Whyte accepts 20% if there's no alternative.

The WBC are absolute trash. Whyte has paid his sanctioning fees etc. Because Whyte has been vocal against them then I feel this is the slimeball president sticking the boot in. I don’t think Fury wants this fight, if he fights with his new style then he will take some serious damage even if he wins. I would like Whyte to win then do a Riddick Bowe and bin the title.

 

He got offered 25% publicly by arum and an invitation to come to the negotiating table,that means he could possibly negotiate 30% which is a fair split imo.the fact whyte isn't willing to have discussions would suggest him and hearn are hoping to get it to go to purse bid.which if matchroom win will most likely force fury to vacate his belt because there's no way in hell arum/fury will go on a dazn show.

 

Well the trouble is, the expected minimum within the WBC guidelines was 30% to the challenger. Whereas in older guidelines an interim title holder could expect 45% (but those are old guidelines). Either way, 20% and then 25% are still low ball figures. So I imagine Whyte's team figured at a minimum they would get 30% and possible control of the fight if it went to purse bids.

@McGrain Fury the individual didn't negotiate 80-20 with the WBC, but by proxy he has done so. As I understand it Fury's management petitioned the WBC for that lower purse bid structure. However ultimately it falls on the WBC.

What is a little confusing here is arbitration was and I gather still is set for March. I don't think this 80-20 ruling changed anything about that date (according to Whyte's head trainer anyway when he addressed the topic of the arbitration process).

It seems like the plan is to "accept" the the 80-20, go to purse bids, then resolve the split in arbitration before the fight takes place.

Seems a bit convoluted, and potentially risks a pull out by the other side. Though it seems the only route Whyte has, which is fair enough really at this point and at least brings the fight closer to being a reality.

 

It was from various YouTubers that I heard they petitioned the WBC for the 80-20, but that does seem to line up with how Warren has been changing his stance on things

Here is Warren before the purse bid decision talking about arbitration in March between WBC and Whyte. Also talking about Fury going the non-title fight route and that it should be an 80-20 split from his perspective (it starts at 4:20 and he talks about it for 10-15 minutes)

This content is protected

Here is the latest from Warren:

This content is protected

I can't give you a source with the words "we petitioned/negotiated with the WBC" though. However given the purse structure is 70-30 within the guidelines, it seem dubious that the WBC would rule 80-20 which Warren was calling for with no involvement from Warren etc.

 

Where as I appreciate your point on the youtubers. It quite unreasonable to ask for a source, but then refuse to actual watch a video. How do you think I just found the source for you? I can't time stamp on a smart phone, it is what it is.

Btw that quote you took, directly contradicts what happened, it contradicts what Warren said in the video, and even Warren contradicts his own position on how negotiations work from other videos I have seen from him. Warren's positions on things is very malleable. In the Fury v Whyte situation he strongly believes that splits should be based on previous earnings, and it is how things are always done. Except when team Usyk wanted 97%-3% based on earnings to fight Joyce. Then it was oh no, that is not how things work. Notice as well Usyk's team's position was how can we negotiate until the split is confirmed (which is Warren's position in the quote you took). But Warren's position at that time was that there could be negotiations before a purse split ruling.

This video is much shorter:

This content is protected

You know you as well as most, we are never going to get a smoking gun quote from Warren along the lines of "we pressured the WBC by threatening to make a non-title fight and/or drop their belt, we expect them to rule 80-20 in line with our very public demands of what we believe the split should be and based on the information we have sent them"

 

When they sign to fight Tyson Fury, it’s a celebration. They ring back home, they ring their wife. ‘Baby, we’ve done it. We’re rich, baby. Tyson Fury made us rich. Break out the red panties.'

 

Well yeah, of course I agree that my position is based partly on intuition of the situation, which is what I initially implied:

"As I understand it Fury's management petitioned the WBC for that lower purse bid structure. However ultimately it falls on the WBC."

I was trying to make it obvious it was a statement of what I believe to be happening. I @ 'd you because I was curious and a little surprised (you being a journalist and mod) by your position being somewhat black and white and at odds with the back and forth that has been going on, on both this forum, on youtube and in the papers. But I have to agree, if I cannot find the source I shouldn't use the word "petitioned". Probably fairer to say, the ruling suspiciously was in-line with what Fury's team was asking for.
Can I ask why you think Fury's side had no part to play?

Btw, I agree that Warren's interviews are a contradictory mess, which is why I posted two interviews so you could see where his story remained consistent. Then hopefully you would draw the same conclusions. However, I can appreciate you probably don't want to sit through YouTube videos etc. But you did jump directly to asking me for a source, and that was the best I could do at short notice. So I tried to show the first step of the following:

1. Team Fury: 80-20
2. Team Whyte: 45-55 (based on old interim guidelines)
3. Current Guidelines: 70-30 to 50-50
4. WBC ruling: 80-20

How about this, I have explained why I believe Fury's side did have a hand in the 80-20 purse split (call it a hunch if you like). Why do you believe Fury had nothing to do with the purse-split ruling?


I think already there is common ground that we both see it is ultimately the WBC making the ruling.

 

okay, so can I ask about your position as to why you think the WBC ruling 80-20 had nothing to do with Fury?

 

okay, so what do you think? I'm not trying to misrepresent you, I am trying to understand your initial post.