BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: As a minimum.

What's the purpose of your comment? If Pacquiao gets paid a guaranteed $20m, he'll fight Crawford.

It's $20m minimum. He is on a percentage of the PPV money. If his total purse surpasses that, then he'll get more. That's the purpose of my comment, I'd have thought it was obvious really.

Are you're saying that I was incorrect about the "guaranteed $20m" and that you believe it means something else other than "minimum"?

I used the actual words Michael Koncz used to describe the situation. Was he wrong also? If so, perhaps you should contact Koncz and ask him to use the word "minimum" instead of "guaranteed", because according to your version of the English language, they conflict with each other.

Also, Koncz never mentioned PPV share. He only stated the actual monetary amount required for Pacquiao to participate in the bout, so you shouldn't really assume contractual terms that have not been discussed.

Here are the actual words of Michael Koncz: "If it's Crawford that Top Rank wants for Manny Pacquiao, then we'll fight Crawford, but we want a guarantee of $20 million."

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: What's the purpose of your comment? If Pacquiao gets paid a guaranteed $20m, he'll fight Crawford.

It's $20m minimum. He is on a percentage of the PPV money. If his total purse surpasses that, then he'll get more. That's the purpose of my comment, I'd have thought it was obvious really.

Are you're saying that I was incorrect about the "guaranteed $20m" and that you believe it means something else other than "minimum"?

I used the actual words Michael Koncz used to describe the situation. Was he wrong also? If so, perhaps you should contact Koncz and ask him to use the word "minimum" instead of "guaranteed", because according to your version of the English language, they conflict with each other.

Also, Koncz never mentioned PPV share. He only stated the actual monetary amount required for Pacquiao to participate in the bout, so you shouldn't really assume contractual terms that have not been discussed.

Here are the actual words of Michael Koncz: "If it's Crawford that Top Rank wants for Manny Pacquiao, then we'll fight Crawford, but we want a guarantee of $20 million."

I was just commenting on a post you made. I was thinking that we might try and be civilized as it's a new year. I'll just leave you to it.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
It's $20m minimum. He is on a percentage of the PPV money. If his total purse surpasses that, then he'll get more. That's the purpose of my comment, I'd have thought it was obvious really.

Are you're saying that I was incorrect about the "guaranteed $20m" and that you believe it means something else other than "minimum"?

I used the actual words Michael Koncz used to describe the situation. Was he wrong also? If so, perhaps you should contact Koncz and ask him to use the word "minimum" instead of "guaranteed", because according to your version of the English language, they conflict with each other.

Also, Koncz never mentioned PPV share. He only stated the actual monetary amount required for Pacquiao to participate in the bout, so you shouldn't really assume contractual terms that have not been discussed.

Here are the actual words of Michael Koncz: "If it's Crawford that Top Rank wants for Manny Pacquiao, then we'll fight Crawford, but we want a guarantee of $20 million."

I was just commenting on a post you made. I was thinking that we might try and be civilized as it's a new year. I'll just leave you to it.

I wasn’t intending to act like an ársé, but I interpreted your posts negatively… and I can’t apologise for that, since you have a proven track record of attacking me without requiring provocation.

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Are you're saying that I was incorrect about the "guaranteed $20m" and that you believe it means something else other than "minimum"?

I used the actual words Michael Koncz used to describe the situation. Was he wrong also? If so, perhaps you should contact Koncz and ask him to use the word "minimum" instead of "guaranteed", because according to your version of the English language, they conflict with each other.

Also, Koncz never mentioned PPV share. He only stated the actual monetary amount required for Pacquiao to participate in the bout, so you shouldn't really assume contractual terms that have not been discussed.

Here are the actual words of Michael Koncz: "If it's Crawford that Top Rank wants for Manny Pacquiao, then we'll fight Crawford, but we want a guarantee of $20 million."

I was just commenting on a post you made. I was thinking that we might try and be civilized as it's a new year. I'll just leave you to it.

I wasn’t intending to act like an ársé, but I interpreted your posts negatively… and I can’t apologise for that, since you have a proven track record of attacking me without requiring provocation.

If by attacking you, you mean, asking if you used to be a poster called Rover (who was a complete bell end, who hated being called FUGMO and got banned for being a cry baby) and you not answering, then yes, I am guilty as charged. Why don't you answer now?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
I was just commenting on a post you made. I was thinking that we might try and be civilized as it's a new year. I'll just leave you to it.

I wasn’t intending to act like an ársé, but I interpreted your posts negatively… and I can’t apologise for that, since you have a proven track record of attacking me without requiring provocation.

If by attacking you, you mean, asking if you used to be a poster called Rover (who was a complete bell end, who hated being called FUGMO and got banned for being a cry baby) and you not answering, then yes, I am guilty as charged. Why don't you answer now?

Your posting history justifies the sentiments I expressed in my previous response. I’ve already addressed any allegations that accused me of being the Rover or FUGMO forum users.

FYI - I have never been banned from using the BoxRec forum… ever!

I think I deserve to receive an apology from you?

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: I wasn’t intending to act like an ársé, but I interpreted your posts negatively… and I can’t apologise for that, since you have a proven track record of attacking me without requiring provocation.

If by attacking you, you mean, asking if you used to be a poster called Rover (who was a complete bell end, who hated being called FUGMO and got banned for being a cry baby) and you not answering, then yes, I am guilty as charged. Why don't you answer now?

Your posting history justifies the sentiments I expressed in my previous response. I’ve already addressed any allegations that accused me of being the Rover or FUGMO forum users.

FYI - I have never been banned from using the BoxRec forum… ever!

I think I deserve to receive an apology from you?

I've apollogised many times on Boxrec, but I'm not about to add to the tally, because I think you are FUGMO. Just my little opinion. Maybe I would have believed you if you'd answer the first time I asked or even if you'd said, I haven't got a clue who Rover is, but you didn't.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
If by attacking you, you mean, asking if you used to be a poster called Rover (who was a complete bell end, who hated being called FUGMO and got banned for being a cry baby) and you not answering, then yes, I am guilty as charged. Why don't you answer now?

Your posting history justifies the sentiments I expressed in my previous response. I’ve already addressed any allegations that accused me of being the Rover or FUGMO forum users.

FYI - I have never been banned from using the BoxRec forum… ever!

I think I deserve to receive an apology from you?

I've apollogised many times on Boxrec, but I'm not about to add to the tally, because I think you are FUGMO. Just my little opinion. Maybe I would have believed you if you'd answer the first time I asked or even if you'd said, I haven't got a clue who Rover is, but you didn't.

Then you've not been paying attention to the content of my posts and I refuse to take the blame for or apologise for your actions, since they’re not my responsibility.