Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title

[hoot]

When you look at Kell brook having his first fight with Eddie 12 months ago, And according to Eddie, not much belief people would come to watch him. It Makes you realise Eddie is doing an excellent promotion job with Kell, en route to world title. In a closed shop division,
http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/1 ... ell-s-path

[billy nelson]

Yes Eddie seems to be doing his stuff for Kell hopefully he'll get a world title shot if he comes through his next fight

[Josh1111]

Yes Eddie seems to be doing his stuff for Kell hopefully he'll get a world title shot if he comes through his next fight

Has Burns not considered a change of promoter?

[twenty six]

How can he when he has a contract ?

[billy nelson]

Yes Eddie seems to be doing his stuff for Kell hopefully he'll get a world title shot if he comes through his next fight

Has Burns not considered a change of promoter?

No!

[The Insider]

He might have to soon Billy. Have you considered where you stand if FW gets his licences pulled? What are your options?

[billy nelson]

He might have to soon Billy. Have you considered where you stand if FW gets his licences pulled? What are your options?

The bottom line is mate im only really interested in training Ricky what happens elsewhere is up to others

[The Insider]

He might have to soon Billy. Have you considered where you stand if FW gets his licences pulled? What are your options?

The bottom line is mate im only really interested in training Ricky what happens elsewhere is up to others

Fair play mate. Thats probably the best attitude to have IMO

[danfoster]

The thing is that all parties to a contract are required to properly discharge their obligations as set out in that contract. If that doesn't happen then one party can usually get out of it.

I'm not saying at all that Ricky's contract has not been adhered to. It's just a general comment in relation to contract law

I'm sure that Ricky and Frank have a good working relationship and all parties are more than happy.

[Duffus91]

Surely that would be down to Ricky's manager (Alex Morrison I think) & Ricky himself to discuss rather than Billy.

[Rumpole]

The thing is that all parties to a contract are required to properly discharge their obligations as set out in that contract. If that doesn't happen then one party can usually get out of it.

I'm not saying at all that Ricky's contract has not been adhered to. It's just a general comment in relation to contract law

I'm sure that Ricky and Frank have a good working relationship and all parties are more than happy.

"A general comment in relation to contract law." True.

However, only in relation to most contracts but not necessarily sports contracts. Even if a boxer were to wrongly repudiate a contract, the manager or promoter's remedy would lie in damages alone. The landmark case of Warren v Mendy in which the leading judgment was delivered by Nourse L.J. and for the non lawyers on this site, L.J. is not his initials it stands for Lord Justice of Appeal, determined that where all trust and confidence has broken down between "servant and master" no Court ought to impose enforcement of the contract.

Therefore, the promoter and/or manager is not without a remedy, but, the remedy lies in damages only.

For your edification I attach a copy of the judgment. For those interested, the boxer was Nigel Benn and his new Manager/Promoter Ambrose Mendy.

1989
CA
Nourse LJ Contract, Litigation Practice

A boxing manager and promoter sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from interfering with a management contract between himself and B, a talented young boxer, and from acting for B in B's professional career. B was at his request joined to the proceedings.

An injunction was refused at first instance.

Held: No injunction would be granted.

Nourse LJ:

"It is well settled that an injunction to restrain a breach of contract for personal services ought not to be granted where its effect will be to decree performance of the contract.

Speaking generally, there is no comparable objection to the grant of an injunction restraining the performance of particular services for a third party, because, by not prohibiting the performance of other services, it does not bind the servant to his contract.

But a difficulty can arise, usually in the entertainment or sporting worlds, where the services are inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent, whose continued display is essential to the psychological and material, and sometimes to the physical, well being of the servant.

The difficulty does not reside in any beguilement of the court into looking more tenderly on such who breach their contracts, glamorous though they often are. It is that the human necessity of maintaining the skill or talent may practically bind the servant to the contract, compelling him to perform it." and "This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions "master" and "servant" for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract.

Compulsion is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, with a realistic regard for the probable reaction of an injunction on the psychological and material, and sometimes the physical, need of the servant to maintain the skill or talent.

The longer the term, for which an injunction is sought, the more readily will compulsion be inferred. Compulsion may be inferred where the injunction is sought not against the servant but against a third party if either the third party is the only other available master or if it is likely that the master will seek relief against anyone who attempts to replace him.

An injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligations of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone."

I hope that this helps people to understand the difference between specialised Sports Law and general contract law.

[whiskey]

Thanks for the long and detailed insight Rumpole.

Can you give me a plainer version? Are you suggesting that if a 'performer' is not given suffient outings over a period of time, that their physical ability can perish - and that is grounds for termination of a contract ?

[leforge]

I think the way Kell growing in popularity and filling larger venues with more success in the ring since leaving his previous promotor to join Matchroom. I reckon others disgruntled boxers will follow. A boxer needs to be promoted correctly.

[Rumpole]

Thanks for the long and detailed insight Rumpole.

Can you give me a plainer version? Are you suggesting that if a 'performer' is not given suffient outings over a period of time, that their physical ability can perish - and that is grounds for termination of a contract ?

The law is an extremely complex beast Gomez and if you have a few weeks to spare and can afford my hourly rate, I would be happy to educate you. However, in essence what the judgment of Lord Justice Nourse is stating is that, in certain contractual situations, boxing being one of them, where a special skill or talent is crucial and integral to the performance of the contract it would wrong to make someone perform the contract if all trust and confidence in, for example a manager, had been lost or betrayed.

A person fighting in a boxing ring can be seriously hurt, maimed or even killed if their concentration and mindset is disturbed by having to stay with a manager or promoter who the performer hates, distrusts or even does not like anymore.

In essence, though I would not advise or condone it, any boxer can leave a manager or promoter in the event that the close working relationship required has broken down. They don't need any other reason and they won't be made to carry on the contract by the Courts, provided that the Court is satisfied that the necessary trust and confidence has been destroyed.

Does this mean that a boxer can walk away from any contract with impunity? No it does not.

In the event that no good grounds exist for the boxer repudiating the contract, the manager or promoter is lawfully entitled to be compensated for any financial loss which he or she may suffer as a result of the wrongful repudiation. In the case of a manager 25%, or whatever percentage has been agreed, of the boxer's purse money for the remaining term of the contract.

Granted it can become more complicated but I don't have time to write a book.

In short though; it would be almost impossible for a disgruntled promoter or manager to persuade a Court to order a boxer to carry on working with a promoter or manager that they do not wish to work with. It could however, be a fairly expensive exercise and the boxer would have to bear in mind that every fight that they take, a percentage may have to be paid to the ex-promoter or manager.

My advice is that the boxer ensures that they have reasonable to good grounds before walking away from a contract but if money is no object, then feel free to walk away if you can no longer work with the person.

Does that help?

[whiskey]

Thanks Rumpole

[danfoster]

Fascinating stuff my learned friend.

As a lowly criminal defence HCA, I hadn't appreciated the distinction between traditional law of contract and sports law. Creative point re the diminishment of skills.

Good news for boxers and therefore, surely, the sport.

I can think of some people who won't be happy though.

[Rumpole]

Fascinating stuff my learned friend.

As a lowly criminal defence HCA, I hadn't appreciated the distinction between traditional law of contract and sports law. Creative point re the diminishment of skills.

Good news for boxers and therefore, surely, the sport.

I can think of some people who won't be happy though.

Hi Dan.

Don't underrate the very valuable work which criminal defence lawyers do. Only a few weeks ago a young man was released after spending years in prison for a murder which he did not commit.

I used to love addressing a jury but the conditional fees meant that I was barely able to live. £45 for a full day in Crown Court on an interlocutory matter some 15 years ago, in a case of causing death by dangerous driving was the last straw. Fortunately my civil practice was growing and my specialist fields were begining to bear fruit.

Keep up the good work but do develop some civil law skills.

[leforge]

Quick question to Rumpole: What should an unhappy fighter do first if they feel frustrated in their current contract ?

[Rumpole]

Quick question to Rumpole: What should an unhappy fighter do first if they feel frustrated in their current contract ?

Discuss their concerns with their promoter or manager and try to clear the air. If this doesn't work and you have a legitimate complaint, give proper notice of determination of contract and leave.

The contract is then ended. Your grounds for leaving may be weak and it is possible that an Action for wrongful repudiation of contract by an ex-manager or promoter could be successful but if it is, you will not be compelled to continue to perform the contract with that manager or promoter but you may be held liable in damages.

You will also note that the new manager or promoter cannot be sued for interference with a contract as this will be classed by the Court as compulsion and as a boxer cannot be compelled to perform the contract the new manager or promoter is safe.

The easiest way to work out what is being stated by the Court in Warren v Mendy is to put names into the judgment. For example everywhere it says master, stick a promoter or manager's name after it and everywhere that it says servant, stick your name after it. For example:

A boxing manager and promoter (Bunny Rabbit) sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendant (Sportsworld) from interfering with a management contract between himself (Bunny Rabbit) and B (Casius Clay), a talented young boxer, and from acting for B (Casius Clay) in B's (Casius Clay’s) professional career. B (Casius Clay) was at his request joined to the proceedings.

An injunction was refused at first instance.

Held: No injunction would be granted.

Nourse LJ:

"It is well settled that an injunction to restrain a breach of contract for personal services ought not to be granted where its effect will be to decree performance of the contract.

Speaking generally, there is no comparable objection to the grant of an injunction restraining the performance of particular services for a third party, because, by not prohibiting the performance of other services, it does not bind the servant to his contract.

But a difficulty can arise, usually in the entertainment or sporting worlds, where the services are inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent, whose continued display is essential to the psychological and material, and sometimes to the physical, well being of the servant (Casius Clay).

The difficulty does not reside in any beguilement of the court into looking more tenderly on such who breach their contracts, glamorous though they often are. It is that the human necessity of maintaining the skill or talent may practically bind the servant (Casius Clay) to the contract, compelling him to perform it." and "This consideration of the authorities has led us to believe that the following general principles are applicable to the grant or refusal of an injunction to enforce performance of the servant's (Casius Clay’s) negative obligations in a contract for personal services inseparable from the exercise of some special skill or talent. (We use the expressions "master" (Bunny Rabbit) and "servant" (Casius Clay) for ease of reference and not out of any regard for the reality of the relationship in many of these cases.)

In such a case the court ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant (Casius Clay) to perform his positive obligations under the contract.


Does this help?

The injunction was sought against the new promoter claiming that the new promoter was interfering with a contract not against Nigel Benn. Nigel asked to be joined in the Action.

The Court determined that the new promoter was not interfering with the contract which is something that the Board had better take notice of given some of their appaulling decisions.

[leforge]

Thanks Rumpole!

[LeedsLad]

Interesting thread.

I never realised that one could walk away from a contract on the grounds of 'irreconcilable differences' because their skills could potentially (or will) diminish.

I just assumed they'd either have to win a case (on any kind of grounds), buy themselves out of it or just sit out.

I suppose having been a football and rugby fan all these years I've seen players sit in the reserves, be bombed out or whatever.

Obviously a promoter isn't able to sell a boxer, I don't know.... I just lacked the understanding about contractual law in boxing.

[Rumpole]

Interesting thread.

I never realised that one could walk away from a contract on the grounds of 'irreconcilable differences' because their skills could potentially (or will) diminish.

I just assumed they'd either have to win a case (on any kind of grounds), buy themselves out of it or just sit out.

I suppose having been a football and rugby fan all these years I've seen players sit in the reserves, be bombed out or whatever.

Obviously a promoter isn't able to sell a boxer, I don't know.... I just lacked the understanding about contractual law in boxing.

Hi Leeds Lad. The real difficulty for the Court is making someone carry out a very risky job when their mind is in turmoil. If a boxer goes into the ring and his concentration, reflexes and general mindset is badly disturbed because there is a man sat in his corner or at ringside who he truly detests but must continue to work for, he could be at very serious risk of injury.

Because the special skill or talent is part of the job, so to speak, that skill or talent can be very seriously impaired. If on the other hand you backed out of a contract for delivering sacks of coal for pretty poor reasons, the Court would make an Order of specific performance. In other words they would order that you carried on delivering the coal, or else.

This is the major difference between ordinary contract law and contract law involving special skills or talents.

We have often heard of boxers pulling out of fights even though they are perfectly fit but they are having family problems or someone has died who was close to them. If a boxer's mindset isn't right they go into the ring at their peril.

If you hate your promoter or manager with a vengence for a real or imaginary reason, it can be very hard indeed to get your mind right and relax before and during a contest.

[leforge]

Very interesting read this thread is. I hope any frustrated boxers are reading this it could give them plenty of information to help with their situation.

[tht6]

A very informative read Rumpole ,

I hope some of the boxers or friends out there take note of your information .

I am intrigued to know what would happen to the Board if they did not allow a fighter to fight who had legally ended their contract .

Would the fighter be entitled to loss of earnings , future earnings , court costs etc until a private case is brought .

Why or Who on the Board feel they can go against decisions of law ?

Would the Board be willing or would it be wise in this economic climate to risk such implications knowing that previous legal judgement has been made and that a large and substantial amount of money will be wasted by unnecessary court costs and subsequent judgement

Great post keep up the good work , Im sure you are giving certain people a lot to think about .

[dondada]

Rumpole...already a BoxRec legend.