FW loses £2m lawsuit against Ricky Burns

[Kingfield]

Having been left unpaid for work carried out by a boxer and his promoter, this doesnt surprise me at all.

Very few 'do the right thing' and most would turn the other over at any given chance anyway.

So the fact one has been ripped off by the other just further highlights the characters the sport attracts.

[The Law]

Guys, just a very polite word of warning. Please be very careful with your wording in this thread to avoid any possibility of defamation/libel

[curtis wood]

The only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised, and some have a pop at me for slagging him

[palooka]

Only coz they know you'll respond.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Whether or not the promoter in this case has to pay any money to burns or not, this ruling is surely going to prove very costly in the long run, - if you were a talented amateur fighter, and had a choice of promoters to sign with on turning professional, this would hardly be a glowing endorsement. In the long run, whatever legal moves you are able to use - reputation is everything in business, and the results of this case can surely only prove detrimental to the promoter in this case.

[lefty]

Some of the judges comments were unintentionally slightly humourous lol ...... "There is no denying Mr Burns' abilities as a boxer. but i am not persuaded by the limited evidence that I have that had Mr Burns fought mr Vasquez, mr burns would of won. I reach that conclusion independently of what happened, but i note that his career did not in the event proceed with it's former level of success"

[Crazyboy]

The only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised, and some have a pop at me for slagging him

Not surprised mate...just genuinely makes me sick. the more I read it the stronger I feel, makes me want to boycott his channel.

In fact sod it, no more matchroom PPV, no more allegedly!!!

Channel 5 for me now!!!!

[lefty]

By the way- I have a question for Parsons or the law or one of the solicitors/lawyers on the forum. I was reading the part about the manager agreement and it said that as part of the agreement the manager has to provide adequate training facilities or something along those lines.

Anyway, my question is if the manager whoever that might be didnt provide those adequate training facilities would the management agreement be null and void and grounds for termination or is that not a serious enough breach?

[Loynesy]

It's an excellent judgement legally. But as Parsons points out, that won't help Burns. I'm assuming burns will refuse to pay and see if warren sues for breach.

[bripez]

By the way- I have a question for Parsons or the law or one of the solicitors/lawyers on the forum. I was reading the part about the manager agreement and it said that as part of the agreement the manager has to provide adequate training facilities or something along those lines.

Anyway, my question is if the manager whoever that might be didnt provide those adequate training facilities would the management agreement be null and void and grounds for termination or is that not a serious enough breach?

I am neither a solicitor or Parsons ....

However ... as always the devil is in the detail (as somebody said earlier) - i.e. define "adequate".

One persons definition of adequate may differ from another - do you want to spend grands on a solicitor (and risk losing and paying the other sides legal fees if you lose) arguing the toss as to whose version is correct ?

[rio]

Unfortunately Warren comes up on top here and gets paid. No harm done as his reputation for not paying paying fighters could not get any worse, this is more standard procedure than anything. You have to feel for burns. Any boxer signing with warren should read this and talk to woodhouse, calzaghe and burns (certain there will be more)

[bripez]

It's an excellent judgement legally. But as Parsons points out, that won't help Burns. I'm assuming burns will refuse to pay and see if warren sues for breach.

And legally speaking, it sounds as though FW would win.

Absurd as it seems, the person is separate from the company, and each company is a separate legal entity - you cannot off-set one from the other.

[lefty]

By the way- I have a question for Parsons or the law or one of the solicitors/lawyers on the forum. I was reading the part about the manager agreement and it said that as part of the agreement the manager has to provide adequate training facilities or something along those lines.

Anyway, my question is if the manager whoever that might be didnt provide those adequate training facilities would the management agreement be null and void and grounds for termination or is that not a serious enough breach?

I am neither a solicitor or Parsons ....

However ... as always the devil is in the detail (as somebody said earlier) - i.e. define "adequate".

One persons definition of adequate may differ from another - do you want to spend grands on a solicitor (and risk losing and paying the other sides legal fees if you lose) arguing the toss as to whose version is correct ?

True.

[Broomhall]

I wonder if Joe Calzaghe got his money when Sports Network got wound up? He also won his case didnt he?

[JimJim2009]

Whether or not the promoter in this case has to pay any money to burns or not, this ruling is surely going to prove very costly in the long run, - if you were a talented amateur fighter, and had a choice of promoters to sign with on turning professional, this would hardly be a glowing endorsement. In the long run, whatever legal moves you are able to use - reputation is everything in business, and the results of this case can surely only prove detrimental to the promoter in this case.

Very good post. Fwank courted Joshua and offered big bucks but Joshua went to earn with Hearn. Eddie has most of the major prospects too. There is enough info 'out there' now regarding fwank and his infamous verbal contracts to scare off the top prospects. There'll be enough prospects who don't get picked up by matchroom to keep fwank going. To me the intriguing thing is what would happen with fwank's fighters now when contracts are up for renewal. I would say, whatever you do, for gods sake do not speak to fwank. You could say good morning it's a lovely day and in six months time in high court it's claimed that you verbally agreed to re-sign with him for another five years.

[lefty]

Whether or not the promoter in this case has to pay any money to burns or not, this ruling is surely going to prove very costly in the long run, - if you were a talented amateur fighter, and had a choice of promoters to sign with on turning professional, this would hardly be a glowing endorsement. In the long run, whatever legal moves you are able to use - reputation is everything in business, and the results of this case can surely only prove detrimental to the promoter in this case.

Very good post. Fwank courted Joshua and offered big bucks but Joshua went to earn with Hearn. Eddie has most of the major prospects too. There is enough info 'out there' now regarding fwank and his infamous verbal contracts to scare off the top prospects. There'll be enough prospects who don't get picked up by matchroom to keep fwank going. To me the intriguing thing is what would happen with fwank's fighters now when contracts are up for renewal. I would say, whatever you do, for gods sake do not speak to fwank. You could say good morning it's a lovely day and in six months time in high court it's claimed that you verbally agreed to re-sign with him for another five years.

[Horse]

Should Warren be allowed to start any more companies?

[JimJim2009]

Should Warren be allowed to start any more companies?

Who would stop him though ? The reality is you could not stop him. You could try, and end up in litigation for god knows how long. It's not a well regulated sport, it's like the Wild West, you can do what you want. If the board say no, wheel out the Luxembourg board instead and the show goes on.

[Parson Cross]

Your question is one for the Board to answer Horse as I referred to earlier. How many licences in how many Co names has the said person held in the last 8 years ?
Will the Board condone said persons tactics leading to ITS MEMBERS being left high and dry ?

[Parson Cross]

Jimjim
If you don't have any fighters you can have as many licences as you want - there is no trade. Time for fighters to wake up and smell the coffee.

[bripez]

According to Companies House, W Promotions Ltd (WPL) has a negative net worth of £1.4m.

Meanwhile, according to the news, "Burns will have to pay Warren personally the sum of £73,000 in respect of management commission which he never knew about or thought would be claimed by Warren".

A pyrrhic victory for Burns.

[JimJim2009]

Jimjim
If you don't have any fighters you can have as many licences as you want - there is no trade. Time for fighters to wake up and smell the coffee.

True but you will never have a time when all the good fighters have gone elsewhere. There will always be a surplus that he can sign. I think the gap in the stables is massive but Eddie cannot keep everyone happy and keep signing more.

I do think fwank has inflicted terminal damage to his operation with these lawsuits. He went after burns for two million and it has been an epic fail. That judgement contains some dirty laundry and I bet the champagne is flowing in the rival camps, in fact I think it was matchroom who posted the judgement.

[TheCobra]

Burns owed the £103k from allegedly Promotions, which is in Liquidation so who knows how much he will get.

Are FW's companies ever NOT in liquidation? I can see why all the boxers do one to Hearn at the first sign of success.

Edited by mod

[ThereByTheGrace]

Horrible mess with no winners. The ugly side of Boxing.

Won't be the first or the last time. Sad to see but the differential between a company and an individual is clear.

If I was a boxer I would want personal guarantees from the directors of the companies

[earsjohn]

Why do the Board allow a boxer to be represented by the same person as a manager and a promoter? Surely it's such an inherent conflict of interest that it should be outlawed?