is Ruiz trying to wriggle out of the rematch ???

[Enlightened-One]

is Ruiz trying to wriggle out of the rematch ???

Seems odd to me that he has gone V quiet since the Saudi announcement and today has been quoted as saying he wont fight there...

...but he signed the contract for two fights and if its not respected could find he is in a long legal wrangle which could see him stripped of the belts anyway .

Can help but think he knows deep down he cant beat AJ again and is trying to hide behind various stumbling blocks to get out of the rematch .

I’ve only just found this out, but apparently the US State Department advises its citizens not to go to Saudi Arabia, but if they must do so, they should exercise increased caution due to terrorism and the threat of missile and drone attacks on civilian targets.

In fact, US government personnel and their families are actually forbidden from travelling to certain regions within Saudi Arabia, due to their belief that US citizens are at heightened risk of Yemeni terrorist attacks.

Therefore, Matchroom or AJ can’t sue for breach of contract if Andy Ruiz Jr. has shown a clear willingness to engage in the rematch, but simply refuses to compete in Saudi Arabia.

Contracts cannot be enforced on an athlete if its terms could potentially result in the personal injury or the death of the aforementioned individual due to non-sporting related causes.

The only reason why the Eddie Hearn is attempting to stage the fight that geographical region is due to money and that isn’t sufficient justification to legally compel the Mexican-American to travel to a country his own government actually advises its citizens from visiting, especially considering the fact that there are commercially-viable alternative (and almost equally lucrative) venues the event could be staged.

I’ve tried to consider the situations from both sides of the fence and I really can’t perceive any possible justification to legally compel Andy Ruiz Jr. to adhere to Matchroom’s and AJ’s demands to travel to Saudi Arabia. I really don’t think that Eddie Hearn has a legal case against Ruiz Jr. in this instance.

[ironbeard]

Re my post

yet it was posing a question really rather than making a statement .

Apart from the obvious $$$$
and the politics of TV / Media I still feel Ruiz has been " wriggling " and for quite some time especially about a US venue .

Hold on Eddie!!!



Team TFKoB is negotiating.

[BeetleBailey]

is Ruiz trying to wriggle out of the rematch ???

Seems odd to me that he has gone V quiet since the Saudi announcement and today has been quoted as saying he wont fight there...

...but he signed the contract for two fights and if its not respected could find he is in a long legal wrangle which could see him stripped of the belts anyway .

Can help but think he knows deep down he cant beat AJ again and is trying to hide behind various stumbling blocks to get out of the rematch .

I’ve only just found this out, but apparently the US State Department advises its citizens not to go to Saudi Arabia, but if they must do so, they should exercise increased caution due to terrorism and the threat of missile and drone attacks on civilian targets.

In fact, US government personnel and their families are actually forbidden from travelling to certain regions within Saudi Arabia, due to their belief that US citizens are at heightened risk of Yemeni terrorist attacks.

Therefore, Matchroom or AJ can’t sue for breach of contract if Andy Ruiz Jr. has shown a clear willingness to engage in the rematch, but simply refuses to compete in Saudi Arabia.

Contracts cannot be enforced on an athlete if its terms could potentially result in the personal injury or the death of the aforementioned individual due to non-sporting related causes.

The only reason why the Eddie Hearn is attempting to stage the fight that geographical region is due to money and that isn’t sufficient justification to legally compel the Mexican-American to travel to a country his own government actually advises its citizens from visiting, especially considering the fact that there are commercially-viable alternative (and almost equally lucrative) venues the event could be staged.

I’ve tried to consider the situations from both sides of the fence and I really can’t perceive any possible justification to legally compel Andy Ruiz Jr. to adhere to Matchroom’s and AJ’s demands to travel to Saudi Arabia. I really don’t think that Eddie Hearn has a legal case against Ruiz Jr. in this instance.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... isory.html

Cliffs:

- No longer an unaccompanied assignment for US government personnel.
- US Citizens have been told to stay away from the Yemen boarder (50 miles to be exact) and Qatif (just north of the causeway to Bahrain).

With the fight taking place on the outskirts of Riyadh, Ruiz would be far away from any of the hotspots. The Houthis did claim they hit the Riyadh airport with a drone a couple of years ago, but it was never verified.

He should be just as safe as Amir Khan was last month in Jeddah.

Sorry if I sound so cynical, but I wonder if Ruiz's real hesitation will be:

1. Taxes - No matter where he fights, the IRS will still tax him. US citizens are taxed on their income no matter where in the world they live. Since the threshold is roughly $100,000 in overseas income before Washington DC taxes it, Ruiz certainly is above that number regarding his purse. He will be taxed a lot. So, why leave the US?

2. Bad press - the press is going to eat him alive for cashing in on such a despotic country. Someone from the LA Times will certainly ask him (in between rounds of sparing) about Khashoggi.


As a fan of the sport, Ruiz should also be concerned with:

3. Drug testing - I assume the Saudi sports commission will not test for PEDs

[Enlightened-One]

With the fight taking place on the outskirts of Riyadh, Ruiz would be far away from any of the hotspots. The Houthis did claim they hit the Riyadh airport with a drone a couple of years ago, but it was never verified.

If you’re an attention-seeking terrorist faction attempting to gain exposure via the global media, should an event, such as the Ruiz Jr-Joshua rematch, be considered as being a high security risk?

If the US government are actively discouraging their own citizens from visiting Saudi Arabia, actually forbidding them from visiting certain regions within that country (such as the 50-mile distance from the Yemen border), then you can’t expect many American’s to want to go there.

Whether Ruiz Jr’s reluctance to compete in Saudi is due to: fear for his own safety, political ideology, taxation, bad press, drug testing protocols, a negotiation tactic etc., his motives are totally irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is what is legally enforceable.

From a legal perspective, I honestly don’t know how any lawsuit filed by Matchroom/AJ against Ruiz Jr. for breach of contract could prove to be successful, in the context of the US government actively discouraging their citizens from travelling to Saudi Arabia.

I really don’t think that Eddie Hearn has a legal case against Ruiz Jr. in this instance.

Personally-speaking, it doesn’t really matter to me where the fight is staged. I couldn’t care less.

It’s just that I feel that any attempted lawsuit filed against Ruiz Jr. for breach of contract would be immediately dismissed by any US court due to it being cosidered frivolous in nature.

[greg]

.........

It’s just that I feel that any attempted lawsuit filed against Ruiz Jr. for breach of contract would be immediately dismissed by any US court due to it being cosidered frivolous in nature.

..do we know for sure that the contract between Ruiz and AJ falls under the jurisdiction of American legal system?

[margaret thatcher]

Funny enough the US state department gives Mexico the same travel threat level (2) as Saudi Arabia. Andy been going to Mexico hasn't he and wanted the rematch there.

But our lawyers have layed the law

[greg]

Funny enough the US state department gives Mexico the same travel threat level (2) as Saudi Arabia. Andy been going to Mexico hasn't he and wanted the rematch there.

But our lawyers have layed the law

ha ha, interesting read...check this one out:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... ries.html/

[greg]

just an example, Germany:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... rmany.html

[Enlightened-One]

.........

It’s just that I feel that any attempted lawsuit filed against Ruiz Jr. for breach of contract would be immediately dismissed by any US court due to it being cosidered frivolous in nature.

..do we know for sure that the contract between Ruiz and AJ falls under the jurisdiction of American legal system?

The question related to international litigation is complex to answer, because of jurisdiction and enforcement.

American law doesn’t always support English law And the US isn’t obliged to uphold or recognise foreign judgments.

I’m not a legal expert, but from a boxing perspective, I can’t think of a situation where legal action was taken against an American fighter for breach of contract on British shores – they’ve always seemed to take place in the US.

For instance: the Lewis-Rahman lawsuit.

And whilst Matchroom US has its head office in the UK, it’s officially an American company.

So an American company, using American lawyers, negotiated a contract with a US citizen for a fight being staged in America, which included an immediate rematch clause.

In this scenario, which legal system do you suspect has jurisdiction?

[Enlightened-One]

Funny enough the US state department gives Mexico the same travel threat level (2) as Saudi Arabia. Andy been going to Mexico hasn't he and wanted the rematch there.

But our lawyers have layed the law

"Fṙḁṅk Wḁṙṙḛṅ responds to ‘nonsense’ claims from Eddie Hearn that Andy Ruiz Jr could be stripped of titles if he refuses to fight Anthony Joshua in Saudi Arabia"

Fṙḁṅk Wḁṙṙḛṅ has dismissed the ‘nonsense’ claims from rival Eddie Hearn that Andy Ruiz Jr could be stripped of his world heavyweight titles if he refuses to fight Anthony Joshua in Saudi Arabia.

Hearn’s Matchroom Boxing announced last week the highly-anticipated rematch would take place in Diriyah, Saudi Arabia, on December 7, confirming Ruiz and his team had ‘100% signed the contract for this fight’.

However, the 29-year-old WBO, WBA and IBF champion took to social media on Wednesday to say he has no intention of going to the Middle East and insist the fight will be staged in the United States again, following his stunning victory over Joshua in New York in June.

Ruiz’s announcement was met by a warning from Hearn, who said the Mexican-American fighter must honour his contract for the Joshua rematch or face being stripped of his titles and being caught up in a ‘legal battle that could put him out of boxing for years’.

But rival promoter Wḁṙṙḛṅ has rubbished Hearn’s claims and says Ruiz has every right to refuse to travel to Saudi Arabia, as the US government has advised American citizens not to travel there.

Speaking on Thursday’s Alan Brazil Sports Breakfast, Wḁṙṙḛṅ said: “Eddie has a point that he’s got a contract with him, but he’s got a real problem in saying he’ll be stripped of his titles.

“That’s not up to him at all, the titles belong to the governing bodies.

“The bottom line is, the US State Department advises its citizens not to go to Saudi Arabia for many reasons – the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, human rights issues, they’ve got a long paragraph on torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, women’s rights and it talks about the risk of going to airports where terrorists may attack – that’s all on their official website.

“His own government is telling him his life could be in danger.

“All this nonsense about having his titles taken away from him, that is nonsense.

“You can be sued for breach of contract, and he may have a point there, but it’s not an easy case, that’s for sure.

“He has a very, very strong position for not travelling.”

[greg]

..do we know for sure that the contract between Ruiz and AJ falls under the jurisdiction of American legal system?

The question related to international litigation is complex to answer, because of jurisdiction and enforcement.

American law doesn’t always support English law And the US isn’t obliged to uphold or recognise foreign judgments.

I’m not a legal expert, but from a boxing perspective, I can’t think of a situation where legal action was taken against an American fighter for breach of contract on British shores – they’ve always seemed to take place in the US.

For instance: the Lewis-Rahman lawsuit.

And whilst Matchroom US has its head office in the UK, it’s officially an American company.

So an American company negotiated a deal with a US citizen for a fight being stage in America, which included an immediate rematch clause.

In this scenario, which legal system do you suspect has jurisdiction?

..considering one of the parties involved being a Brit and the company is operating in Britain? ... don't know..

[margaret thatcher]

Warren, a longtime fan of anything Eddie Hearn and certainly not someone who sh!ts on anything Hearn says, says the US says don't travel to Saudi Arabia, so why does the US state department have Saudi at level 2 with places like Mexico, Germany, France, and Denmark instead of level 4 (do not travel) or even level 3 (reconsider travelling)?

[Enlightened-One]

The question related to international litigation is complex to answer, because of jurisdiction and enforcement.

American law doesn’t always support English law And the US isn’t obliged to uphold or recognise foreign judgments.

I’m not a legal expert, but from a boxing perspective, I can’t think of a situation where legal action was taken against an American fighter for breach of contract on British shores – they’ve always seemed to take place in the US.

For instance: the Lewis-Rahman lawsuit.

And whilst Matchroom US has its head office in the UK, it’s officially an American company.

So an American company negotiated a deal with a US citizen for a fight being stage in America, which included an immediate rematch clause.

In this scenario, which legal system do you suspect has jurisdiction?

..considering one of the parties involved being a Brit and the company is operating in Britain? ... don't know..

Matchroom US is a sister company of Matchroom Sports.

Matchroom US stages sporting events at American venues. It is technically an American company, regardless the location of its head office.

The Brit in question was subject to US tax laws as he was competing on US soil, against an American fighter, promoted by an American company, with the original contract negotiated between American lawyers.

And I've already explained the fact that the US isn't obliged to enforce foregin judgements.

Alright, let's simplify the question, shall we?

Can you name a single instance whereby an American fighter was successfully sued for breach of contract by a British court (for a fight that was staged in the US by an American promoter)?

[greg]

United Kingdom - Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution...

fukkin 'ell

[Enlightened-One]

United Kingdom - Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution...

fukkin 'ell

What’s so funny?

"GOV.UK"

Terrorism threat levels

The threat level indicates the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the UK.

National threat level

The threat to the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) from terrorism is severe.

Northern Ireland-related threat level

The threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is severe.

The level is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and the Security Service (MI5).

Threat levels do not have an expiry date. They can change at any time as different information becomes available to security agents.

[greg]

United Kingdom - Level 2: Exercise Increased Caution...

fukkin 'ell

What’s so funny?

"GOV.UK"

Terrorism threat levels

The threat level indicates the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the UK.

National threat level

The threat to the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) from terrorism is severe.

The level is set by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and the Security Service (MI5).

Threat levels do not have an expiry date. They can change at any time as different information becomes available to security agents.

..don't feel like starting any political discussion here ....just saying we should probably cancel all boxing events around the world because of that including all countries above and many more based on this data ...sure as hell convenient to a lot of reliable locations like Vegas and Co...I hope Brits are well aware of these threats originating from their territory..

[greg]

..considering one of the parties involved being a Brit and the company is operating in Britain? ... don't know..

Matchroom US is a sister company of Matchroom Sports.

Matchroom US stages sporting events at American venues. It is technically an American company, regardless the location of its head office.

The Brit in question was subject to US tax laws as he was competing on US soil, against an American fighter, promoted by an American company, with the original contract negotiated between American lawyers.

And I've already explained the fact that the US isn't obliged to enforce foregin judgements.

Alright, let's simplify the question, shall we?

Can you name a single instance whereby an American fighter was successfully sued for breach of contract by a British court (for a fight that was staged in the US by an American promoter)?

I don't know for a simple reason that I don't follow legal developments...at this point, however, I have a problem finding fault with Hearn's reasoning..

[ironbeard]

Fvck Eddie. TFKoB would do fine v Fury in Vegas or Texas, or unifying v Wilder.

[oogiebe]

Fvck Eddie. TFKoB would do fine v Fury in Vegas or Texas, or unifying v Wilder.

Ruiz has said that the rematch is on. He's posturing for more dough, nothing else.

[Enlightened-One]

..don't feel like starting any political discussion here ....just saying we should probably cancel all boxing events around the world because of that including all countries above and many more based on this data ...sure as hell convenient to a lot of reliable locations like Vegas and Co...I hope Brits are well aware of these threats originating from their territory..

I don’t want to engage in a pollical discussion either, but it was your choice to mock the fact that Saudi Arabia has the same US Department of State threat level as the UK, whist having no comprehension whatsoever that Britain actually considers itself as being at “severe” risk of a terrorist attack.

[Enlightened-One]

Ruiz has said that the rematch is on. He's posturing for more dough, nothing else.

I agree.

I feel that Ruiz Jr. knows he has a very strong legal argument to scupper Eddie Hearn's plans to engage in the AJ rematch if it was stage in Saudi Arabia though and is possibly using this to compel Matchroom US to provide him with a bigger purse.

The move of venue from the US or UK to Saudi Arabia has provided AJ with a vastly improved payday, but Ruiz Jr's remains the same, regardless the location of the bout.

"Saudis reportedly pay £33million+ for Andy Ruiz Jr vs Anthony Joshua rematch, Ruiz gets £7.5million"

Promoter Eddie Hearn reportedly secured a sum of over $40million (£33.3m) from Saudi Arabia backers to host the Andy Ruiz Jr vs Anthony Joshua rematch.

It was announced on Friday that the second bout will be taking place in Diriyah, just outside of Riyadh, with more details to follow on Monday.

The decision didn’t go down very well with British fans who had been hoping to see AJ regain his world titles in person on home soil, however it appears we may now know the reason why this isn’t happening.

Mike Coppinger claims Hearn agreed a deal with the Saudis which will bring in a site fee of over $40m.

Ruiz Jr’s purse is said to be around $9m (£7.5m) as was already agreed in the contract for the first fight, which contained this rematch clause.

Therefore, Joshua will pick up the lion’s share of the money despite the fact he has been deposed as champion and is fighting to regain his belts.

[greg]

..don't feel like starting any political discussion here ....just saying we should probably cancel all boxing events around the world because of that including all countries above and many more based on this data ...sure as hell convenient to a lot of reliable locations like Vegas and Co...I hope Brits are well aware of these threats originating from their territory..

I don’t want to engage in a pollical discussion either, but it was your choice to mock the fact that Saudi Arabia has the same US Department of State threat level as the UK, whist having no comprehension whatsoever that Britain actually considers itself as being at “severe” risk of a terrorist attack.

You’ve questioned the legal jurisdiction for the AJ-Ruiz Jr. contract, which I addressed.

You’ve questioned the US governments' terrorist threat level, by drawing comparisons with the UK, which I addressed.

Are there any other counter-arguments you can creatively fabricate?

...just because you tried to address issues doesn't make your argumentation any more convincing ...let's see if Ruiz will take advantage of your "tips" and prevail...

over and out!

[ironbeard]

Fvck Eddie. TFKoB would do fine v Fury in Vegas or Texas, or unifying v Wilder.

Ruiz has said that the rematch is on. He's posturing for more dough, nothing else.

It is only on when it is agreed upon. TFKoB has options and backing. He has a stronger negotiating position than Eddie is willing to acknowledge. If it does not happen, he has sweet options.

That said, I am certain that TFKoB wants to prove that the first fight was no fluke.

[oogiebe]

Ruiz has said that the rematch is on. He's posturing for more dough, nothing else.

It is only on when it is agreed upon. TFKoB has options and backing. He has a stronger negotiating position than Eddie is willing to acknowledge. If it does not happen, he has sweet options.

That said, I am certain that TFKoB wants to prove that the first fight was no fluke.

The original contract stipulated a rematch clause. So it is on. Both sides know the fight is on. Ruiz doesn't have sweet options if it goes to court. They'll hit him with an injunction so that he can't fight during litigation. It won't get that far. I do agree he is in a stronger position than Hearn lets on.

[ironbeard]

It is only on when it is agreed upon. TFKoB has options and backing. He has a stronger negotiating position than Eddie is willing to acknowledge. If it does not happen, he has sweet options.

That said, I am certain that TFKoB wants to prove that the first fight was no fluke.

The original contract stipulated a rematch clause. So it is on. Both sides know the fight is on. Ruiz doesn't have sweet options if it goes to court. They'll hit him with an injunction so that he can't fight during litigation. It won't get that far. I do agree he is in a stronger position than Hearn lets on.

You do not know that an injunction would be implemented. The number 1 issue is the money, not the belts. TFKoB would not receive the money for the rematch if it did not happen, and it is very likely that his attorneys would succeed in having an injunction denied based on the legal battle being entirely about what he was paid for the first fight.