Warren v Calzaghe - DING DING Round 1 .....

[the patriot]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/cardi ... -22995686/

Warren lands first blows in Calzaghe high court scrap

Feb 24 2009 South Wales Echo

BOXING promoter allegedly has landed the first verbal blows in his High Court scrap over money with undefeated world champion Joe Calzaghe.

Mr Warren, who once managed Calzaghe, brought in heavyweight barrister Ronald Thwaites QC to argue that not only did he not owe the boxer as much as £2m in unpaid fees, but Calzaghe owed him £1m for breaking his contract over his last fight.

Mr Thwaites said the boxer was claiming that Mr Warren, through his company Sports Network, had managed to persuade him to sign contracts under duress while he was suffering dehydration and hunger preparing for fights.

Mr Calzaghe was also claiming there was a conflict of interests while he was managed by Mr Warren because Sports Network was also promoting the fights.

“We can demonstrate that that is untrue,” Mr Thwaites said.

“What has happened is, instead of doing what he knew best, Mr Calzaghe thought that promoting a fight was simplicity itself and he could do it without a promoter.

“A boxer is not a promoter.”

Mr Thwaites said Mr Warren’s fight contracts with Mr Calzaghe were always scrutinised by the boxer’s solicitors.

After showing a series of the contracts to the judge – Mr Justice Wyn Williams – Mr Thwaites said: “These documents successfully contradict Mr Calzaghe’s claim that he was a naive person taken advantage of over conflicts of interest of which he had no understanding.”

The boxer, who retired from the ring this year as undefeated world super-middleweight champion, denies there was a verbal contract to continue boxing for Mr Warren and is counterclaiming he is owed more than £2m in fees for his Bernard Hopkins win in 2008.

Mr Thwaites said Mr Calzaghe had agreed verbally at a meeting in London in 2008 to allow Sports Network to promote his remaining fights exclusively.

But he said the boxer split from Mr Warren and himself promoted his last fight against Roy Jones Jnr in July 2008.

“Mr Calzaghe earned far less than he would have done if the fight had been promoted properly by the claimant,” said Mr Thwaites.

(proceeding)

[big lennox]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

It sounds like Warren has a signed written contract

[the patriot]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

These "verbal agreements" are all the rage down in South Wales ....

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -21433232/

Hasselbaink and City eventually settled out of court, my guess is the same will happen with Warren and Calzaghe only after alot of posturing from both sides.

[Chambers2]

With Warren and Calzaghes usual rate of progression this court battle could be going for 4 years before a meaningful bit of evidence is submitted

[DG.]

Warrne would only sho contracts that backed him up.

He said he ha a verbal and signed agreement with Hatton... he did not!

'A Boxer is NOT a Promoter?...What is - RJJ - DLH - HAYE etc?

[The Law]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

[DG.]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

In laymans terms....Warren is f--ked!

[Chambers2]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

Can't Calzaghe just deny any knowledge of him verbally agreeing to it?
or has allegedly got mini-allegedly (Boxingchat) swearing that he'd heard it all

[big lennox]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

Thanks for that.Interesting to know.It will be interesting to see if there is any evidence. I can't help but thinking that this is more about fwank feeling a little wounded by Joe leaving (I can appreciate both sides in this case) rather than it being a financial matter.

[The Law]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

Can't Calzaghe just deny any knowledge of him verbally agreeing to it?
or has allegedly got mini-allegedly (Boxingchat) swearing that he'd heard it all

If there is a trail of evidence (e.g. subsequent actions, witnesses, etc) pointing to the fact that the agreement did take place then Warren might have a good case. I guess we'll see what happens .........

[Twinkle Toes]

Not a good start from Mr Thwaites in my opinion.

[Adamj1987]

come on joe, sooner sports networks sinks the better

[Londonirish]

How on earth can a verbal agreement be legally binding?

Verbal Contract aint worth the Paper its written on

[Jon Saxon]

I have a legal background and they (verbal agreements) can be very binding, I found out once to great cost.

That said, Wank Farren is a *******

[tobyh5]

Warrne would only sho contracts that backed him up.

He said he ha a verbal and signed agreement with Hatton... he did not!

'A Boxer is NOT a Promoter?...What is - RJJ - DLH - HAYE etc?

But he did get stuff taken out of Hattons book that allured to frank being a dodgy baastard

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

A verbal contract can be legally binding aslong as the essential parts of a contract are evident (e.g. offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, etc). The problem with a verbal contract is the fact that the binding terms of the contract are far more difficult to ascertain, that's why it is wise to put all agreements down on paper.

Can't Calzaghe just deny any knowledge of him verbally agreeing to it?
or has allegedly got mini-allegedly (Boxingchat) swearing that he'd heard it all

If there is a trail of evidence (e.g. subsequent actions, witnesses, etc) pointing to the fact that the agreement did take place then Warren might have a good case. I guess we'll see what happens .........

Surely witnesses must have to be professional's, ie lawyers and possibly unbiased professionals, ie not Mr Warren's lawyer? You would also think the contract would have to be fully binding with clauses, which a verbal wouldn't carry

[Loynesy]

PN - nope, LawLB is correct, as a matter of law it makes no difference whether a contract is in writing or verbal.

As a matter of fact, proving that a verbal agreement constitutes the necessary elements required to produce a binding contract can be extremely difficult.

[liamlion]

As already stated, a verbal contract is as legal as a written contract.

It is a point worth mentioning however that this case is very unlikely to have made it to Court if a written contract had been in place. A good contract essentially governs what the parties in the relationship are allowed to do (and required to do) and should also state what happens when various events take place (e.g. one party wants to walk away from the deal only 1 fight into a 3 fight deal, for example).

An effective and well drafted contract should also define the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, meaning that it is therefore easier (at least in theory) to ascertain who is in breach of the contract (and at fault). Verbal contracts dont have this fall back position and so the claimant will therefore have to provide evidence that supports his claim that:

1) a contract existed; and
2) a breach took place.

Very messy stuff.

[chinny]

Have you ever wanted Calzaghe to win more? thought not.

[Spud]

It sounds like Warren has a signed written contract

Really???? - not from what I think is happening.

This case will get pushed to the extreme - just like the fall out with Hatton and then - there will be an agreement out of court to save face on all sides.

[adamiw]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/cardi ... -22995686/

Warren lands first blows in Calzaghe high court scrap

Feb 24 2009 South Wales Echo

BOXING promoter allegedly allegedly has landed the first verbal blows in his High Court scrap over money with undefeated world champion Joe Calzaghe.

Mr Warren, who once managed Calzaghe, brought in heavyweight barrister Ronald Thwaites QC to argue that not only did he not owe the boxer as much as £2m in unpaid fees, but Calzaghe owed him £1m for breaking his contract over his last fight.

Mr Thwaites said the boxer was claiming that Mr Warren, through his company Sports Network, had managed to persuade him to sign contracts under duress while he was suffering dehydration and hunger preparing for fights.

Mr Calzaghe was also claiming there was a conflict of interests while he was managed by Mr Warren because Sports Network was also promoting the fights.

“We can demonstrate that that is untrue,” Mr Thwaites said.

“What has happened is, instead of doing what he knew best, Mr Calzaghe thought that promoting a fight was simplicity itself and he could do it without a promoter.

“A boxer is not a promoter.”

Mr Thwaites said Mr Warren’s fight contracts with Mr Calzaghe were always scrutinised by the boxer’s solicitors.

After showing a series of the contracts to the judge – Mr Justice Wyn Williams – Mr Thwaites said: “These documents successfully contradict Mr Calzaghe’s claim that he was a naive person taken advantage of over conflicts of interest of which he had no understanding.”

The boxer, who retired from the ring this year as undefeated world super-middleweight champion, denies there was a verbal contract to continue boxing for Mr Warren and is counterclaiming he is owed more than £2m in fees for his Bernard Hopkins win in 2008.

Mr Thwaites said Mr Calzaghe had agreed verbally at a meeting in London in 2008 to allow Sports Network to promote his remaining fights exclusively.

But he said the boxer split from Mr Warren and himself promoted his last fight against Roy Jones Jnr in July 2008.

“Mr Calzaghe earned far less than he would have done if the fight had been promoted properly by the claimant,” said Mr Thwaites.

(proceeding)

there is a lot of speculation there......

....Warren has stated many times that he could have got a better deal for Joe vs RJJ.....but who is to say that Jones would agree to Warren's terms?....maybe the fight would have fallen through......Calzaghe negotiated what he was happy to receive and he got the fight, won it and walked off into the sunset as content as could be with the way he concluded his career

[DG.]

Warrne would only sho contracts that backed him up.

He said he ha a verbal and signed agreement with Hatton... he did not!

'A Boxer is NOT a Promoter?...What is - RJJ - DLH - HAYE etc?

But he did get stuff taken out of Hattons book that allured to frank being a dodgy baastard

Yes he did - but he still lost out on MILLIONS of Hattons pounds.. and Millons with Naz and Millions with Calzaghe!

Could not happen to a nice bloke!

Allegedly!

[Chambers2]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25022009/ ... -fall.html

Undefeated world boxing champion Joe Calzaghe, now in a High Court fight over money with his former manager and promoter allegedly, believed he had been taken advantage of for years, his lawyer disclosed.

Ian Mill QC, representing Mr Calzaghe, said in papers put before the judge, Mr Justice Wyn Williams, that by November 2007 the 10-year relationship between the pair "had clearly deteriorated significantly, at least as far as Mr Calzaghe was concerned".

"Mr Calzaghe felt that Mr Warren had taken advantage of him for a number of years and Mr Calzaghe wanted to extricate himself from his management and promotional relationships with Mr Warren."

Mr Warren, through his company Sports Network, is claiming £1m damages from the boxer for breach of an alleged oral agreement in January 2008 that he should promote further fights after a current contract expired.

Mr Calzaghe denies there was any agreement.

He is also claiming USD3,897,505 (£2.7million) in damages from allegedly who he says has not paid him his profit share from the Bernard Hopkins fight in April 2008.

Mr Mill says it was "inherently implausible" that an important agreement for allegedly to promote more fights for Mr Calzaghe would not have been recorded in writing as all previous contracts had.

"It is inherently implausible that Mr Calzaghe, who was utterly disillusioned with Mr Warren by this time, would have agreed to allow Sports Network to promote him for any future fights."

He said it was only after the boxer brought in accountants to audit his profit share from the Hopkins fight that Mr Warren alleged there had been a verbal contract to promote more bouts.

"This timing suggests that the alleged oral agreement was a fabrication created for the purpose of justifying the non-payment to Mr Calzaghe of his monies. Mr Warren is seeking to ensure that Mr Calzaghe receives no part of the monies which are indisputably owed to him."

Mr Mill said under a 2004 contract between the boxer and Sports Network, Mr Calzaghe agreed to a "minimum" purse of £600,000 for four fights for the super middleweight title.

"Mr Calzaghe in fact only ever received the guaranteed minimum purse for his fights under this contract."

He added: "Mr Calzaghe increasingly felt that having Mr Warren and Sports Network as his manager and promoter operated to his financial detriment."

When the boxer was about to fight Jeff Lacy to defend his title, he was told by Mr Warren that if he wanted it to go ahead, he would have to sign a written contract giving Sports Network the right to promote another three fights, said Mr Mill.

Mr Calzaghe felt he had little choice but to sign, said Mr Mill, but after this contract came to an end, Mr Warren asked him to sign a new contract with the "clear threat" that if he did not, he would lose a television broadcasting deal.

"Mr Calzaghe was extremely unhappy with, and resented, the way in which Mr Warren had manipulated him into signing this new promotional contact."

On April 19, 2008 Mr Calzaghe won the fight under that contract against Hopkins for which he received from Sports Network £1million and US tax payment of 1,728,000 dollars (£1.2 million), said Mr Mill.

"He has received nothing further," said Mr Mill.

Mr Calzaghe is expected to give evidence in the witness box tomorrow.

Allegedly is dodgier than a Viper

[Asterix]

"When the boxer was about to fight Jeff Lacy to defend his title, he was told by Mr Warren that if he wanted it to go ahead, he would have to sign a written contract giving Sports Network the right to promote another three fights, said Mr Mill.

Mr Calzaghe felt he had little choice but to sign, said Mr Mill, but after this contract came to an end, Mr Warren asked him to sign a new contract with the "clear threat" that if he did not, he would lose a television broadcasting deal."

That's what Warren has allegedly done with Maccarinelli recently, isn't it?