Yes - best example I know of this is Tim Witherspoon after he beat Bruno. He was promoted by Don King was grossed around a million dollars. After deductions, he was left with $90,000. It did his mixer in completely and he was battered in a round by Bonecrusher Smith five months later.Rumpole wrote: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.
Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Hi tht6.tht6 wrote: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 .
Forgive me if I do not fully answer your questions but due to legal considerations I have to be guarded on a public forum.
If the Board refused to allow a fighter to fight who had properly and lawfully determined their contract, they would be liable in an Action for restraint of trade by virtue of wrongful and negligent application of the law.
The Court of Appeal in Warren v Mendy refused Bunny's application for an injunction to prevent Ambrose Mendy from taking over the management and promotional duties for Nigel Benn. Therefore if the Board decide that a boxer is not a free agent and try to to stop him fighting until the Board decide whether or not the boxer can end the contract, they are in effect sticking two fingers up to the Court of Appeal.
They are telling the Court of Appeal that a small private limited company has invested itself with the power to overrule the Court of Appeal because in effect the Court of Appeal refuse to grant an injunction but by stopping the fighter fighting until the Board determine whether or not the Boxer can end his contract the Board is in effect imposing the very injunction which the Court of Appeal refuse to grant.
Regrettably, over the years the Board, without the authority of Parliament or the Lord Chancellor's office, has taken upon itself the right to perform judicial duties and to sit as a Court of Law and give decisions on purely legal matters. There can be no objection to the Board sitting to determine disputes between parties regarding the interpretation of the various clauses in their contracts or the Board's Rules and Regulations, subject always to final appeal to a duly constituted Court of Law. However, on occassion the Board have gone too far and have ruled upon matters which they have absolutely no authority to deal with.
Yes, the boxer would be able to recover any purse monies lost as a result of the Board preventing him fighting, together with all legal costs, Court issue fee, out of pocket expenses including travel to and from Court, hotel and subsistance fees, provided that the claim is in excess of £5,000.
The answer to your third question is that I don't know, but I wish that I did. I would love to spend 10 minutes with whoever the barrack room lawyer is at the Board's head office making stupid and erroneous decisions concerning matters of law.
Your fourth question is a matter for the Board to decide. They are simply wasting licence holders money fighting cases which they cannot hope to win but unfortunately licence holders have no say in the matter.
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Ryan Rhodes went through this scenario commencing three years ago.
The Board heard his case, and the contract was declared null and void meaning not only was the Contract terminated but Rhodes was not compelled to make any payments to his then Joint Managers.
Of course any decision by the Board can be challenged in the Civil Courts by either party.
I stress Managers (one of whom was also his Trainer) - he was free from any Promotional Contract at the time.
Needless to say the decision was appealed and this is where the Board leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
The Appeal Stewards consider the case with no one else present.
The decision was reversed and to this day no reason has been given for the reversal of the decision albeit that the evidence put forward was identical to that at the first hearing.
Ultimately Rhodes was free of the Management control, but not of the financial percentages stated in the original Contract.
Needless to say the said Manager insisted on the full percentage payment.
Ironically the Contract ran out before the process was completed !
Throughout this as Rumpole points out Rhodes could have resorted to the Civil Courts at any time.
However that would have been simply to argue that the Contract was null and void and therefore the financials were cancelled as well.
Rhodes decided that he had achieved what he set out to do, ie rid himself of the Management control, and to pay the financials for the remaining life of the Contract.
Thank the Lord it did not involve a Promotional deal !
I would think that the process in that scenario is fraught with more difficulties and even worse if its both a Management and Promotion Contract that is in dispute.
I would always say to anyone in this situation, thinking of getting out, should get advice and instruct the best man for the job.
There you go Rumpole, business awaits !!
The Board heard his case, and the contract was declared null and void meaning not only was the Contract terminated but Rhodes was not compelled to make any payments to his then Joint Managers.
Of course any decision by the Board can be challenged in the Civil Courts by either party.
I stress Managers (one of whom was also his Trainer) - he was free from any Promotional Contract at the time.
Needless to say the decision was appealed and this is where the Board leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
The Appeal Stewards consider the case with no one else present.
The decision was reversed and to this day no reason has been given for the reversal of the decision albeit that the evidence put forward was identical to that at the first hearing.
Ultimately Rhodes was free of the Management control, but not of the financial percentages stated in the original Contract.
Needless to say the said Manager insisted on the full percentage payment.
Ironically the Contract ran out before the process was completed !
Throughout this as Rumpole points out Rhodes could have resorted to the Civil Courts at any time.
However that would have been simply to argue that the Contract was null and void and therefore the financials were cancelled as well.
Rhodes decided that he had achieved what he set out to do, ie rid himself of the Management control, and to pay the financials for the remaining life of the Contract.
Thank the Lord it did not involve a Promotional deal !
I would think that the process in that scenario is fraught with more difficulties and even worse if its both a Management and Promotion Contract that is in dispute.
I would always say to anyone in this situation, thinking of getting out, should get advice and instruct the best man for the job.
There you go Rumpole, business awaits !!
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Hi 26,
I have been trying to retire for the last 5 years but people won't let me.
Very kind of you to recomend me.
I tend to only take on cases these days where the "underdog" is being bullied by big or powerful organisations or people and the "underdog" has a good case and lacks the wherewithall to defend themselves.
As you will know, I have met Ryan on numerous occassions but I am not permitted by my code of conduct to approach him as a barrister or discuss his case without being approached by him or his solicitor directly but, I was absolutely horrified at the treatment which he received from the Stewards of Appeal. In my humble and respecful opinion they were wrong in both fact and in law. However I was only aware of some of the issues and must therefore concede that had I been appraised of all of the facts I may, though I very much doubt it on all the authorities, have formed a different view.
Give Ryan my regards and if he is at Kell's fight next week, which I am sure he will be, I will let him know my alta ego. He doesn't know that I am Rumpole.
I have been trying to retire for the last 5 years but people won't let me.
Very kind of you to recomend me.
I tend to only take on cases these days where the "underdog" is being bullied by big or powerful organisations or people and the "underdog" has a good case and lacks the wherewithall to defend themselves.
As you will know, I have met Ryan on numerous occassions but I am not permitted by my code of conduct to approach him as a barrister or discuss his case without being approached by him or his solicitor directly but, I was absolutely horrified at the treatment which he received from the Stewards of Appeal. In my humble and respecful opinion they were wrong in both fact and in law. However I was only aware of some of the issues and must therefore concede that had I been appraised of all of the facts I may, though I very much doubt it on all the authorities, have formed a different view.
Give Ryan my regards and if he is at Kell's fight next week, which I am sure he will be, I will let him know my alta ego. He doesn't know that I am Rumpole.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Twenty Six or Rumpole
In regards to Rhodes case , would it now allow proceedings to be issued against the Board for the restriction imposed upon him .
Obviously their decision was against English Law and surely he would be entitled to all costs he has incurred and any earnings he may have lost .
How can an accountable and transparent process of appeal be considered when it is held behind closed doors by Appeal Stewards , who like lots of people in positions of power are suspect to corruptable and questioinable practices .
I would suggest only a High court judge would be the only person who is uncorruptable or not swain to outside pressures which Im sure the Board ( Appeal Stewards ) definitely are ?????
Im sure we can leave our imaginations to roam as to who and what pressures or nods or winks maybe advertently applied to the Board in their decision making .
All in all its probably time this Board was shaken up to realise that they are as you say are a private limited company and not a court of the land who are messing around with fighters careers, families etc while pussyfooting around for their own selfish gains .
Keep up the good work , the more people realise what actually goes on , the more it allows fighters/people to understand
In regards to Rhodes case , would it now allow proceedings to be issued against the Board for the restriction imposed upon him .
Obviously their decision was against English Law and surely he would be entitled to all costs he has incurred and any earnings he may have lost .
How can an accountable and transparent process of appeal be considered when it is held behind closed doors by Appeal Stewards , who like lots of people in positions of power are suspect to corruptable and questioinable practices .
I would suggest only a High court judge would be the only person who is uncorruptable or not swain to outside pressures which Im sure the Board ( Appeal Stewards ) definitely are ?????
Im sure we can leave our imaginations to roam as to who and what pressures or nods or winks maybe advertently applied to the Board in their decision making .
All in all its probably time this Board was shaken up to realise that they are as you say are a private limited company and not a court of the land who are messing around with fighters careers, families etc while pussyfooting around for their own selfish gains .
Keep up the good work , the more people realise what actually goes on , the more it allows fighters/people to understand
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Hi tht6.
It would be wrong of me to reply to your question in respect of any individual case. That is a matter for the particular individual and their own legal advisors to determine.
It is true that in this country there is a principal of law that justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Regretably the Board conduct their business behind closed doors in many cases.
There does exist a perception that boxers are like cannon fodder and dispensible and that Promoters and to a lesser extent managers get preferential treatment from the Board.
This perception is understandable, the Board is, after all, a private limited company and like any business it has to make money to pay salaries, rent for offices etc., etc. True there are also the freeby weekends where Promoters cover the cost of food, drink and hospitality bills at top class hotels for Board representatives.
People can be forgiven for thinking that the Board may be more inclined to favour the men who bring in the largest amount of money to the business rather than the boxer, who after all, is only around for a few years.
Your call for more transparency is a good one and the Board do need to change and change considerably. After all, even if boxers are "ten a penny", without them, there is no BBBoC nor promoters earning fortunes etc.
I have always been of the view that, a good deal more protection should be given to the "cannon fodder" than is being given at the present time. Some of the "blind Eyes" that have been turned on the actions of certain individuals has to stop or an organisation similar to the Luxemburg Federation will begin to appeal to current licence holders and the Board could be faced with a mass exodus in the event that a fairer and more transparent and member accountable organisation sets up in this country.
The writing is on the wall and a precedent, allbeit a weak one at present, has been set.
It would be wrong of me to reply to your question in respect of any individual case. That is a matter for the particular individual and their own legal advisors to determine.
It is true that in this country there is a principal of law that justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Regretably the Board conduct their business behind closed doors in many cases.
There does exist a perception that boxers are like cannon fodder and dispensible and that Promoters and to a lesser extent managers get preferential treatment from the Board.
This perception is understandable, the Board is, after all, a private limited company and like any business it has to make money to pay salaries, rent for offices etc., etc. True there are also the freeby weekends where Promoters cover the cost of food, drink and hospitality bills at top class hotels for Board representatives.
People can be forgiven for thinking that the Board may be more inclined to favour the men who bring in the largest amount of money to the business rather than the boxer, who after all, is only around for a few years.
Your call for more transparency is a good one and the Board do need to change and change considerably. After all, even if boxers are "ten a penny", without them, there is no BBBoC nor promoters earning fortunes etc.
I have always been of the view that, a good deal more protection should be given to the "cannon fodder" than is being given at the present time. Some of the "blind Eyes" that have been turned on the actions of certain individuals has to stop or an organisation similar to the Luxemburg Federation will begin to appeal to current licence holders and the Board could be faced with a mass exodus in the event that a fairer and more transparent and member accountable organisation sets up in this country.
The writing is on the wall and a precedent, allbeit a weak one at present, has been set.
Last edited by Rumpole on 27 Jun 2012, 14:24, edited 2 times in total.
-
The Insider
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 11:21
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Fascinating thread fellas. A real eye opener. Group hug anyone? :)
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
I can only echo Rumpole's sentiments mate.
I am not a qualified Solicitor but have worked in the legal profession more or less the whole of my working life - and that's 38 years !
I think it's fair to say that during that time, the sordid business that is boxing has left me the most perplexed.
Having said that, we all keep coming back for more.
I am not a qualified Solicitor but have worked in the legal profession more or less the whole of my working life - and that's 38 years !
I think it's fair to say that during that time, the sordid business that is boxing has left me the most perplexed.
Having said that, we all keep coming back for more.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Rumpole
*** "People can be forgiven for thinking that the Board may be more inclined to favour the men who bring in the largest amount of money to the business rather than the boxer, who after all, is only around for a few years." ***
Surely if even this practice is remotely suspected then an independent regulated body ( High Court ?? ) is needed to ensure fair play is carried out on all Manager/Promotional disputes .
The Board cannot and should not be allowed to rule the future of fighters who have disputes with their Manager/Promoters .
This would without doubt discourage fighters who have a legitimate reason for wanting to leave their contracts due to the possibe biased and unfavourable decision they may get from certain influenced members on the Board .
Surely if the Board were serious in their views of transparency and legitimacy they would shudder at the thought that any remote suspicion of corruption could be levied or implied at them ??
** " This perception is understandable, the Board is, after all, a private limited company and like any business it has to make money to pay salaries, rent for offices etc., etc. True there are also the freeby weekends where Promoters cover the cost of food, drink and hospitality bills at top class hotels for Board representatives." ***
It seems to me without doubt that the Board seem to know what is going on with certain promoter/promoters and turn a blind eye or turn the other way so that they still receive their nice perks .
Again I would state that this practice would be known as corruption in al aspects of business and those involved would face criminal charges if evidence was apparent .
Im sure the Board is well aware of the situation with boxers not being paid on time by certain promoter , surely boxers being aware of the Boards apparent biased and clandestine decisions would make them hesitant to act .
The Board will have noone else to blame but themselves I feel if they allow themselves to be influenced by outside factors in their decision making of Manager/Promoter disputes .
The only sensible option for a fair and just hearing for any boxer would be to proceed with court action and and pass all costs etc etc to the Board .
Its incredible boxers who put their lives on the line every time they fight are treated in this way by a bunch of people who are only interested in their own pocket .
Lets hope the writing on the wall is getting BIGGER and BIGGER
*** "People can be forgiven for thinking that the Board may be more inclined to favour the men who bring in the largest amount of money to the business rather than the boxer, who after all, is only around for a few years." ***
Surely if even this practice is remotely suspected then an independent regulated body ( High Court ?? ) is needed to ensure fair play is carried out on all Manager/Promotional disputes .
The Board cannot and should not be allowed to rule the future of fighters who have disputes with their Manager/Promoters .
This would without doubt discourage fighters who have a legitimate reason for wanting to leave their contracts due to the possibe biased and unfavourable decision they may get from certain influenced members on the Board .
Surely if the Board were serious in their views of transparency and legitimacy they would shudder at the thought that any remote suspicion of corruption could be levied or implied at them ??
** " This perception is understandable, the Board is, after all, a private limited company and like any business it has to make money to pay salaries, rent for offices etc., etc. True there are also the freeby weekends where Promoters cover the cost of food, drink and hospitality bills at top class hotels for Board representatives." ***
It seems to me without doubt that the Board seem to know what is going on with certain promoter/promoters and turn a blind eye or turn the other way so that they still receive their nice perks .
Again I would state that this practice would be known as corruption in al aspects of business and those involved would face criminal charges if evidence was apparent .
Im sure the Board is well aware of the situation with boxers not being paid on time by certain promoter , surely boxers being aware of the Boards apparent biased and clandestine decisions would make them hesitant to act .
The Board will have noone else to blame but themselves I feel if they allow themselves to be influenced by outside factors in their decision making of Manager/Promoter disputes .
The only sensible option for a fair and just hearing for any boxer would be to proceed with court action and and pass all costs etc etc to the Board .
Its incredible boxers who put their lives on the line every time they fight are treated in this way by a bunch of people who are only interested in their own pocket .
Lets hope the writing on the wall is getting BIGGER and BIGGER
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Mate,
Clause 14 of the Boxer Manager Agreement states that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with regulations 24,26, and 28 of the Board's rules and regulations. The procedures set out in those regulations must be exhausted and an award must be made (including if appropriate an award made on appeal pursuant to regulation 28) before the boxer or the Manager may commence any legal proceedings or make any application to a Court.
The Board's decision whatever that may be, can always be challenged in the Civil Courts.
Wouldn't it be great if costs could be pushed onto the Board ! Sadly not.
Therein lies one of the major issues in pursuing matters through the Civil Courts. The risk of Costs.
Clause 14 of the Boxer Manager Agreement states that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with regulations 24,26, and 28 of the Board's rules and regulations. The procedures set out in those regulations must be exhausted and an award must be made (including if appropriate an award made on appeal pursuant to regulation 28) before the boxer or the Manager may commence any legal proceedings or make any application to a Court.
The Board's decision whatever that may be, can always be challenged in the Civil Courts.
Wouldn't it be great if costs could be pushed onto the Board ! Sadly not.
Therein lies one of the major issues in pursuing matters through the Civil Courts. The risk of Costs.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
The problem is that the arbitration isn't always impartial, which is why matters where both sides believe they have a case ALWAYS end up in court.
The Board as a limited company can do practically what it wants, so long as it's rules are generally followed.
You can't even cite employment law as boxers aren't employed by the Board. If they wanted, they could just walk away and say ''you two sort it between you'' to my knowledge.
The Board as a limited company can do practically what it wants, so long as it's rules are generally followed.
You can't even cite employment law as boxers aren't employed by the Board. If they wanted, they could just walk away and say ''you two sort it between you'' to my knowledge.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
I would disagree , if there is a problem then the Board should allow the boxer to continue is special and unique trade , and if the party who feels they have been wronged and are confident that they have a strong case then proceed to case to court .LeedsLad wrote:The problem is that the arbitration isn't always impartial, which is why matters where both sides believe they have a case ALWAYS end up in court.
The Board as a limited company can do practically what it wants, so long as it's rules are generally followed.
You can't even cite employment law as boxers aren't employed by the Board. If they wanted, they could just walk away and say ''you two sort it between you'' to my knowledge.
The outcome will be resolved by the court who are impartial , just and UNCORRUPTABLE .
Im sure you can take action against the Board if it is them solely who are restricting your trade .
That seems to be the jist of the previous Rumpole posts
Great Topic , lets keep it alive
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Sorry to tell you this 26 but you are wrong. If you bring an Action in the Civil Court against the Board and your claim is not a "Small Claim", that is less than £5,000 you are entitled to be awarded your costs if you win. The Board will be Ordered to pay your costs.twenty six wrote:Mate,
Clause 14 of the Boxer Manager Agreement states that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with regulations 24,26, and 28 of the Board's rules and regulations. The procedures set out in those regulations must be exhausted and an award must be made (including if appropriate an award made on appeal pursuant to regulation 28) before the boxer or the Manager may commence any legal proceedings or make any application to a Court.
The Board's decision whatever that may be, can always be challenged in the Civil Courts.
Wouldn't it be great if costs could be pushed onto the Board ! Sadly not.
Therein lies one of the major issues in pursuing matters through the Civil Courts. The risk of Costs.
You are correct about disputes but Clause 13.1 of the Boxer/Manager Agreement i.e. the determination of the contract is NOT a dispute and there are no suplementary clauses in clause 13 which say that a boxer or a manager must get the Board's permission to end a contract for any of the 2 conditions itemised in Clause 13.1.(i) or Clause 13.1.(ii).
Further, clause 17. of the Boxer/Manager Agreement states:
17. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.
I accept that the Board sent out a Memorandum dated 15th. July 2010, stating that they were concerned about people unilaterally ending Management agreements and that the Board intended to exercise its disciplinary powers to deal with illigitmate withdrawalls from Boxer/Manager contracts. However, it is for a Court of law to determine whether or not a contract has been wrongfully repudiated not a private limited company this is a matter of pure law and not a job for amateurs with financial considerations, who could be perceived as favouring one side.
You will note that Bunny didn't complain to the Board or follow any procedures set down by the Board in the case of Warren v Mendy. Oh no, he steamed straight off to the High Court and sought an ex-parte injunction and for those that don't know what that means, it means that no one, including Nigel Benn or Ambrose Mendy even knew that he had applied to the Court for an injunction. True the Court will Order an inter-parties hearing so that the other side can be heard if they grant an injunction. In that case the injunction was refused. Did he then go to the Board? No, off he went to the Court of Appeal and got a flea in his ear when Lord Justice Nourse delivered the judgment set out above.
If, as the Board says, the contract is to be GOVERNED by and CONSTRUED in accordance with English Law, then they should practice what they preach and not break their own contracts by interfering with English Contract law.
The way to end a contract is precisely as stated in Clause 13.1 of the Board's own Boxer/Manager Agreement. That is, by giving notice, in writing to the other party. What the Board fail to state, in order to comply with the law, is that, the party determining the contract should also set out in their letter of determination the grounds upon which they are determining the contract. It is arguable that the Board should keep its nose out of contractual matters.
The proceedure to be followed by any party agrieved by the determination if they feel that the contract was wrongly determined. Is to bring an Action in the Court for wrongful repudiation of contract. Again, I repeat, this is a matter to be determined by an approved trained Judge sitting in a properly constituted Court of Law who is, and can be seen to be, fully independant, competent and qualified to determine such issues of law. Some would argue that such issues ought not to be decided by a bunch of amateurs who may, and I only say may, have a vested interest.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
So basically Rumpole are you saying that the first shot across the Boards bows is the threat of legal proceeding , which allows them the chance to reconsider .Rumpole wrote:Sorry to tell you this 26 but you are wrong. If you bring an Action in the Civil Court against the Board and your claim is not a "Small Claim", that is less than £5,000 you are entitled to be awarded your costs if you win. The Board will be Ordered to pay your costs.twenty six wrote:Mate,
Clause 14 of the Boxer Manager Agreement states that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with regulations 24,26, and 28 of the Board's rules and regulations. The procedures set out in those regulations must be exhausted and an award must be made (including if appropriate an award made on appeal pursuant to regulation 28) before the boxer or the Manager may commence any legal proceedings or make any application to a Court.
The Board's decision whatever that may be, can always be challenged in the Civil Courts.
Wouldn't it be great if costs could be pushed onto the Board ! Sadly not.
Therein lies one of the major issues in pursuing matters through the Civil Courts. The risk of Costs.
You are correct about disputes but Clause 13.1 of the Boxer/Manager Agreement i.e. the determination of the contract is NOT a dispute and there are no suplementary clauses in clause 13 which say that a boxer or a manager must get the Board's permission to end a contract for any of the 2 conditions itemised in Clause 13.1.(i) or Clause 13.1.(ii).
Further, clause 17. of the Boxer/Manager Agreement states:
17. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.
I accept that the Board sent out a Memorandum dated 15th. July 2010, stating that they were concerned about people unilaterally ending Management agreements and that the Board intended to exercise its disciplinary powers to deal with illigitmate withdrawalls from Boxer/Manager contracts. However, it is for a Court of law to determine whether or not a contract has been wrongfully repudiated not a private limited company this is a matter of pure law and not a job for amateurs with financial considerations, who could be perceived as favouring one side.
You will note that Bunny didn't complain to the Board or follow any procedures set down by the Board in the case of Warren v Mendy. Oh no, he steamed straight off to the High Court and sought an ex-parte injunction and for those that don't know what that means, it means that no one, including Nigel Benn or Ambrose Mendy even knew that he had applied to the Court for an injunction. True the Court will Order an inter-parties hearing so that the other side can be heard if they grant an injunction. In that case the injunction was refused. Did he then go to the Board? No, off he went to the Court of Appeal and got a flea in his ear when Lord Justice Nourse delivered the judgment set out above.
If, as the Board says, the contract is to be GOVERNED by and CONSTRUED in accordance with English Law, then they should practice what they preach and not break their own contracts by interfering with English Contract law.
The way to end a contract is precisely as stated in Clause 13.1 of the Board's own Boxer/Manager Agreement. That is, by giving notice, in writing to the other party. What the Board fail to state, in order to comply with the law, is that, the party determining the contract should also set out in their letter of determination the grounds upon which they are determining the contract. It is arguable that the Board should keep its nose out of contractual matters.
The proceedure to be followed by any party agrieved by the determination if they feel that the contract was wrongly determined. Is to bring an Action in the Court for wrongful repudiation of contract. Again, I repeat, this is a matter to be determined by an approved trained Judge sitting in a properly constituted Court of Law who is, and can be seen to be, fully independant, competent and qualified to determine such issues of law. Some would argue that such issues ought not to be decided by a bunch of amateurs who may, and I only say may, have a vested interest.
Subsequently this will be followed by court proceeding if they fail to follow English Law as stated in their own memorandum .
This will result in them being tried using the previous Warren/Mendy ruling ( case )
Which in turn gives the same decision .
If the answer to my above question is YES , then who at the Board does not have the brain or sense to realise they lose with obvious cost and legal implications ??
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
tht6.
One must always, by virtue of Civil Court Procedure Rules, give notice of the intended issuing of proceedings by way of a letter before Action and a failure to do so before issuing proceedings would result in the Action being struck out with costs and the issuing party would have to start all over again.
It makes sense that you should warn someone that you intend to issue proceedings in the event that matters cannot be resolved, in order to give the other party one last chance to make an offer or to settle matters.
If a case were to come before the Board which is identical to Warren v Mendy then the Board would be compelled to act in the same way that the Court of Appeal has ruled.
So if you substitute the name of the boxer who has left a manager say Charlie Brown in place of Nigel Benn. Do the same for the new Promoter or Manager, for example Haymaker or Matchroom instead of Ambrose Mendy and we assume, for arguments sake that the manager who is complaining is still Bunny, then you have an exact copy of the situation in Warren v Mendy.
The Court of Appeal refused an injunction to stop
a)the boxer being able to fight for the new manager/promoter and
b)refused to stop Ambrose Mendy from taking over the duties of manager/promoter or as Bunny claimed interfering with a contract.
If the Court had granted the injunction, Nigel Benn would have had no option but to return to Bunny if he wished to carry on boxing. This would amount to compulsion, which the Court will not allow. Equally if they had refused to allow another manager, in this case Ambrose Mendy to handle Nigel's affairs, he could not have boxed because it is a requirement of the Board's Rules and Regulations that, all boxers must have a manager or a self managed boxer's licence in order to fight on a Board sanctioned event.
Therefore if the Board sticks its nose in and says that the boxer is not a free agent and that the old contract is still in existance until the Board decides otherwise and effectively stops the boxer from fighting. To put it in plain blunt English, they are telling the Court of Appeal to fornicate off.
They are in effect saying to the Court of Appeal, you might not be prepared to grant Bunny an injunction but we will. We have greater authority than you.
The Board will be rushing head first into a brick wall and when they get there by God will it hurt. That's not to mention all the egg which they will have on their face.
I know the case you are talking about and as I am involved in it, I will say no more but that is the situation in law.
One must always, by virtue of Civil Court Procedure Rules, give notice of the intended issuing of proceedings by way of a letter before Action and a failure to do so before issuing proceedings would result in the Action being struck out with costs and the issuing party would have to start all over again.
It makes sense that you should warn someone that you intend to issue proceedings in the event that matters cannot be resolved, in order to give the other party one last chance to make an offer or to settle matters.
If a case were to come before the Board which is identical to Warren v Mendy then the Board would be compelled to act in the same way that the Court of Appeal has ruled.
So if you substitute the name of the boxer who has left a manager say Charlie Brown in place of Nigel Benn. Do the same for the new Promoter or Manager, for example Haymaker or Matchroom instead of Ambrose Mendy and we assume, for arguments sake that the manager who is complaining is still Bunny, then you have an exact copy of the situation in Warren v Mendy.
The Court of Appeal refused an injunction to stop
a)the boxer being able to fight for the new manager/promoter and
b)refused to stop Ambrose Mendy from taking over the duties of manager/promoter or as Bunny claimed interfering with a contract.
If the Court had granted the injunction, Nigel Benn would have had no option but to return to Bunny if he wished to carry on boxing. This would amount to compulsion, which the Court will not allow. Equally if they had refused to allow another manager, in this case Ambrose Mendy to handle Nigel's affairs, he could not have boxed because it is a requirement of the Board's Rules and Regulations that, all boxers must have a manager or a self managed boxer's licence in order to fight on a Board sanctioned event.
Therefore if the Board sticks its nose in and says that the boxer is not a free agent and that the old contract is still in existance until the Board decides otherwise and effectively stops the boxer from fighting. To put it in plain blunt English, they are telling the Court of Appeal to fornicate off.
They are in effect saying to the Court of Appeal, you might not be prepared to grant Bunny an injunction but we will. We have greater authority than you.
The Board will be rushing head first into a brick wall and when they get there by God will it hurt. That's not to mention all the egg which they will have on their face.
I know the case you are talking about and as I am involved in it, I will say no more but that is the situation in law.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Great thread! Very informative!
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
I'm so happy This thread is on here, it allows fighters like myself to understand the law in terms that a man like me can understand, I'm not the cleverest man on the planet, hence why I'm getting punched in the head for living.. 
I will say this though, there are fighters out there in situations and they just cannot see a way out! It's frightening sometimes it really is cos the thought of not being able to fight and earn living really is petrifying! You actually have people in the game trying to do this to fighters! Stopping them from earning a living just to spite them!
From a fighters point of view, he has paid a lot of money to the BBBoC in % fees and all he asks for is some protection and for the BBBoC to stand firm on the rules that the fighters signed up to.. Is this happening though? I don't think so!
I will say this though, there are fighters out there in situations and they just cannot see a way out! It's frightening sometimes it really is cos the thought of not being able to fight and earn living really is petrifying! You actually have people in the game trying to do this to fighters! Stopping them from earning a living just to spite them!
From a fighters point of view, he has paid a lot of money to the BBBoC in % fees and all he asks for is some protection and for the BBBoC to stand firm on the rules that the fighters signed up to.. Is this happening though? I don't think so!
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Guys
This is a great thread , that needs to be kept alive so that people/boxers can understand what can be done in relation to disputes between Boxers , Managers etc .
The Board need to realise that they are being taking for mugs by individuals who believe they are Judge and Jury and Paymaster
This is a great thread , that needs to be kept alive so that people/boxers can understand what can be done in relation to disputes between Boxers , Managers etc .
The Board need to realise that they are being taking for mugs by individuals who believe they are Judge and Jury and Paymaster
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
The Board's rules need to be much more set in stone, it seems from the outside, everything appears so ambiguous.
Libel law has always favoured those with the big stick, regardless of right or wrong.
If a fighter sued their promoter and won, they could quite easily be left on the outside by other promoters, who might think they're not worth the hassle.
Libel law has always favoured those with the big stick, regardless of right or wrong.
If a fighter sued their promoter and won, they could quite easily be left on the outside by other promoters, who might think they're not worth the hassle.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
There are some very mean-spirited people out there indeed, who have nothing really to gain from screwing someone over - but they still do.Bomber 1 wrote:I'm so happy This thread is on here, it allows fighters like myself to understand the law in terms that a man like me can understand, I'm not the cleverest man on the planet, hence why I'm getting punched in the head for living..
I will say this though, there are fighters out there in situations and they just cannot see a way out! It's frightening sometimes it really is cos the thought of not being able to fight and earn living really is petrifying! You actually have people in the game trying to do this to fighters! Stopping them from earning a living just to spite them!
From a fighters point of view, he has paid a lot of money to the BBBoC in % fees and all he asks for is some protection and for the BBBoC to stand firm on the rules that the fighters signed up to.. Is this happening though? I don't think so!
Venues, boxers, tv stations and most importantly - punters.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
First thing I would do as disgruntled and unhappy fighter is get this Rumpole to help me out!LeedsLad wrote:The Board's rules need to be much more set in stone, it seems from the outside, everything appears so ambiguous.
Libel law has always favoured those with the big stick, regardless of right or wrong.
If a fighter sued their promoter and won, they could quite easily be left on the outside by other promoters, who might think they're not worth the hassle.
This thread is very informative.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
There are some very mean-spirited people ( promoters ) out there indeed, who have nothing really to gain from screwing someone over - but they still do.G0mez wrote:Bomber 1 wrote:I'm so happy This thread is on here, it allows fighters like myself to understand the law in terms that a man like me can understand, I'm not the cleverest man on the planet, hence why I'm getting punched in the head for living..
I will say this though, there are fighters out there in situations and they just cannot see a way out! It's frightening sometimes it really is cos the thought of not being able to fight and earn living really is petrifying! You actually have people in the game trying to do this to fighters! Stopping them from earning a living just to spite them!
From a fighters point of view, he has paid a lot of money to the BBBoC in % fees and all he asks for is some protection and for the BBBoC to stand firm on the rules that the fighters signed up to.. Is this happening though? I don't think so!
Some of the mean spirited so called promoters would not be able to run any other business if they did not do what they do .
They hold on to boxers futures after disputes out of pure envy and rejection , like a spurned lover .
They are people who portray a gentlemanly public image but who are as crooked as a rusty nail .
Flash cars and drivers , fancy suits , dinner shows , etc , etc all paid for by the blood sweat and toil of fighters too weak or ill advised to take action .
Anyone standing up to these people face a barrage of underhand spineless tactics to blacken the said individuals names and also their family and personal life .
If only the mask was taken away from these people for all to see what lies beneath .
Its all about control , promoters like fighters who they can control , manipulate and rule .
The promoters pay them when they want without being questioned , have very weak coaches who are a slave to their demands , and dare not too ask in fear of not being given a fight .
All this happens while the poor boxer goes about his business trusting these so call gentlemanly promoters who initially whisper sweet promises to them along with non stop phone calls of how great they are and how they are their friend ???
The worse thing of all , the Board know this practice goes on and has gone on for way too long .
Its time for this Board to do what is right for the boxer and not for their paymaster/paymasters is now .
Lets hope we see these changes soon enough as many of these men on the Board must surely look at themselves in the mirror at night and shake their head in disbelief at their action of turning a blind eye to these practises.
This topic needs to run and run !!!!
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
The best comment I ever heard regarding this whole scenario left me laughing at a time when I was feeling totally dispirited.
A certain Manager was decribed to me as being like a man who had pulled the best bird in town, paraded her at the best do's because she was the best eye candy, shagged her senseless for three months, but became bored with her.
He wanted rid - but did not want anyone else to have her at the same time.
So when someone else showed an interest he threw his doll out of the pram, and having got her back, locked her in a room to fester.
Boxing - what a sport, what an industry.
A certain Manager was decribed to me as being like a man who had pulled the best bird in town, paraded her at the best do's because she was the best eye candy, shagged her senseless for three months, but became bored with her.
He wanted rid - but did not want anyone else to have her at the same time.
So when someone else showed an interest he threw his doll out of the pram, and having got her back, locked her in a room to fester.
Boxing - what a sport, what an industry.
Re: Eddie Hearn (Top promoter) Route for Kell brook' world title
Thats probably a great way putting it .twenty six wrote:The best comment I ever heard regarding this whole scenario left me laughing at a time when I was feeling totally dispirited.
A certain Manager was decribed to me as being like a man who had pulled the best bird in town, paraded her at the best do's because she was the best eye candy, shagged her senseless for three months, but became bored with her.
He wanted rid - but did not want anyone else to have her at the same time.
So when someone else showed an interest he threw his doll out of the pram, and having got her back, locked her in a room to fester.
Boxing - what a sport, what an industry.
You ll find that most of the men who act like that are inadequate , unsure and unable to stand up to real men so they act like they do .
Insecurity and feeling inadequate are the main ways to describe these promoters who act like this .
They try to scare everyone with their threats of legal action and to most fighters it works , however some have the sense and knowledge to battle on knowing one day the TRUTH will be revealed .
The clock is ticking slowly but surely on these promoters who act like this , and their polished veener will soon be revealed to be what it is .
Unfortunately in life you can make a TURD shine , but eventually is darkens to reveal what it actually is .
