't come down to whether or not they ask MastaBlasta from the BoxingScene Forum to write the contract for them!

[Redgloveman]

(1)Were they not clear on the desire for "control" in their presser?

(2) And since when does any promoter or fighter come out and start listing every detail of why a deal wasn't accepted?

(3) Did Finkel and Skipper negotiate? Yes. You're assuming that the questions I posed were resolved simply because they talked?

(4a) Finkel says we aren't going to hand our fighter over. Wilder says I want to control my career. (4b) What else is there to say regarding a network deal to fight a guy that has no date attached to it.

(5)You say I'm grasping at straws while you make every possible assumption align with where you want to place blame. Difference between me and many others, I understand the game and see no reason to assign blame.

(1) The presser where Espinoza very sheepishly basically apologised on Wilder's behalf and actually ****** on more than anything about "loyalty"? That was absolutely pathetic. Making vague noises about "control" because you haven't actually got an argument isn't a substitute for an actual argument.

(2) As I pointed out in my previous post; Finkel has pointed out the EXACT SAME DETAIL that you would be complaining about in the pre-Povetkin negotiations. So (a) it would not be "every detail of why a deal wasn't accepted" it would be one very significant detail (if it were true, which it quite clearly isn't) (b) he has already complained about that exact same thing before. It would have been so easy for him to have said "Ah, look, Hearn's lot has gone and pulled the same trick again, what a punk" but instead he took a massive PR hit which has resulted in his client being punked all over the internet.... great job Finkel (or could it be that your desperate speculation is completely unfounded?)

(3) errr.... yes. That's a fundamental part of the contract. You don't think that they discussed when a Joshua fight would take place and how the $100m (which is the vast majority of the price of the contract) would actually be realised? This is BASIC stuff and you would have to be an idiot to complete on a deal without knowing when you're actually going to get your money and in what circumstances.

(4a) fairly timid excuses considering it would have been for 3 fights, one of which he was going to be fighting anyway. Seems to be PBC just told Wilder he couldn't accept and Wilder is too dumb to anything other than what they tell him, even when he's being offered crazy money...
(4b) I don't accept that there was no communications on the date for the reason above

(5) You are the one making the major assumption here. Let's apply occam's Razor here and consider what is the more likely outcome:

(5.1) your view that DAZN were trying to essentially trap Deontay into some ****ty contract where they would not allow him to fight Joshua or fight in other lucrative bouts because they have him under contract (which would never be upheld legally anyway and which would massively damage the goodwill that they are trying so hard to establish) and Shelly Finkel, despite being given every opportunity to mention this has never bothered to mention it even though he's mentioned the exact same thing before. Also it never occurred to Finkel to negotiate this extremely basic detail (i.e. when he gets his $100m)

(5.2) my view that DAZN's contract was made in good faith but Wilder's side turned it down for some reason


Now that the blame lies squarely with your guy you're trying to make out that not wanting to attribute blame is some point of strength in your argument?

nah man.... give it up.

[Fabes88]

So an unknown PBC insider said they were unprofessional? Wouldn't that person have to be in the room to know that? Where was this insider quoted?

If DAZN was so desperate, why was Joshua and Hearn not at the table talking dates and their own contract with DAZN?

I think you know why. Wilder already said he didn’t want to deal with Hearn so him being present would’ve been counter productive. The whole reason skipper was involved was because they didn’t want to deal with Hearn.

He’s not unknown he has a name. I can’t find the article or be bothered to look for it. This isn’t the court of law you either believe me or you don’t. I know that if I was to find the article you’d just find something else to disagree with. You always do unless it paints Deontay in the perfect light

[Fabes88]

He didn't turn down the 100 million. He turned down DAZN controlling his next 3 fights, or any of his future fights. No matter where you run to mouth off, you're not gonna outrun that FACT!

Your heros wouldn't make a fight contract. He offered a "manage your career" contract. FAIL!!

Lol @ control. The three fights are a fight he has to take next anyway, the Joshua fight he so desperately wants, and the rematch they refused to offer the last time so what is there to cry about really

[Ake-Dawg]

(1) The presser where Espinoza very sheepishly basically apologised on Wilder's behalf and actually ****** on more than anything about "loyalty"? That was absolutely pathetic. Making vague noises about "control" because you haven't actually got an argument isn't a substitute for an actual argument.

(2) As I pointed out in my previous post; Finkel has pointed out the EXACT SAME DETAIL that you would be complaining about in the pre-Povetkin negotiations. So (a) it would not be "every detail of why a deal wasn't accepted" it would be one very significant detail (if it were true, which it quite clearly isn't) (b) he has already complained about that exact same thing before. It would have been so easy for him to have said "Ah, look, Hearn's lot has gone and pulled the same trick again, what a punk" but instead he took a massive PR hit which has resulted in his client being punked all over the internet.... great job Finkel (or could it be that your desperate speculation is completely unfounded?)

(3) errr.... yes. That's a fundamental part of the contract. You don't think that they discussed when a Joshua fight would take place and how the $100m (which is the vast majority of the price of the contract) would actually be realised? This is BASIC stuff and you would have to be an idiot to complete on a deal without knowing when you're actually going to get your money and in what circumstances.

(4a) fairly timid excuses considering it would have been for 3 fights, one of which he was going to be fighting anyway. Seems to be PBC just told Wilder he couldn't accept and Wilder is too dumb to anything other than what they tell him, even when he's being offered crazy money...
(4b) I don't accept that there was no communications on the date for the reason above

(5) You are the one making the major assumption here. Let's apply occam's Razor here and consider what is the more likely outcome:

(5.1) your view that DAZN were trying to essentially trap Deontay into some ****ty contract where they would not allow him to fight Joshua or fight in other lucrative bouts because they have him under contract (which would never be upheld legally anyway and which would massively damage the goodwill that they are trying so hard to establish) and Shelly Finkel, despite being given every opportunity to mention this has never bothered to mention it even though he's mentioned the exact same thing before. Also it never occurred to Finkel to negotiate this extremely basic detail (i.e. when he gets his $100m)

(5.2) my view that DAZN's contract was made in good faith but Wilder's side turned it down for some reason


Now that the blame lies squarely with your guy you're trying to make out that not wanting to attribute blame is some point of strength in your argument?

nah man.... give it up.

Yes I think a date was discussed. But it wasn't in the contract and thats what matters. Again you have made something that you've assumed to be a fact that serves as the basis of your whole argument.

My view isn't that there was an intent to trap Wilder. DAZN offered what they could guarantee. They can't guarantee Joshua fights on a certain date because they don't control Joshua. I guess I don't subscribe to your desire to label one side good and the other side bad when a fight doesn't get signed.

[Ake-Dawg]

I think you know why. Wilder already said he didn’t want to deal with Hearn so him being present would’ve been counter productive. The whole reason skipper was involved was because they didn’t want to deal with Hearn.

He’s not unknown he has a name. I can’t find the article or be bothered to look for it. This isn’t the court of law you either believe me or you don’t. I know that if I was to find the article you’d just find something else to disagree with. You always do unless it paints Deontay in the perfect light

So why hadn't the Joshua part of the deal been negotiated first? Or after the questions got asked, why not go back and get answers and detail on the when where and other concerns to alleviate the "control" issues that the lack of a date created.

As for this pbc insider stuff, if you had an article or some other detail that would aid in someone else finding it....ok. right now, it doesn't sound like something you would believe if it were told to you.

[bluzi]

the contract.....

1) did not include wording that guaranteed Joshua next
2) was not signed by Joshua

so, it basically had nothing to do with Joshua

So the offer was an outstanding amount of money with no real way to recoup that investment ? how is wilder making that much money to anyone if its not fighting AJ? do you think Hearn cares about AJ ? do you think the offer was to protect AJ somehow from Wilder ? dont be so naive , they wanted Wilder to fight AJ because its a lot of money to everyone involved + they think they can win the fight.
There is no offer to Wilder that does not include AJ , at least not with the numbers that were thrown around.

[Squ□redCircle34]

Fury would put on a boxing masterpiece against AJ!

It would look like a professor teaching a pre k teacher!

[Redgloveman]

Yes I think a date was discussed. But it wasn't in the contract and thats what matters. Again you have made something that you've assumed to be a fact that serves as the basis of your whole argument.

My view isn't that there was an intent to trap Wilder. DAZN offered what they could guarantee. They can't guarantee Joshua fights on a certain date because they don't control Joshua. I guess I don't subscribe to your desire to label one side good and the other side bad when a fight doesn't get signed.

You've got it twisted my man. I thought my post made it pretty clear that it's you who is making the big assumption - see my point 5. In fact you made the big assumption in the first place and I just pointed out the unlikelihood of it.

I've already made my points as to the problems I had with your post and I think I made them clearly enough the first time.

[aboutfkntime]

So the offer was an outstanding amount of money with no real way to recoup that investment ? how is wilder making that much money to anyone if its not fighting AJ? do you think Hearn cares about AJ ? do you think the offer was to protect AJ somehow from Wilder ? dont be so naive , they wanted Wilder to fight AJ because its a lot of money to everyone involved + they think they can win the fight.
There is no offer to Wilder that does not include AJ , at least not with the numbers that were thrown around.

no

it was a hollow promise that may - or may not - have included Joshua

it was a way for Hearn to.....

1) stall that fight until he is ready

2) have an opportunity to steer Wilder toward his other guys..... like Whyte etc..... to give them an opportunity, and to possibly avoid the super-dangerous Wilder for his cashcow

sooooo obvious

that is why Hearn refused to supply basic information, and why Joshua forgot to sign it