Why didn't Usyk agree to the no rematch clause terms?

[IronDanHamza]

Why would Usyk agree to 70/30 and no rematch clause? First it was 50/50 and Fury wanted a rematch clause, then he’s demanding 70/30, and now that Usyk agreed to that he laughs in his face and calls him an idiot for agreeing to it (seems like someone that wants the fight) and now has a new demand, to remove the rematch clause that he initially called for. Do you not see how the longer negotiations went the more Fury is trying to **** over Usyk? Fury is a btch.

Unless guys come out and just straight up say “I don’t want to fight” people will find room for excuses. Nvm. People will find room for excuses even if it’s blatantly stated. As Spence/PBC etc has said numerous times in regards to Crawford.

You make good points, I agree with you about the laughing and the media nonsense. That’s not a good sign/look.

Make no mistake, I’m not acting as if Fury was pushing to make the fight. I don’t believe he expected Usyk to accept the 70/30.

My thing is, I believe Usyk was playing the same game as Fury.

I do think scraping the rematch clause was something that should be accepted though if the negotiations were legit. You say why would he, would wouldn’t he? If he wins he’s holding all the cards.

[IronDanHamza]

Usyk has earned 3 of the 4 belts.

Why would he put himself at risk of losing them without having a rematch clause? Look at how many such clauses Anthony Joshua has had and how they have kept him earning huge paydays even after losing twice.

To get the fight done?

Why wouldn’t he? If the sticking point is the rematch clause terms then surely the best solution is to throw it out altogether.

You win, you hold all the belts, and all the cards.

You mention AJ, he just did exactly that and sc****d the rematch clause when Dillian Whyte wasn’t happy with the terms.

[IronDanHamza]

After the Usyk vs Dubois London presser, Krassyuk said that Fury had refused to donate anything to Usyk's charity.

Ok but live on air on talksport both him and Frank Warren were on air at the same time and confirmed that they did agree to it so?

[davef]

You are obsessed with the idea how Usyk ducked Fury.

Why should Usyk deal with Fury and his crazy demends, Usyk will be fine without Fury.

i think its more a case Fury will be fine without Usyk since Fury has held 6 titles at heavyweight, five were lineal, has a better resume at HW and about to be paid a crazy purse for an easy fight due to his achievements while Usyk will get a basic rate for his mando and still begging the saudis

[kafkod]

Ok but live on air on talksport both him and Frank Warren were on air at the same time and confirmed that they did agree to it so?

Fury agreeing to it and Fury doing it are 2 different things.

Frank Warren also said, multiple times, that a 50/50 split for the undisputed fight had been agreed by both sides.

[ShoulderRoll]

To get the fight done?

Why wouldn’t he? If the sticking point is the rematch clause terms then surely the best solution is to throw it out altogether.

You win, you hold all the belts, and all the cards.

You mention AJ, he just did exactly that and sc****d the rematch clause when Dillian Whyte wasn’t happy with the terms.

If Usyk loses to Fury he ends up with no belts and he isn’t exactly a big draw even with them.

Having a rematch clause ensures he gets at least one more decent payday.

Joshua no longer has belts for Dillian Whyte. But when he did have them he made sure to force rematch clauses which is why he was able to run it back immediately with both Ruiz and Usyk once they beat him.

[Zelda]

What are you smoking? Makes less than zero sense mate. It's gobbledy****.

Even your Option 1 starting point of giving a 30% discount is nonsense. Why are you offering a discount with no further business?

The second one just doesn't make any sense. Now the buyer is selling to you?

What I will agree with is that the second product shouldn't be identical. The rematch split being discussed is the one where Usyk is the undisputed champion... but I was trying to keep it simple.

I am sorry if it went over your head. It is simple high school mathematics.

Why are you offering a discount with no further business? to make it a single-fight deal if Usyk cannot agree on a rematch split.

No, the second product being discussed goes both ways...one in which Usyk is undisputed and another where Fury is undisputed. And we are discussing it because Usyk wants the rematch, not Fury. Fury is willing to go for a single match and if Usyk wins and is undisputed, he can keep the belts. Why does Usyk have a problem with that?

[Zelda]

Why would Usyk agree to 70/30 and no rematch clause? First it was 50/50 and Fury wanted a rematch clause, then he’s demanding 70/30, and now that Usyk agreed to that he laughs in his face and calls him an idiot for agreeing to it (seems like someone that wants the fight) and now has a new demand, to remove the rematch clause that he initially called for. Do you not see how the longer negotiations went the more Fury is trying to **** over Usyk? Fury is a btch.

Unless guys come out and just straight up say “I don’t want to fight” people will find room for excuses. Nvm. People will find room for excuses even if it’s blatantly stated. As Spence/PBC etc has said numerous times in regards to Crawford.

You are wrong.

Fury is fine both with the rematch and without the rematch. It is the splits that are part of the problem which is why Fury offered to take it off similar to how AJ vs Whyte was negotiated by removing the rematch clause.

[Zelda]

Fury refused to donate anything to the Ukrainian charity. Usyk's promoter said that if he revealed why, it would destroy Fury's reputation for ever.

I think Usyk was ready to to fight in the UK if he'd got what he was asking for, but Fury had no intention of going through with it.

I am not sure if Fury refused or not, but as a matter of principle, why should Fury donate money to one side and become a party to an ongoing war? What if Fury is not on Ukraine's side in the war?

I can totally understand the other differences if Usyk thinks he is worth more than 30% or if he wants a better rematch clause or thinks he can make better money later fighting in Saudi. Those make perfect sense for a fighter. But this demand is very political and controversial.

[kafkod]

I am not sure if Fury refused or not, but as a matter of principle, why should Fury donate money to one side and become a party to an ongoing war? What if Fury is not on Ukraine's side in the war?

I can totally understand the other differences if Usyk thinks he is worth more than 30% or if he wants a better rematch clause or thinks he can make better money later fighting in Saudi. Those make perfect sense for a fighter. But this demand is very political and controversial.

There are at least 2 sides in every war. But in this particular war, only one side has been invaded by a neighbouring state; Only one side is having their towns and cities bombarded with missiles and artillery, their homes, schools, hospitals and power stations destroyed ... you get the picture?

The donation would have been to a charitable foundation Usyk set up to provide humanitarian aid to Ukrainian people who are suffering because of the war. Humanitarian aid, not military aid.