BoxRec

tiny_acres wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 13:25

higgs88 wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 12:37 Parker is calling Joshua greedy, what does Parker bring to the table financially wise? Having a title means he should earn more than say Takam, but not 35/40% of a pot he'll be doing nothing to boost. If Parker ain't greedy he'll take a career high purse and be happy with getting knocked out.

Main reason Parker deserves 35%.. He has what Joshua wants. A title. Joshua said he's going to unify all the belts well he needs Parker to do it. Pay the man

Absolutely. He's perfectly entitled to ask for 35%.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 13:25

higgs88 wrote: ↑22 Nov 2017, 12:37 Parker is calling Joshua greedy, what does Parker bring to the table financially wise? Having a title means he should earn more than say Takam, but not 35/40% of a pot he'll be doing nothing to boost. If Parker ain't greedy he'll take a career high purse and be happy with getting knocked out.

Main reason Parker deserves 35%.. He has what Joshua wants. A title. Joshua said he's going to unify all the belts well he needs Parker to do it. Pay the man

So Joshua pays well over the odds for something his in no rush for? No chance

lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:25 lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:41

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:25 lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

The UK market is unfamiliar with all his opponents its the belt that's the selling point, you cant expect to just have it given to you on the cheap, if josh want all the belts he will have to sacrifice some of his purse, think about his earning potential when he is "undisputed"

An obvious choice, as Parker is the easiest pickings for Joshua. Parker is about as good as prime Adamek or Glazkov -- he narrowly beat his only decent opponents in tight decisions. He'd be exposed by any of the real top fighters, especially Joshua.

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:49

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:41

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:25 lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

The UK market is unfamiliar with all his opponents its the belt that's the selling point, you cant expect to just have it given to you on the cheap, if josh want all the belts he will have to sacrifice some of his purse, think about his earning potential when he is "undisputed"

The WBO title alone isn't worth $10m.

Joseph Parker has engaged in at least three bouts recently where the victory could have gone either way and the sums he was paid for those fights is roughly 20% of the figure offered to him by Eddie Hearn, yet the Kiwi wants double that amount.

If Parker continues to engage in evenly-matches bouts for roughly $1m (USD), then it seems inevitably that he'll suffer a defeat, which will result in him losing out on a $5m Anthony Joshua payday, simply because he's chosen to ask for an unreasonably high $10m minimum to face the Brit.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:41

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:25 lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

His previous highest purse has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. The question is how much is this particular fight worth and what percentage is Parker and his title worth. I agree with the poster above that 35% is fair.

ewenhay wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 14:37

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:41

littlepug wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:25 lots of those that follow Joshua don't really follow boxing so the selling point is that Joshua is fighting another champion for another belt, 35% is fair I think

From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

His previous highest purse has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. The question is how much is this particular fight worth and what percentage is Parker and his title worth. I agree with the poster above that 35% is fair.

Unfortunately, boxing is a professional sport where its participants are commonly-known as "PRIZE-fighters", not "PRIDE-fighters", which means that the commercial reality is that the Joshua-Parker bout won't be made unless the Kiwi is willing to compromise.

AJ isn't going to take a pay cut to compete for an alphabet world title that doesn't enhance his earnings potential.

Similarly, Team Parker cannot possibly provide any fiscal justification for their excessive payday demands, especially considering he doesn't bring any money to the table.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 15:53
Similarly, Team Parker cannot possibly provide any fiscal justification for their excessive payday demands, especially considering he doesn't bring any money to the table.

Very close. Joshua brings around the same amount of buys here, but Parker fights are more expensive. Except for Cojanu which was understandably discounted.
A Parker fight costs $50 and an AJ costs $35
The only money Parker brings on top of what AJ would do normally is $15 x around 65,000 = $975000 =£400,000 quid.
So a drop in the pan.
And going by Parker's last two fights, it isn't going to inspire people like Wlad did.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 15:53

ewenhay wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 14:37

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 04:41
From an objective financial viewpoint, the commercial reality is that AJ shouldn't be earning more to face an anonymous title challenger than he would facing an equally anonymous alphabet world champion that doesn't have a fan-base, which is precisely what would happen if the Brit caves into the Kiwi's lofty payday demands.

Joseph Parker's career-best payday is s $1.4m, but he's asking for $10m to fight AJ.

Anthony Joshua typically earns $20m per fight and the UK market is unfamiliar with Joseph Parker, so where's all this extra money going to come from?

His previous highest purse has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. The question is how much is this particular fight worth and what percentage is Parker and his title worth. I agree with the poster above that 35% is fair.

Unfortunately, boxing is a professional sport where its participants are commonly-known as "PRIZE-fighters", not "PRIDE-fighters", which means that the commercial reality is that the Joshua-Parker bout won't be made unless the Kiwi is willing to compromise.

AJ isn't going to take a pay cut to compete for an alphabet world title that doesn't enhance his earnings potential.

Similarly, Team Parker cannot possibly provide any fiscal justification for their excessive payday demands, especially considering he doesn't bring any money to the table.

Yes but his previous purses are not relevant in any way which was my point. Each fight is a separate event and fighters are paid accordingly. Therefore as a beltholder Parker feels his contribution is worth 35 per cent which I don't think is unreasonable if Joshua wants his belt.

ewenhay wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 17:41

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 15:53

ewenhay wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 14:37

His previous highest purse has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. The question is how much is this particular fight worth and what percentage is Parker and his title worth. I agree with the poster above that 35% is fair.

Unfortunately, boxing is a professional sport where its participants are commonly-known as "PRIZE-fighters", not "PRIDE-fighters", which means that the commercial reality is that the Joshua-Parker bout won't be made unless the Kiwi is willing to compromise.

AJ isn't going to take a pay cut to compete for an alphabet world title that doesn't enhance his earnings potential.

Similarly, Team Parker cannot possibly provide any fiscal justification for their excessive payday demands, especially considering he doesn't bring any money to the table.

Yes but his previous purses are not relevant in any way which was my point. Each fight is a separate event and fighters are paid accordingly. Therefore as a beltholder Parker feels his contribution is worth 35 per cent which I don't think is unreasonable if Joshua wants his belt.

A fighter is generally paid his commercial worth, which means that the more popular they are, the more money they generate, which subsequently leads them to earning bigger paydays.

So basically, Parker isn’t earning very much money, because he isn’t generating much money. It’s as simple as that.

In regards to your belief that Joseph Parker deserves to earn a 35% split against AJ, here’s what Eddie Hearn had to say about that…

"Anthony Joshua v Joseph Parker bout 'won't happen at 35%', says Eddie Hearn"

"There is a deal there to be done with Joseph Parker, which makes him a lot of money," said Hearn.

"A win gives him a massive eight-digit payday for the next one. If they really think they can knock out Anthony Joshua, they should take the fight... It's not happening at 65-35.""

"We have to look at what a fighter is bringing to the pot, and outside of New Zealand TV - which really isn't a lot of money..." said Hearn

Parker beats Joshua imo but the fight will never happen unless Parker starts beating other top 10 opponents and becomes recognised as the best world champion.. then he fights Joshua as the A side and gets the lions share of the purse.

Parker beats Joshua

The fight will definitely happen if Parker becomes realistic in his demands.

http://www.BS.com/joshua-promo ... se--122737

33% would be fair

Joshua has 2 belts Parker has 1

I think Joshuas team should take the 65/35 deal.

Parker is very beatable opponent with a belt and credibility. The fight would sell well in UK.

There isn't that many good opponents for Joshua. I don't think that they wan't to fight Ortiz or Povetkin. Both are good boxers with real KO power. Either one is real risk to meet in the ring.

Fight with Wilder is not going to happen anytime soon.

So who is left? Pulev? Some B level UK fighter? How many B level opponent can he take and still keep the hype and PPV's going?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 18:36

ewenhay wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 17:41

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 15:53
Unfortunately, boxing is a professional sport where its participants are commonly-known as "PRIZE-fighters", not "PRIDE-fighters", which means that the commercial reality is that the Joshua-Parker bout won't be made unless the Kiwi is willing to compromise.

AJ isn't going to take a pay cut to compete for an alphabet world title that doesn't enhance his earnings potential.

Similarly, Team Parker cannot possibly provide any fiscal justification for their excessive payday demands, especially considering he doesn't bring any money to the table.

Yes but his previous purses are not relevant in any way which was my point. Each fight is a separate event and fighters are paid accordingly. Therefore as a beltholder Parker feels his contribution is worth 35 per cent which I don't think is unreasonable if Joshua wants his belt.

A fighter is generally paid his commercial worth, which means that the more popular they are, the more money they generate, which subsequently leads them to earning bigger paydays.

So basically, Parker isn’t earning very much money, because he isn’t generating much money. It’s as simple as that.

In regards to your belief that Joseph Parker deserves to earn a 35% split against AJ, here’s what Eddie Hearn had to say about that…

"Anthony Joshua v Joseph Parker bout 'won't happen at 35%', says Eddie Hearn"

"There is a deal there to be done with Joseph Parker, which makes him a lot of money," said Hearn.

"A win gives him a massive eight-digit payday for the next one. If they really think they can knock out Anthony Joshua, they should take the fight... It's not happening at 65-35.""

"We have to look at what a fighter is bringing to the pot, and outside of New Zealand TV - which really isn't a lot of money..." said Hearn

Eddie Hearn is trying to make more money for his own fighter. He's hardly a neutral authority on the matter

Also, Parker's commercial worth has increased because Joshua wants to fight him because Parker has something he wants and Hearn can sell the fight as a unification. It takes two to tango.

I don't like this match-up. Most heavyweights tend to reach prime a bit later than fighters at other weights. Parker needs at least one more year to get the ring experience he needs to compete with a hard punching giant like Joshua. He also needs an Emmanuel Steward type of trainer to drill into him the skills he still lacks. I like Parker. He shows real promise and could turn out to be one of the best of his generation even if he loses a couple. Let's face it, today's heavyweight division is one of the most pathetic since the 1950s.

Cap wrote: ↑24 Nov 2017, 12:34 I don't like this match-up. Most heavyweights tend to reach prime a bit later than fighters at other weights. Parker needs at least one more year to get the ring experience he needs to compete with a hard punching giant like Joshua. He also needs an Emmanuel Steward type of trainer to drill into him the skills he still lacks. I like Parker. He shows real promise and could turn out to be one of the best of his generation even if he loses a couple. Let's face it, today's heavyweight division is one of the most pathetic since the 1950s.

Well said. I think Parker needs another year and a change in trainer as well. Sure everyone wants the big fights, and if that's the case, then Parker needs more experience to make it a really big fight. He has hand speed, a good chin and the dedication to train. But he is very much a work in progress. I would rather wait and have a real fight. Instead I think it is going to be a one sided beat down, prolonged by Parker's chin.

Parker is underrated, I think he will be the first to go the distance with AJ.

Think Parker will get starched tbh

O2 London has a been booked for march 24 2018 I think announcement is imminent now, heard around Auckland that Parker to receive 30% plus NZ Australia and Pacific islands TV money can't wait for this one!!!!

J.P wrote: ↑25 Nov 2017, 06:42 O2 London has a been booked for march 24 2018 I think announcement is imminent now, heard around Auckland that Parker to receive 30% plus NZ Australia and Pacific islands TV money can't wait for this one!!!!

If Haye-Bellew II is on the undercard it won't be a bad night out!

Offer is now 67/33 , just take the bloody deal Parker!!

marvelous marv wrote: ↑24 Nov 2017, 18:21 Parker is underrated, I think he will be the first to go the distance with AJ.

Oh Marv, if he does go the distance, he will be using the money for a full time care giver to feed him and change his nappy.