K2 and the contracts offered to various fighters......

Twist what? Secondly why are you focusing on just Haye?

 

Doesn't it tell you something though when a fighter would rather give King, Sauderland and Goldenboy options rather stick with a contract that he was about to follow through with?

 

Ain't a big deal? I post all those boxers who have issues and it's not a big deal? How so?

Those guys aren't asking for 50/50 and most aren't even complaning about the amount they're being paid.

The general public wouldn't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to negotiations so where does their opinion fit in exactly??:huh

 

Not as simple as you think.

Reading Povetkins situation K2 still don't offer the 'normal' mandatory contract. In addition to this what if you're not ranked by federation in question? What if technically the highest you can reach is 3rd or 4th because those above you don't want to risk losing their position? Since the champion only has to defend against his mandatory once a year that means if you're 4th in line it could be 3-4 years before you get your shot!!

 

Then you're a ****ing idiot then. Check my location, England doesn't tie in with Scotland moron. Secondly check my post history, I have always said both Klitschkos will beat Haye AND that although I understand why he's fighting Harrison it's a fight I'm dissapointed with.

You've contributed NOTHING to this thread so if you can't debate the points I suggest you just leave.

 

Would that be the IBF tourney that 3 fighters have pulled out of? 1 fighter ok, 2 mmm, 3?? Somethings definetly wrong with it, no thank you.

Povetkin recieved a 26 page contract as mandatory and Sauderland released 5 points he was pissed at saying the full contract wasn't the normal mandatory contract.

But even the voluntary defence contracts are below standard:
Toney earned $2.8 million vs Rahman and $1.1 million for the eliminator vs Peter yet somehow $1.5 million for a title shot vs Wlad is fair?
Tua earned $500k vs SHANE CAMERON and somehow $400k vs Klitschko is fair?

That's not including those that I don't know, Valuev, Dimitrienko etc...

 

Under the Lewis quote I wrote "maybe they earned from their old promoter eh?", that stands for the Byrd fight too of course.

 

I won't commit to "in a nutshell" because that would mean everyone who has ever fought them has been given a **** deal which clearly isn't the case. This isn't as black and white as that.

I'd have to say something is definetly wrong though based on the evidence I've researched and provided.

 

No, they shouldn't.

Haye pulled out with Setanta which was legitimate. As for the second time, well, he was given a title shot, good money and a chance to enhance his legacy a tiny bit and earn more $ long term rather than get spanked around the ring, can't blame him.

You can hold the division to ransom fair enough, but when boxers are complaning to this extent it reflects what's wrong with boxing imo.

Oh and the names on that list would enhance their legacy's a little more than the guys they have fought so I's disagree that the Klitschko's don't need them. But then when you have guys like Chisora, Peter, Briggs etc who're willing to fight for peanuts and K2 can continue to pick up the good paydays where's the incentive to fight the better guys?