Comments Thread For: Hearn: Ruiz Can't Moan About Neutral Venue For Joshua Rematch

[billeau2]

Very simple wasn't it?

Everyone is arguing passionately about nothing.

1) When Ruiz won his rematch clause became for all practical purposes an option. Why? because in reality if he decided the terms of the rematch were sufficiently poor it would have been a bad situation for Hearn.

2) A contract is voidable when, for whatever reason, it does not make sense to fufill it, or it cannot be fufilled because of legal conditions. In this case, Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fufill the rematch clause. The consideration for Ruiz performing was unrealistic.

3) Hearn certainly could have legally tried to enforce performance, but it was never going to be worth it!

4) So consequentally the venue was renegotiated, originally Whales was chosen, or England proper. But this was not enough.

5) Eventually more money was given to make performance reasonable for Ruiz.

What some of us have said from the beginning is that the actual terms of the contract are only part of a negotiation here. People tend to think contracts are set in stone... When performance is such that it makes more sense to break a contract, many people do so!! People will, for example, break a lease, because the market changed and apartments are now cheaper. Right?

I never commented on whether the fight would take place in Saudi land, or not because I did not know what incentives Ruiz was dealing with. Who knows what would have happened if hearn had offered Ruiz less money and the fight venu in Mexico? Nobody does!! LOL.

What some of us did know and tried to share, was what the end game was: Ruiz correctly perceived that his rematch clause was worth more because he won the fight and negotiated accordingly.

[Donnie Herrera]

LOL. And Your heroin Deoncey ducked him? What does that say about that chicken?

He didn’t duck him bro and you know it...chicken???...Really???...Grow up man...smh...

[Donnie Herrera]

Everyone is arguing passionately about nothing.

1) When Ruiz won his rematch clause became for all practical purposes an option. Why? because in reality if he decided the terms of the rematch were sufficiently poor it would have been a bad situation for Hearn.

2) A contract is voidable when, for whatever reason, it does not make sense to fufill it, or it cannot be fufilled because of legal conditions. In this case, Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fufill the rematch clause. The consideration for Ruiz performing was unrealistic.

3) Hearn certainly could have legally tried to enforce performance, but it was never going to be worth it!

4) So consequentally the venue was renegotiated, originally Whales was chosen, or England proper. But this was not enough.

5) Eventually more money was given to make performance reasonable for Ruiz.

What some of us have said from the beginning is that the actual terms of the contract are only part of a negotiation here. People tend to think contracts are set in stone... When performance is such that it makes more sense to break a contract, many people do so!! People will, for example, break a lease, because the market changed and apartments are now cheaper. Right?

I never commented on whether the fight would take place in Saudi land, or not because I did not know what incentives Ruiz was dealing with. Who knows what would have happened if hearn had offered Ruiz less money and the fight venu in Mexico? Nobody does!! LOL.

What some of us did know and tried to share, was what the end game was: Ruiz correctly perceived that his rematch clause was worth more because he won the fight and negotiated accordingly.

Great post!!!...

[Jab jab boom]

I saw Wilder get special recovery time in New York, I saw Wilder get a robbery draw in Los Angeles. Opposite ends of the country and Wilder is from no where near either of those places. America is not neutral ground to an American fighter against a none American fighter.

the recovery time is a reach, notice you didn't mention the long count fury got in the 12th round. There's A side vs B side issues like you see with Canelo in Vegas (who isn't even an American) and there's home court advantage. Joshua was not at any disadvantage in NYC. Most Brits are just spoiled b***hes

[landotter]

Good the fights on. Now everyone can stop crying.

Your kidding, right? This is Boxing Scene. I kinda like the site, but it is not a cradle of fans who handle things well. The crying is coming heavy and unabashed. Both sets of fans. I do not always know why there will be crying... but there will be.

[landotter]

I saw Wilder get special recovery time in New York, I saw Wilder get a robbery draw in Los Angeles. Opposite ends of the country and Wilder is from no where near either of those places. America is not neutral ground to an American fighter against a none American fighter.

There are sections of this great melting pot called the US where that is plain not true. A Mexican fighter in Vegas, Southern California, or possibly Texas will get a HUGE home field advantage over an American fighter from a different part of the country. European fighters can come to New York or Chicago and sell a venue out with countrymen who claim that lineage and provide a large crowd favorite over a US fighter. And a Cuban or Puerto Rican fighter in Miami?? Forget being from the US in that world. You will fight the crowds all night.

Your points about Wilder are not invalid to debate, or that in his case he had built in crowd support. But the idea that a US born fighter automatically gets a home cooking advantage just shows that the US vastness and diversity is lost in translation sometimes.

[billeau2]

If Joshua had 1/2 the tenacity of his fans ...well, he wouldn't have won but he wouldn't have quit either.

Actually... Joshua has a few fans but Hearn! Hearn should have exhibition matches where he squares out contracts in a stadium packed to the rafters with the like of Daneutral and others.

There are some who post on this thread that are incensed that Ruiz had the nerve, to look after his own interests, knowing, as any sensible person would be advised, that he could negotiate for more favored treatment. So while Joshua might be considered a quitter to some, this is nothing compared to that Messican who has the audacity the temerity, the the gall!!! to go back on his sacred Aztec word with the Hibernian Hearn.

Ruiz should have been thankful, and made a sacrifice to the quezikoetal the Serpent God, and and he should have said to Eddie "Listen forget the nine Million, Ill fight your Nigerian prince in the middle of Trafalga square if he would like...and I will do it for a mere million sir, because, well just because... But no

NO no no! Ruiz had to imagine that given his win, given the need for a rematch, and given his achievement...that maybe he could ask for something more commensurate with what a winner would receive. Its not like Hearny babes in any way created duress for Andy, like "hey Andy take it or leave it" I mean Andy should have negotiated then when Hearn could tell him to take a flying leap that he would get another patsy for his fighter.

No siree bob Ruiz should have just pretended that his girth was still bent over backwards over that barrel... Its not like your value changes much when you knock a present majority belt holder out in a fight where your chances are slim to none, and slim aint a word associated with ya.

I have this to say and I say this seriously out of deference to Sid Knee and some of our British posters who are **********ic but, have sense... I do believe they understand that Ruiz had a right on some level to try to get more out of this rematch. Im not saying this to imply a concession on their part. Its just common sense. When your in a profession where you could die, where you could lose the source of your income rapidly... You have a duty to your people to try to get what you can.

Some of the posters that are still on this thread are unbelievably ****** in not realizing this and claiming that Ruiz is morally deficient, or that Hearns is in some way right to try to hold someone who obviously has more value given circumstances, to an agreement that does not reflect that situation.

[andocom]

Did you not read that Ruiz got his contract mod and will be receiving more money? Maybe you glossed over that part. Also, tell me how this fight is going to make $100M? Hearn was arguing that Wilder Joshua wouldn't make $100M in the UK but Joshua Ruiz is gonna make that in Saudi Arabia?

I literally said Ruiz was getting more money in my post you quoted. Learn to read.

How would this fight be worth $80 to $100M. Well $40M site fee, plus dazn, UK PPV, Mexican rights etc obviously.

Take out the site fee, you don't think this fight is worth $40M globally, really?

[andocom]

Everyone is arguing passionately about nothing.

1) When Ruiz won his rematch clause became for all practical purposes an option. Why? because in reality if he decided the terms of the rematch were sufficiently poor it would have been a bad situation for Hearn.

2) A contract is voidable when, for whatever reason, it does not make sense to fufill it, or it cannot be fufilled because of legal conditions. In this case, Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fufill the rematch clause. The consideration for Ruiz performing was unrealistic.

3) Hearn certainly could have legally tried to enforce performance, but it was never going to be worth it!

Wait, you actually think a contract is voidable because you don't want or its not in your best interest to fulfill it?

Do you realise how batsht insane that is, the purpose of a contract is to enforce things that a party doesn't want to do, otherwise you wouldn't need a contract.

You have a contract for house insurance, you pay it for 10 years, one day your house burns down, well the insurance company decides they aren't going to pay because its now obviously not in their best interest. Seriously what are you thinking a contract is? Try this, think of a contract that is voidable on discretion, I'll wait.

Yes Ruiz had some leverage, he could spoil and delay for some more money, but Hearn also had some leverage in a signed contract. If you wonder which is more valuable just check if the fight is in Mexico/LA for 50/50% or Saudi Arabia for probably 80/20% and that should give you a clue.

[billeau2]

Wait, you actually think a contract is voidable because you don't want or its not in your best interest to fulfill it?

Do you realise how batsht insane that is, the purpose of a contract is to enforce things that a party doesn't want to do, otherwise you wouldn't need a contract.

You have a contract for house insurance, you pay it for 10 years, one day your house burns down, well the insurance company decides they aren't going to pay because its now obviously not in their best interest. Seriously what are you thinking a contract is? Try this, think of a contract that is voidable on discretion, I'll wait.

Yes Ruiz had some leverage, he could spoil and delay for some more money, but Hearn also had some leverage in a signed contract. If you wonder which is more valuable just check if the fight is in Mexico/LA for 50/50% or Saudi Arabia for probably 80/20% and that should give you a clue.

No no no... I never said as a statement the words you put into my mouth. I said that UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS a contract loses its value because 1) enforcing it would be difficult to impossible, 2) the value to the parties has changed to such a degree that it NO LONGER is in the best interests of one party to fufill the contract with the condition above hence, subsequently CANNOT be made to perform.

Before putting words in my proverbial mouth think about it... If you have a contract where you are leasing a place to live, and the rent you pay is 5k a month, you see the same place next door for 2k a month... What do you do with your lease? You find out the cost to break it right? The landlord also has to consider the cost to get you to uphold it. So what happens? the landlord inevitably says "ok give me a couple of months rent, or some such thing.

There may be a provision for breaking the lease but often it is not followed because IT IS not in the landlord's best interest to do so. Thats how contracts function in the real world.

And no the purpose of a contract is not to get people to do things they do not want to do, it is to get people to perform for consideration and certain generalities apply like "arm's length" for example, Ruiz most definitely was not at Arm's length when signing the rematch clause, he had to take that fight and had no power to negotiate given his relative position at that time.

You are confusing consideration with clauses that might make a contract outdated for the reasons specified above: An insurance company has to perform, because if they did not the law suite would be prohibitive...though insurance companies have been known to declare bankrupcy, or delay payment through courts, when it was more in their interest than making a payout, it does happen.

Ahh now I see your motive...so this is about the pissing contest regarding Ruiz's tactic versus Hearn. Why didn't you say so lol. No, Ruiz did get taken care of, albiet begrungingly. He got what he set out to get. And of course everyone wants what they want, Ruiz would probably like to fight Joshua in his backyard! Hearn would like the fight to be where he wants it...THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A NEGOTIATION. That is also why contracts under certain conditions can be renegotiated.

Happens all the time with entertainers because of the unique circumstances regarding consideration: Recording stars for example.