Printable View
Nah captain Kirk is right though, if its a written contract, Ruiz doesnt have a whole lot of room to bargain. His only upside would be that he could decide to get stripped over not getting a fair shake, which would make AJ look really bad. I dont think anyone could take him seriously if a rematch doesnt happen.
That’s the point. AJ needs this fight more than Ruiz. And not by some small margin. Ruiz is already an overachiever, now all he needs is the money, his legacy is secure. AJ already has the money, if he wants his legacy he can’t go around picking up fake belts a SECOND TIME. He needs to beat the man that beat him.
If AJ's belts were fake so are Ruiz's, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Is Deontay's belt "real?" ........ don't even bother, dude, seriously, don't even bother
No belts are “real” or mean much anymore to us lot. Trying to avenge a defeat is very real though.
Cayton got paid every penny he was due from the contract until it expired. All Tyson did was spend a fortune on lawyers on top of the money he paid out to Cayton and then an even bigger share of his earnings to King than Cayton was taking. For about four years Tyson was paying two managers and a bunch of lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterTyson contested the contracts with Jacobs/Cayton and King and essentially won both when they settled with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAny lawyer who has passed the bar can argue anything. It's whether it'll stand up in court that matters. And if Ruiz wants to spend years tied up in court blowing the purse he earned and going into debt to pay his lawyers while the sanctioning bodies hand the belts back to the PPV star/stadium filler/gigantic sanctioning fee producer he won them off then he's more than welcome to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI am sure a smart lawyer could argue that Ruiz is being denied his actual worth, now that he took the chance and won the title. Ruiz could get far more money in a unification against Wilder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingHow can you ban options? It's something negotiable and something challengers are willing to give up to get a crack at champions. Ruiz could earn more if he was free to negotiate but he isn't because he signed a contract. And he signed the contract because it was a massive opportunity for him that has actually paid off. When he signed it he had zero negotiating leverage. Almost zero, Joshua was desperate for an opponent. But Joshua could have fought anybody really. The contract Ruiz signed was a fair reflection of his worth in a commercial deal. He's only on the hook for one fight and then he's free. Just going back a few years the Klitschkos used to have options on three or four future fights for anybody they fought. Go back a century and fighters would be willing to pay the heavyweight champion most of their future purses for a fight for the title. Champions have the right to look after their interests as much as is legally possible. Joshua is only doing what anybody else in his position would do. It's a short career.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI think they banned "options" in boxing, where the promoter of the champion has a say in the next fight(s) of the challenger should they win. So they could do the same with rematch clauses, it gives the challenger very little say in the next fight in terms of money, venue and other key factors of their career. It could be argued Ruiz could earn far more if he was free to negotiate on a fair level field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingEven assuming it would be possible to ban the formally legally codified result of the disparity in negotiating leverage between a champion and a challenger, which it isn't, why would you want to do this? What difference does it make?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI remember Whyte turning down the April fight specifically because the rematch clause stipulated what he would be entitled to which was in his opinion very low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingIf Matchroom are even minimally competent at drawing up contracts, and I'm sure they are, Ruiz' purse for the rematch will have been included in the original contract. He'll be able to stamp his foot and make threats and may get a few extra quid but it won't be anything substantial. Maybe he'll get a Nando's all-you-can-eat-free card valid for however long he's in Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO
These rematch clauses need to be banned and made illegal.
He's only worth what he's currently worth because the champion agreed to give him a fight. And the champion only agreed to give him a fight if Ruiz agreed to a variety of terms and conditions. If you sign a contract that's it mate. Have a look at the contracts some bands have signed. The Rolling Stones contract with Allen Klein for instance. His estate still owns the publishing rights and makes millions of dollars in royalties for some of their biggest songs, songs they had no idea he had any ownership over when they signed the deal. Tyson's first contract with Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton gave Jacobs and Cayton effectively more than half of every dollar Tyson made amongst other things. Tyson's contract with King was even worse. A contract is a contract. If you've signed a contract you're obligated to fulfil everything within the four corners of that contract even if you were badly advised before you signed it. And Ruiz is advised by Al Haymon, supposedly the smartest man in boxing.
Ruiz will end up getting some concessions from AJ.
Unfair contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.
Ruiz did not sign an unfair contract. Nobody forced him into signing it, he was not expected to win, a late replacement, and made several times his career earnings and enough money to make him financially secure from one fight. His advisor was one of the smartest men in boxing and he advised him to sign the contract. The fact that Joshua now has one (1) fight that Ruiz has to take and seemingly no further options makes it as good as any deal that has ever been offered to any challenger for the heavyweight title ever.
So to recap.
A shot at the heavyweight title.
A payday that was several times his career earnings up to that date and an amount that will keep him in Twinkies for perpetuity.
A contract that gave Ruiz as good a deal as has ever been offered to any heavyweight challenger ever.
Advised to sign the contract by his adviser Al Haymon, the smartest man in boxing.
By no stretch of the imagination can the contract be considered unfair.
Bill Cayton accepted a lower percentage of Tyson's earnings after the Tubbs fight.
Agreed, Ruiz got the best deal of his career at the time of facing AJ.
Now that Ruiz won he can earn considerably more and is being forced to accept a fight that he may not get what the "market rate" is which could be argued as restraint of trade.
I hereby rest my case my lord.
Cayton got every penny he was contractually obligated to receive. up until the day it expired including his legal fees which were also a contractual obligation if Tyson ever decided to take them to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Nobody is stopping Ruiz earning a living. On the contrary he's just been given a fight that made him financially secure and now a rematch that will make him very wealthy indeed. And he agreed to both these fights! If he hadn't he wouldn't have got the fights! Stick with the day job.
C
I read Tyson autobiography Undisputed Truth and Cayton's percentage was definatly reduced and I forgot the exact reasons but it was deemed unfair on Mike. Ironically it was Robin who instigated the court proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingCayton got every penny he was contractually obligated to receive. up until the day it expired including his legal fees which were also a contractual obligation if Tyson ever decided to take them to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Nobody is stopping Ruiz earning a living. On the contrary he's just been given a fight that made him financially secure and now a rematch that will make him very wealthy indeed. And he agreed to both these fights! If he hadn't he wouldn't have got the fights! Stick with the day job.
C
Ruiz is screaming hard and loud to get the best terms he can in the rematch. You can not blame him for doing that. Worst case he walks away from the rematch which I do not think he will do.
Of course Ruiz’s belts are fake, I am not a hypocrite like you picking and choosing. Put your hood back on and don’t address me.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterIf AJ's belts were fake so are Ruiz's, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
Is Deontay's belt "real?" ........ don't even bother, dude, seriously, don't even bother
Really he's just saying he doesn't want to fight in England but the contract he signed gives Joshua the right to pick the venue, or so we've been told.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI read Tyson autobiography Undisputed Truth and Cayton's percentage was definatly reduced and I forgot the exact reasons but it was deemed unfair on Mike. Ironically it was Robin who instigated the court proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingCayton got every penny he was contractually obligated to receive. up until the day it expired including his legal fees which were also a contractual obligation if Tyson ever decided to take them to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Nobody is stopping Ruiz earning a living. On the contrary he's just been given a fight that made him financially secure and now a rematch that will make him very wealthy indeed. And he agreed to both these fights! If he hadn't he wouldn't have got the fights! Stick with the day job.
C
Ruiz is screaming hard and loud to get the best terms he can in the rematch. You can not blame him for doing that. Worst case he walks away from the rematch which I do not think he will do.
Looks like it is Saudi Arabia
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2...abia-december/
And @Fenster put your hood back on 😂
I get why they are fighting there ... couldn’t agree on a ‘home’ Venue, MONEY, to showcase a country a la Zaire , MONEY, OK time zone, MONEY.... but the fan experience won’t be great. I’ve been to Saudi lots of times. No booze, repressive police, not many knowledgeable fans, people will just go to take selfies. Does Hearn not think Western women are boxing fans? They won’t want to go to Saudi
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
Especially the women boxing fans I've seen the times I've been to events at the Roberto Clemente Colosseum in San Juan. Those are the type that stop traffic, and I'm pretty sure that would be frowned upon in chauvinist Saudi.
Ring girls there will probably parade the round number in full abaya dresswear.