Comments Thread For: Pacquiao Camp Standing Firm That Top Rank Contract Expired

[Manic Shot]

If you sign with the Devil, you're in for life!
Manny should Retire or fight Max Alvarado (Panday) ehehehe.

[Mzembe]

Things are going to be interesting in the coming weeks, as Manny Pacquiao's team members are insisting that his contract with Top Rank has expired. Pacquiao himself has refused to comment on the matter, but he's made no mention of Top Rank, or longtime trainer Freddie Roach, when discussed his planned return on June 24th in Malaysia against WBA 'regular' welterweight champion Lucas Matthysse.
[Click Here To Read More]

------------------------------

Maybe now Pacman can fight a true WW champion like Thurman or Spence or any other other top contenders instead of fighting BUMS like Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, David Diaz, Jeff Horn (who beat him ironically) or irrelevant fighters like Alvarado or Mathysse or forcing people to fight him at catch weights like Margarito or Cotto or Oscar.

Maybe finally Pac will step up and fight a true WW boxer NOT the BUMS he's fought for years.

[WesternChamp]

------------------------------

Maybe now Pacman can fight a true WW champion like Thurman or Spence or any other other top contenders instead of fighting BUMS like Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, David Diaz, Jeff Horn (who beat him ironically) or irrelevant fighters like Alvarado or Mathysse or forcing people to fight him at catch weights like Margarito or Cotto or Oscar.

Maybe finally Pac will step up and fight a true WW boxer NOT the BUMS he's fought for years.

damm no respect for TBE?

[Eff Pandas]

The only reason Bob has for trying to chain Pacquiao to it is vindictiveness.

I disagree. There is still value with beating Manny & if Bud gets Manny's name on his resume thats a nice rub for him. Or some other TR guy.

Thats kinda how boxing works. You build up a name, you get the big fights, then you build up the next guy off of this guy on the back end of his career. The torch gets passed.

Randomly one of the things that I believe damaged boxing for awhile was Floyd leaving the sport without having lost a fight/passed the torch to the next guy. Ideally Canelo was supposed to beat him, but if he'd have lost to someone the torch gets passed.

In or out of contract Manny should walk away but is unfortunately going to have to be carried away.He has earned hundreds of millions and is about to become one of boxing's sad cases .The kid that ran riot is no longer and just around for the money.

True. Idk why Manny hasn't walked away.

This is how Arum works, If Pacman signed the rematch clause w/Horn? He still has 1 more fight under TR banner. What they are failing to say, that there can be 2 stipulations on the contract 1 can be the length of time of the contract? and the more sure one the amount of fights they have left in the contract.

Arum is not stupid, he knows contracts in and out. he knew that by signing the rematch clause he for Pacman until he wants. He can delay the Horn rematch as long as he wants, and derailed Pacman's career.

Anyone got a link to Arum talking about the Horn 2 fight extending the deal? Hadn't heard this til I'm seeing a couple people mention it here.

But yea Arum knows whats up & I don't think most boxing fans know a f#cking thing about boxing contracts. These contracts are sketchy & complicated as f#ck & there is seldom situations where it ends on Jan. 5, 2018 on a dime or w/e the f#ck.

Usually they just re-sign you when you agree to some big fight (that they typically won't give you unless you do sign an extension) or they drop your a$$. And then there are injuries, suspensions & turning down fights that can extend contracts by a random period of days. This ain't like no f#cking Rent A Center contract lol.

[champion4ever]

Manny feels both undermined and betrayed by Top Rank in general and Bob Arum and Freddie Roach in particular. His loyalty was his undoing. He trusted people who didn't have his best interest at heart. It may be too late to reinvigorate his career at this point because he is a lot older now and his skills are diminishing.

[champion4ever]

Somewhere along the line, somebody very close to Manny Pacquiao has convinced and persuaded him that Jeff Horn got the push and nod over him because he was white.

Jeff Horn resembles both his promoter and racist trainer. Pac felt set up as he believed that both Arum and Roach had a horse in the race to begin with. That is why no longer trusts them.

[trouser python]

none of that would be even slightly confusing to a lawyer

if it aint in the contract, it doesn't count..... and if it is in the contract, Pac's lawyer read it

Are you going to answer my question or are you still trying to put an explanation together for why you are going to "red K" me again?

Again, proving my point as to how petty you are.

[aboutfkntime]

Why do you write stuff like this?

You are not only commenting on a field you clearly know nothing about but you are also commenting on a contract that is in no way public knowledge.

Even if not in writing, a verbal agreement is often binding and YOU (and potentially Pac's lawyer) have no idea what has been discussed between Pac, Arum and Koncz.





An oral contract is a contract, the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication. This is in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract – for example where the parties write down what they have agreed – but the contract itself is not a written one.

In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (although the contract itself may be oral). An example of the latter is the requirement that a contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing, which is found in the Statute of Frauds.

Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.

The term verbal contract is sometimes used as a synonym for oral contract. However, since the term verbal could also mean just using words in addition to using spoken words, the term oral contract should be preferred when maximum clarity is desired. [1]




Texaco vs. Pennzoil case
Samuel Goldwyn said, "An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on,"[2] but this is often not the case. The vast majority of transactions among individuals and between people and merchant companies are, in fact, the execution of oral contracts.

Oral contracts, when made correctly before witnesses, can be enforced. For example, in 1984, after Getty Oil was sold to Pennzoil in a handshake deal, which is legally binding under New York law, Texaco made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. (Even though the case was tried in Texas, New York law applied.) Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging tortious interference with the oral contract, which the court upheld and awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion (but increased again by interest and penalties).[3]




This is just one of potentially many unknown quan****** in this situation.

And don't say that your comment was also referring to an Oral contract because it is clear as day that you meant if it is not in writing it doesn't count, hence Pac's lawyer would have read it.

how the fk would either party prove something that is not in writing? the keyword in your post is..... " witnesses "

sure, if both parties agree, nothing needs to be set in print..... but a contract is for when one party decides that he does not agree..... like, now lol

and you are largely referring to when there is no contract..... but, there is a contract..... if a super-smart guy like Arum did not include something in the contract..... then it did not happen

good luck pulling that he-said, she-said, stuff in court

[aboutfkntime]

Why do you write stuff like this?

You are not only commenting on a field you clearly know nothing about but you are also commenting on a contract that is in no way public knowledge.

Even if not in writing, a verbal agreement is often binding and YOU (and potentially Pac's lawyer) have no idea what has been discussed between Pac, Arum and Koncz.





An oral contract is a contract, the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication. This is in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract – for example where the parties write down what they have agreed – but the contract itself is not a written one.

In general, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones, but some jurisdictions either require a contract to be in writing in certain circumstances (for example where real property is being conveyed), or that a contract be evidenced in writing (although the contract itself may be oral). An example of the latter is the requirement that a contract of guarantee be evidenced in writing, which is found in the Statute of Frauds.

Similarly, the limitation period prescribed for an action may be shorter for an oral contract than it is for a written one.

The term verbal contract is sometimes used as a synonym for oral contract. However, since the term verbal could also mean just using words in addition to using spoken words, the term oral contract should be preferred when maximum clarity is desired. [1]




Texaco vs. Pennzoil case
Samuel Goldwyn said, "An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on,"[2] but this is often not the case. The vast majority of transactions among individuals and between people and merchant companies are, in fact, the execution of oral contracts.

Oral contracts, when made correctly before witnesses, can be enforced. For example, in 1984, after Getty Oil was sold to Pennzoil in a handshake deal, which is legally binding under New York law, Texaco made a higher offer, and the company was sold to Texaco. (Even though the case was tried in Texas, New York law applied.) Pennzoil filed a lawsuit alleging tortious interference with the oral contract, which the court upheld and awarded $11.1 billion in damages, later reduced to $9.1 billion (but increased again by interest and penalties).[3]




This is just one of potentially many unknown quan****** in this situation.

And don't say that your comment was also referring to an Oral contract because it is clear as day that you meant if it is not in writing it doesn't count, hence Pac's lawyer would have read it.

if you think that Bob Arum does not know the day/month/year that Pac's contract expires, then you are being a little silly

Arum indicated he did not know what year Pac's contract expired lol

stop following dirty old men into the bushes, even if they promise you a sweetie

[aboutfkntime]

I disagree. There is still value with beating Manny & if Bud gets Manny's name on his resume thats a nice rub for him. Or some other TR guy.

Thats kinda how boxing works. You build up a name, you get the big fights, then you build up the next guy off of this guy on the back end of his career. The torch gets passed.

Randomly one of the things that I believe damaged boxing for awhile was Floyd leaving the sport without having lost a fight/passed the torch to the next guy. Ideally Canelo was supposed to beat him, but if he'd have lost to someone the torch gets passed.



True. Idk why Manny hasn't walked away.



Anyone got a link to Arum talking about the Horn 2 fight extending the deal? Hadn't heard this til I'm seeing a couple people mention it here.

But yea Arum knows whats up & I don't think most boxing fans know a f#cking thing about boxing contracts. These contracts are sketchy & complicated as f#ck & there is seldom situations where it ends on Jan. 5, 2018 on a dime or w/e the f#ck.

Usually they just re-sign you when you agree to some big fight (that they typically won't give you unless you do sign an extension) or they drop your a$$. And then there are injuries, suspensions & turning down fights that can extend contracts by a random period of days. This ain't like no f#cking Rent A Center contract lol.

but, do you simply find that an oddity..... as-in, oh well ho-hum, never mind, it can't be important?

or is it a CLEARLY OBVIOUS telling factor...... the elephant in the room..... and a bizarre situation that you simply cannot explain?

hmmm..... now will I make MILLIONS more, and take control of my career..... or will I stay here and get butt-fk'd by Uncle Bob?

why do you think that VisionQuest suddenly got fired after finding irregularities in Pac's Top Rank contracts?