The Wilder Excuses Begin

[Memphis]

On the face of it, Joshua must accept the offer, in principle at least. You could argue that he already has with his lets roll comment, how formal does it need to be? I for one wanted them to come back with an actual counter offer rather than a request for more money. They on the face of it at least have done that. The toss can be argued over all manner of nonsense but the fact remains, Joshua said give me $50 million, they've said OK.

The numbers side of things are still a mystery to me. Wilder's mob started peddling the $100 million dollar fight line but if they plan on genuinely giving AJ $50 million, they'll need a hell of a lot more than that. I've accused the $100 million club of wanting all of the money from all of the revenue sources from both sides of the pond all at the same time. If Wilder, or anyone else for that matter is considering getting paid, they'll need all that dough and then some.

A rarity here....... someone who says "Ok I wanted to see "X" happen and it did, so I've recalibrated my opinion." Why is that so hard for people in general?

So here we are, with Wilder's team having made that very much wanted counter offer.

One thing puzzles me and I don't necessarily agree with. You say if they plan on paying Joshua $50 million, they'll need to have the fight make "a hell of a lot more than" the famous $100 million figure. How so? Unless third parties or the IRS are going to take an outsized bite out of Wilder's take, he stands to make a hell of a lot more than the paltry $12.5 million Hearn first threw at him. Again, I'm not pushing the $100 million narrative, but if it does make that much and Joshua gets $50 million, how is that not good for Wilder?

I think we need to be clear about how we're defining 'The Pot' or how much money the fight makes. When I say $100 million, I mean gross, total revenue. I'm struggling to understand where $100 million gross comes from. If we're talking $100 million left in the pot for AJ and Wilder to share, then I'm really struggling.

If we take Ron's suggestion that the fight does 1 million PPV buys in the US, that's 50 million, which again as Ron pointed out, Showtime will take 50% of. So the biggest single source of income is now worth 25 million. You've now got to double your biggest single source of income to make enough money just to pay Joshua what you promised. No one else is getting paid any money yet.

Fight won't be 50$. It will be 74.95 at least.

Blimey. I thought 50 a pop was taking the piss. And a million people are going to buy at 75 bucks?

I don’t know how many people will buy but 74.95 is rather common for HD here and nobody buys not HD(64.95). I just know everyone is talking about it here. There is buzz. It’s the first significant HW title fight since Lewis/Klitschko.

I think a lot of people are missing the very specific wording Eddie is using “secured”, not gathered. Secured

se·cure
səˈkyo͝or/Submit
verb
past tense: secured; past participle: secured
fix or attach (something) firmly so that it cannot be moved or lost.
"pins secure the handle to the main body"
synonyms: fix, attach, fasten, affix, connect, couple More
make (a door or container) hard to open; fasten or lock.
"doors are likely to be well secured at night"
synonyms: fasten, close, shut, lock, bolt, chain, seal
"the doors had not been properly secured"
protect against threats; make safe

My best friend is one of the leading international financing people in the world so I’m well aware of what “secured” money is. It is separate and bound by a contract. So Al can’t put 50 million in an account and say look, there it is. That is not secured. Asking for secured money without a contract is nonsense. It’s gibberish. People need to pay close attention to what Eddie is saying because it’s literally impossible the way he is saying it.

So Al wont secure the money against an 'in principle' agreement?

I'm really struggling with the idea that someone is posting a dictionary definition, so that we're all understanding things in details, yet on the other hand chastising someone for wanting a bit of due diligence and proper process to take place before committing to what amounts to a vague proposition. One seems to be at odds with the other doesn't it

Perhaps there is a language difference because here "we'll explore that" and "we'll agree to that" are very very different. Not even the same ballpark.

What about Joshua's response, directly to Wilder on Instagram? Does that cut it as an in principle acceptance?