BoxRec

Can someone on here with an understanding of the legal process involved explain the following to me....?

Why is it that boxers seem to get tied into contracts which seem to force them to stay with promoters and managers they don't want to be with when footballers are able to routinely up sticks and fornicate off despite having years to run yet on their contract, with no comeback.

It's always mystified me that boxers seem to get screwed, perfect example is Witherspoon, ended up out of the ring for years rather than fight for Don King, but couldn't get out of the contract, why the hell not?

Dont footballers ect buy out their contracts? I know Dennis Holbæk Pedersen had to buy himself out of his contract with Mogens Palle. Boxers probably dont have the money that it takes to buy themselves out of the contracts.

i just read a year at the fights by thomas hauser on holiday James, the lewis rahman rematch is covered in there and you just WOULD NOT BELIEVE the bollox that goes on. I'll lend it ya but i want my cds back first

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Can someone on here with an understanding of the legal process involved explain the following to me....?

Why is it that boxers seem to get tied into contracts which seem to force them to stay with promoters and managers they don't want to be with when footballers are able to routinely up sticks and fornicate off despite having years to run yet on their contract, with no comeback.

It's always mystified me that boxers seem to get screwed, perfect example is Witherspoon, ended up out of the ring for years rather than fight for Don King, but couldn't get out of the contract, why the hell not?

Some of it might be that football clubs are paid a few million by another club to sign the player who is on a contract. I expect if another boxing promoter had offered a good fee to King to release witherspoon from his contract he would have taken it.

also in football the player has agents and legal advice , the agents negotiate the contracts, most boxers wouldn't have someone to represent them, so can end up signing a shite contract without realising it. Some promoters offer a nice signing on bonus, when this is waved in front of a young kid it can be very tempting to sign anything.

I'd rather have the CD's, keep the book....

haha yea right. Actaully yesterday somewhat jet lagged and dazed it took me about half an hour to reealise id ;lent you a load of cds and Dj a load of x box games.....still a months quite a while to be on the p*ss!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Can someone on here with an understanding of the legal process involved explain the following to me....?

Why is it that boxers seem to get tied into contracts which seem to force them to stay with promoters and managers they don't want to be with when footballers are able to routinely up sticks and fornicate off despite having years to run yet on their contract, with no comeback.

It's always mystified me that boxers seem to get screwed, perfect example is Witherspoon, ended up out of the ring for years rather than fight for Don King, but couldn't get out of the contract, why the hell not?

Francis Barrett had to pay allegedly 5,000 sterling to cancel his contract so he could move to Mick Hennessy.

I know Elcock walked away from SN when his contract expired, i think most boxers wait for it to expire then sign with someone else.

What Topper said I think. I'd guess the fact that all footballers get a weekly wage has something to do with the regularity of transfers, too. I know some boxers get retainers or whatever, but when a football club has a player that doesn't want to play for them, they have the choice of paying up the silly moeny he's on every week to set an example, or letting someone buy the guy's contract. If a promoter has a fighter that doesn't want to fight for him he can just let the guy rot, rather than letting him earn money for anyone else. Unless the boxer or a rival promoter want to buy out the contract, as has been said.

I thought Elcock was 'sacked' for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.

Now that stance wouldn't usually cause a problem, but it had been a long week.....

DavidPayne wrote:I thought Elcock was 'sacked' for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.

Now that stance wouldn't usually cause a problem, but it had been a long week.....

He refused to sign his contract because there was nothing on the table, were was it said he was sacked?, he signed to fight lockett, lockett pulled out 3 days before the fight SN could not arrange anyone to fight him on the bill and did'nt refund anyone for there tickets, Elcock got injured surprise surprise Lockett could get a fight, then they come up with kazaz at 3 weeks notice in a 4 rounder and no tickets for Elcock fans, would you sign a new contract, Elcock has said he will fight any middle in the uk, and stepped up to the plate more than once, so how can you say "i thought he was sacked for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.?

steve richards wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:I thought Elcock was 'sacked' for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.

Now that stance wouldn't usually cause a problem, but it had been a long week.....

He refused to sign his contract because there was nothing on the table, were was it said he was sacked?, he signed to fight lockett, lockett pulled out 3 days before the fight SN could not arrange anyone to fight him on the bill and did'nt refund anyone for there tickets, Elcock got injured surprise surprise Lockett could get a fight, then they come up with kazaz at 3 weeks notice in a 4 rounder and no tickets for Elcock fans, would you sign a new contract, Elcock has said he will fight any middle in the uk, and stepped up to the plate more than once, so how can you say "i thought he was sacked for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.?

Obviously I say it on a hazy recollection of some clearly inaccurate information based on a long list of poorly conceived assumptions.

Its strange how what you read becomes the truth over time.

Hands up to this one if I'm way off beam.

I think that is the reasoning sports network gave Dave....it's not always possible to know all the ins and outs of a situation.

DavidPayne wrote:

steve richards wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:I thought Elcock was 'sacked' for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.

Now that stance wouldn't usually cause a problem, but it had been a long week.....

He refused to sign his contract because there was nothing on the table, were was it said he was sacked?, he signed to fight lockett, lockett pulled out 3 days before the fight SN could not arrange anyone to fight him on the bill and did'nt refund anyone for there tickets, Elcock got injured surprise surprise Lockett could get a fight, then they come up with kazaz at 3 weeks notice in a 4 rounder and no tickets for Elcock fans, would you sign a new contract, Elcock has said he will fight any middle in the uk, and stepped up to the plate more than once, so how can you say "i thought he was sacked for refusing to fight someone with a pulse.?

Obviously I say it on a hazy recollection of some clearly inaccurate information based on a long list of poorly conceived assumptions.

Its strange how what you read becomes the truth over time.

Hands up to this one if I'm way off beam.

Im sorry if i sound pissed off at you David, the problem is Maloney & SN put out inaccurate statements and people who read them quite rightly presume they are correct, Wayne want's to get on with his career find a promoter who will bring fights to the table, and maybe the midlands god knows we need some shows on around here.

No worries.