Since a chunk of our population speak English as there second language i just wanted to clarify the meaning behind Klit "slave" contracts. Definition: After facing a Klit and making a record payday Klit victims are so well off they can afford to own slaves. Kind regards PolishPummler
yes jokes about slavery - how classy. Truth is the contracts are a disgrace. Haye called for public negs and this was knocked back because of k2 pr concerns.
CHEF i don't know if you can answer this but im going to ask anyway. I do not buy into any slave contract bs and i know many Klitschko opponents made career high paydays. But what is obvious is these rematch clauses, do you know if the challenger gets paid the same % (a lot lower than the champ) in a rematch? assuming he would actually beat a Klitschko the first time around? Or do they get a significant increase in the rematch? If this would be the case there really would not be any crying possible over these contracts seeing as you get a high payday + the chance to unify. Thanks in advance.
Wasn't Shannon Briggs really happy with his contract against Vitali? Shannon did get screwed over by his manager though, anybody know if he ever got his money?
I don't think so, last i heard it was still a ongoing legal battle. But yeah Adamek, Thompson, Chambers, Sosnowski they were nothing but positive about the conditions.
"Slave contract" always struck me as an oxymoron. Did they think slaves were given the option of signing or not signing away their labour?
You're new, so you won't know this. Most people on this forum think an oxymoron is Victor Ortiz aided by a breathing apparatus. atsch
