Pause the rematch clause

[Enlightened-One]

Wasn't pov a mandatory that went to a purse bid? No clauses in that scenario.

Is someone saying mandatories can't go to purse bids?

I think he's suggesting that the purse bid process doesn't normally include immediate rematch clauses. And he's right.

[Ruthless-RKO]

I’d imagine POV got a few quid against Wlad.

Klitschko camp 'surprised' by $23m purse bid

The minimum bid was $1 million.

Russian promoter Vladimir Hryunov pulled a shocker, winning with an extraordinary bid of $23,333,330.

K2 Promotions, Klitschko's company, bid $7.13 million and Sauerland Event, which promotes Povetkin, bid $6,014,444 at the ceremony.

As champion, Klitschko is entitled to 75 percent of the winning offer ($17,499,997) with Povetkin due the remaining 25 percent ($5,833,333).

"We all were totally surprised," Klitschko manager Bernd Boente told ESPN.com. "We only have to make sure that the money goes into escrow and that it's real. We are definitely willing to go through with it, but we have to make sure this is not one of those fake Don King purse bids [where he has defaulted multiple times after high bids]."

Hryunov was required to put down a 10 percent deposit with his bid - $2.3 million - as per WBA rules.

"If he doesn't go through with it, he loses the money," Boente said, noting that the $2.3 million would be split between the boxers and the sanctioning organisation.
-----------------------------------------------------

The likes of Povetkin and Lebedev and a few other where backed by the powerful Vladimir Hryunov, from World of Boxing.

With that bid, they ensured the fight would be in Russia.

All they had to do was bid $10m..

[Onetimeonly]

Wasn't pov a mandatory that went to a purse bid? No clauses in that scenario.

Is someone saying mandatories can't go to purse bids?

Purse bids don't have rematch clauses.

[squiggy]

Isn’t it kind of obvious that immediate rematch clauses are ALWAYS stipulated in fight contracts to protect A-side fighters possessing “PPV event headliner” status?

There is a financial cost associated with them (since the B-side will very likely be receiving one of the best purses of their careers)?

We NEVER see immediate rematch clauses in place prior to when two relatively anonymous names compete.

The promoters and the TV networks also require immediate rematch clauses to protect their most prized assets, since they want exclusive coverage of their bouts, rather than their fighters generating revenue for their rivals.

At what point is continuing to explain it (to people who already know what it is) going to make it not a completely obnoxious practice?

[Enlightened-One]

Isn’t it kind of obvious that immediate rematch clauses are ALWAYS stipulated in fight contracts to protect A-side fighters possessing “PPV event headliner” status?

There is a financial cost associated with them (since the B-side will very likely be receiving one of the best purses of their careers)?

We NEVER see immediate rematch clauses in place prior to when two relatively anonymous names compete.

The promoters and the TV networks also require immediate rematch clauses to protect their most prized assets, since they want exclusive coverage of their bouts, rather than their fighters generating revenue for their rivals.

At what point is continuing to explain it (to people who already know what it is) going to make it not a completely obnoxious practice?

It would have been nice if you quoted the most pertinent part of my post (rather than you cherry-picking and only quoting a specific section you want to challenge), since what I wrote addresses your question. See below:

And there aren’t that many big-name money-generating fighters in the sport of boxing, so the issue is nowhere near as severe or prevalent as many believe it to be.

Immediate rematch clauses have existed for at least two decades. And I bet you'd struggle to provide a list of ten bouts that were staged last year that included them.