David Haye warns Charr about Klits "Slave contract."

What if the Klitschkos demanded a 10 fight contract? I'm not being flippant for the sake of it, I'm asking a genuine question. Would that be acceptable? If they signed Fury, Price and Mitchell, would it be acceptable that if a fighter beats Wlad twice, he then has to fight Vitali, Price, Fury and Mitchell if he keeps on winning? Would that be acceptable?

 

since when does haye or anyone else ever honor contracts.... half the people in the super 6 got out of their fights, sighing "injury" or whatever, they got out. bowe didnt honor his contract against lewis...happens all the time

 

Voluntary is the word.

The opponent has the choice.

Or fight to become mandatory. Just simple.

Wlad does not want to sign with Don King in 2004 so he has to fight an eliminator to become the Mandatory Challenger.

 

:deal

Rematch? Yes.
Fight my brother? No.

 

oh yes pre set purses are the Klitschko thing, thats what guys like Haye byrd and sanders confirmed. And others. Thats wrong , when a guys becomes champ he deserves to control his share of money rematch clause or not.

 

Sanders was free to do as he wished Wlad had a rematch clause and didn't exercise it he was going to fight Brewster who was a Don King fighter and dropped the WBO to fight Vitali had nothing to do with his contract.

We all know Haye is full of **** I don't believe a thing that comes out of his mouth he ducked Vitali to fight Valuev in an awful boring fight then fought Wlad made a career high payday and gave another boring fight where he just tried to survive and got himself banned from HBO.

Wlad actually paid Byrd's legal fees to get him away from Don King so don't come on here spouting your BS. Facts state otherwise.

 

the diva is raging of jealousy because Charr got the 8 September fight, but when he had the contract to fight Vitali to sign, he chose Chisora

I can't believe how naive Toefaker's followers are, all he gives a toss about is having an 8-digit bank account, he doesn't care about his fans or what fight they would like to see, but some of the posters here are drooling themselves listening to his trash-talk and crying in interviews about the Klitschko's

 

Because the promoter chooses the opponents that make the most overall revenues.

Fighting some bum in his hometown won't make the most money. After winning vs. Vitali obviously the biggest money fight is fighting Wlad for the unified title.

An option gives the promoter the right to stage the biggest revenue generating fights. I don't see what's wrong with that?

That's what Charr is accepting when he signs options -- in return he gets a title shot that he would otherwise not get. Or take 2-3 years to reach in an ideal scenario as a mandatory.

 

A rematch clause is standard practise but K2 go way beyond that.

A "fight me & if you win then fight my brother & if you win fight me again & if you win fight someone else of our choosing" clause is ridiculous & unprecedented.

 

Incorrect. Promoters have been signing 3 option clauses for decades.

Contract doesn't say "you gotta fight the brother", but logic dictates that the promoter chooses an opponent and venue that *MAXIMIZES* revenues. Makes sense doesn't it?

 

the rematch clauses are less about the revenge of the brother and more about business.....a promotion company has two champions who wont fight...if a fighter beats one of the champions, the promotional company wants the rights to the mega-unification fight with their other champion.....it makes perfect business sense....its not corrupt, its boxing

 

atsch

 

:deal

 

:deal

 

Then why have several fighters who have dealt with K2 said it does?

Beat Vitali then fight Wlad & then fight Vitali again or vice versa, its ridiculous