2 losses = no contract

[bripez]

It has been a while since I heard of this and thought that FW had stopped it - if a boxer has 2 losses then this triggers an automatic termination clause in their contract.

I also thought that it was consecutive losses but last week Tom Stalker said that he thought he had won but was glad with the draw as it meant that he still had a contract with his promoter.

Do any other promoters have this clause?

Just goes to show that the old "it is the boxer who employs the promoter" saying doesn't always apply in reality.

[CharlesListon]

I think its used as a kind of safety net for when lads don't put the effort in training etc. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, but I can kind of see where a promoter is coming from and to be fair.....its in the contract. If the boxer doesnt like it they don't have to sign and can go elsewhere.

[expe]

I think its used as a kind of safety net for when lads don't put the effort in training etc. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, but I can kind of see where a promoter is coming from and to be fair.....its in the contract. If the boxer doesnt like it they don't have to sign and can go elsewhere.

Just covers the promoter if things don't turn out as planned, doubt it's an automatic termination, would be crazy to have that in a contract, more likely that they have the option to terminate the contract if the fighter gets beat twice.

[pyenest77]

I would imagine so. Buglioni for example is a ticket seller who has had 2 losses so you would assume he agreed to carry on working with him.

[mickey1975]

I would imagine so. Buglioni for example is a ticket seller who has had 2 losses so you would assume he agreed to carry on working with him.

Stalker sells very well, too.

[Finn]

I think it's probably a fair clause to have in the contract. How many ams turn pro for big money contracts and then don't cut the mustard? If you're losing but have good fan base and people still want to watch you then I doubt FW would ditch you but if you're dead weight it's only fair you can be sacked for poor performance like in any other job.

[jonp]

hmm how come the boxer cant have a clause two losses and he gets rid of the promoter?

[bripez]

hmm how come the boxer cant have a clause two losses and he gets rid of the promoter?

Fair point - and interesting in the "who employs who" debate.

It can be used to get rid of a boxer and every now and again he has a cull when he wants to trim his stable - he just matches his boxers against each other, proper survival of the fittest stuff.

[Old bones Ian]

I'd be surprised if Stalker got his contract handed back to him, sells tickets and entertains in fights.
Good undercard boxer to have, with a couple of decent wins can get himself back in contention and his fans love him.

[pyenest77]

I guess promoters can use that as a stick to beat them with when they fight so they keep the unbeaten run going.

[Cazelo]

It could also result in a boxer 'throwing' fights to get out of a contract. Surprised that a commission would allow this to be included. Equally I believe there is a clause that if you get a title win in the duration of a contract it automatically extends for 18 months

[Wake up call]

It's usually an option to terminate, not a definite termination.

If the promoter still believes in a boxer, they can allow the contract to continue.

These clauses usually exist were a significant investment is being made in the boxer. Eg, where there are a stipulated number of fights each year and usually a minimum payment per fight. It protects the promoter (who probably isn't making any real money anyway) if things o south.

As for mandatory extensions when a boxer gets a world title shot, every promoter would be a fool not to have this. Without this stipulation, what would there be to stop a boxer running off to another promoter after £100,000s have been invested in getting them to the top?

[mickey1975]

It's usually an option to terminate, not a definite termination.

If the promoter still believes in a boxer, they can allow the contract to continue.

These clauses usually exist were a significant investment is being made in the boxer. Eg, where there are a stipulated number of fights each year and usually a minimum payment per fight. It protects the promoter (who probably isn't making any real money anyway) if things o south.

As for mandatory extensions when a boxer gets a world title shot, every promoter would be a fool not to have this. Without this stipulation, what would there be to stop a boxer running off to another promoter after £100,000s have been invested in getting them to the top?

How did Hatton get away with it after besting Kostya?

[digzee]

It's usually an option to terminate, not a definite termination.

If the promoter still believes in a boxer, they can allow the contract to continue.

These clauses usually exist were a significant investment is being made in the boxer. Eg, where there are a stipulated number of fights each year and usually a minimum payment per fight. It protects the promoter (who probably isn't making any real money anyway) if things o south.

As for mandatory extensions when a boxer gets a world title shot, every promoter would be a fool not to have this. Without this stipulation, what would there be to stop a boxer running off to another promoter after £100,000s have been invested in getting them to the top?

How did Hatton get away with it after besting Kostya?

Didn't Khan also leave quite soon after beating Kotelnik?

[Parson Cross]

Bripez
Where are you getting this info from ?
It infers that every FW fighter has this clause.
Not true.
Wake up makes a good point but those type if deals are few and far between these days.

[bripez]

Bripez
Where are you getting this info from ?
It infers that every FW fighter has this clause.
Not true.
Wake up makes a good point but those type if deals are few and far between these days.

No insider knowledge.

I remember Jamie Arthur getting jibbed and it came up then. I was then reminded of it when I listened to the Stalker interview.

To be honest, I just assumed (maybe incorrectly?) that this was a standard term in the contracts with a particular promoter.