BoxRec

Who the hell is drawing up Allegedly's contracts if fighter after fighter after fighter is just able to get up and leave?

Got it off Dean Powell for crimbo last year.

There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

Think Eddie will come unstuck with all this. What ever happened to loyalty.

Dont most just use the standard BBBOC contract ?

As Mickey Duff once memorably said, "if you want loyalty, buy a dog".

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

With respect mate, i think you're wrong. Clearly the contracts aren't detailed enough. Scenarios that lead to a repudiatory breach of the contract should be specifically spelt out.

I would imagine that fwank's contracts are intentionally vague (something which has served him well in the past when he had a UK monopoly) but that this vagueness is now being seized upon by disgruntled managers of fighters, who have had enough of inactivity.

liamlion wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

With respect mate, i think you're wrong. Clearly the contracts aren't detailed enough. Scenarios that lead to a repudiatory breach of the contract should be specifically spelt out.

I would imagine that fwank's contracts are intentionally vague (something which has served him well in the past when he had a UK monopoly) but that this vagueness is now being seized upon by disgruntled managers of fighters, who have had enough of inactivity.

And courts often construe ambiguous or vague terms against the person who's trying to rely on them

Doesn't matter how watertight a contract is if one party breaks it.

Liamlion,
I'm not going to get too detailed and into this, but Wazza's contracts are as good as any other Promotor's out there.
Terms and conditions exist.
Like I say its about a perceived breach of contract and that can happen to any Promotor - and fighter come to think of it.
For example the detail of Ricky's allegations that lead him to believe he can walk away I understand will be in the public arena soon.
When the details are out there, then everyone can judge but until then its not right to make assumptions.
You can have as much detail as you like in a Contract but there is no way on earth that you can have a contract that is unbreakable.

liamlion wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

With respect mate, i think you're wrong. Clearly the contracts aren't detailed enough. Scenarios that lead to a repudiatory breach of the contract should be specifically spelt out.

I would imagine that fwank's contracts are intentionally vague (something which has served him well in the past when he had a UK monopoly) but that this vagueness is now being seized upon by disgruntled managers of fighters, who have had enough of inactivity.

I love it when people post things like "I would imagine that...." And then try to make a point based on it.

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

I always thought that the person with the most expensive lawyer to argue their case saw justice served?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

liamlion wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

With respect mate, i think you're wrong. Clearly the contracts aren't detailed enough. Scenarios that lead to a repudiatory breach of the contract should be specifically spelt out.

I would imagine that fwank's contracts are intentionally vague (something which has served him well in the past when he had a UK monopoly) but that this vagueness is now being seized upon by disgruntled managers of fighters, who have had enough of inactivity.

I love it when people post things like "I would imagine that...." And then try to make a point based on it.

on a scale of 1-10, how much do you "love it" KG? or do you "love it" metaphorically?

si7dog7 wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:There's nothing wrong with the Contracts.
The problem is people's perceptions of whether either party is breach of the terms and conditions of the Contract.

With respect mate, i think you're wrong. Clearly the contracts aren't detailed enough. Scenarios that lead to a repudiatory breach of the contract should be specifically spelt out.

I would imagine that fwank's contracts are intentionally vague (something which has served him well in the past when he had a UK monopoly) but that this vagueness is now being seized upon by disgruntled managers of fighters, who have had enough of inactivity.

I love it when people post things like "I would imagine that...." And then try to make a point based on it.

on a scale of 1-10, how much do you "love it" KG? or do you "love it" metaphorically?

Use your imagination.

only in my dreams