Calzaghe thinks he still fighting johnson?
-
don't call it a comeback
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 332
- Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 08:47
I don't want to labour this but there seems to be some lack of intelligence from SN here.
1. They claim that Johson has to agree to a new date following a withdrawl through injury and that he is in breach of contract for failing to do so. They say it is in the hands of lawyers.
2. They also claim that the July 24 date hasnt been postponed just because of Johnson but because Joe is still 'injured' and can't fight for another three months.
But surely they realise that point 2 undermines point 1. How can they sue Johnson when they claim Joe can't fight anyway?
D'oh.
numbskulls are they?
1. They claim that Johson has to agree to a new date following a withdrawl through injury and that he is in breach of contract for failing to do so. They say it is in the hands of lawyers.
2. They also claim that the July 24 date hasnt been postponed just because of Johnson but because Joe is still 'injured' and can't fight for another three months.
But surely they realise that point 2 undermines point 1. How can they sue Johnson when they claim Joe can't fight anyway?
D'oh.
numbskulls are they?
-
hitman_hatton1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 6148
- Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:57
i thought that very same thing when i read it on fightnewsdon't call it a comeback wrote:I don't want to labour this but there seems to be some lack of intelligence from SN here.
1. They claim that Johson has to agree to a new date following a withdrawl through injury and that he is in breach of contract for failing to do so. They say it is in the hands of lawyers.
2. They also claim that the July 24 date hasnt been postponed just because of Johnson but because Joe is still 'injured' and can't fight for another three months.
But surely they realise that point 2 undermines point 1. How can they sue Johnson when they claim Joe can't fight anyway?
D'oh.
numbskulls are they?
maybe as another date had been pencilled in, it was 90 days from july 24th 
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
Dan Goossen (Johnson's promoter) is no dummy - I'm sure he knows how these types of fight contract clauses work, and what is legally enforceable. I.e. the contract may say "must make a make-up date within 90 days..." but on what kinds of terms (the classic legal "reasonableness" criterion) is usually open to interpretation and judged based on accepted norms, precedents and business practices in the industry.
And yes, citing a recurrence of Joe's alleged back injury does undermine any legal claim Warren/Calzaghe might have had, so it's either (1) a genuine recurrence, (2) a foolish move on Warren's part, or (3) him trying to save face after realizing he hasn't a legal leg to stand on with regard to Johnson having to make a re-date, especially one on anything remotely approaching Warren's terms.
And yes, citing a recurrence of Joe's alleged back injury does undermine any legal claim Warren/Calzaghe might have had, so it's either (1) a genuine recurrence, (2) a foolish move on Warren's part, or (3) him trying to save face after realizing he hasn't a legal leg to stand on with regard to Johnson having to make a re-date, especially one on anything remotely approaching Warren's terms.