BoxRec

Maybe it is time for someone to suggest that FW be barred from acting as director of a company under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

I had assumed that burns left Warren for the same reason as others..... Not getting paid??

Manchester Hitman wrote:So no credit for Warren for expertly monouvering Burns to win 2 World titles on home soil and putting him in position to fight for purses at around £160k...

People go on about fighters needing protection which is true but so do promoters especially ones
Putting on shows with his own money, on his own channel and taking on all the risk without the safety
Of sky tv...so when Burns decides to hightail it to sky after FW has funded home shots for world titles
Most reasonable people would understand him being slightly pissed...As the judge said there was no legal reason for Burns to renage on his contact.

Nobody is saying that - promoters take risk, that is understood, they also reap the rewards for investment when the big money fights come - that's the way it works, risk and reward, you won't get one without the other - it's called business - it's nothing to get dewy-eyed about - it's not like Frank is running a charitable organisation and doing it all out of the goodness of his own heart.

I'm not attempting to demonise the man, however, this issue is about owed money, and money owed should be paid, simple as that. Obviously Frank may have an entirely different opinion on the matter, in fact, given the circumstances, he certainly does - this is why we have laws, so that people's personal opinions do not dictate what happens in matters such as business. Frank clearly wasn't happy that after all his investment, Burns decided to jump ship - that is understandable, but monies owed, is monies owed.

drew"]

expe wrote:

Jack B wrote:

earsjohn wrote: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?

Absolutely right. The Ali Act outlawed it in the US (I think), we need the same here ASAP.

And Al Haymon still seems to be finding a way around it.

Al Haymon is an advisor DD[/quote]


I've never heard a fighter say Al hadn't paid him. He's actually renowned for getting his fighters good purses.

Also, Warren has now been found to have lied under oath in two trials. This means that:

a) if he ever threatens to start a libel suit against anyone on Boxrec (or indeed anyone else) for calling him a dishonest, lying fornicating weasel, there is now a very straightforward defence, especially in light of the reformed defamation laws in England and Wales: he has been proven a liar in court on more than one occasion and there are therefore always legitimate grounds to doubt that anything he says (which is not corroborated by other evidence) is true.

b) it's high time that the possibility of opening proceedings for perjury and/or contempt of court against Warren is looked into. Lying in court is a sufficiently serious offence to merit prison time, and he clearly has not yet been discouraged from doing so.

c) as I stated above, the winding-up of FWP presents a fresh opportunity for the Official Receiver to look into whether it's not time to assess whether FW should once again be banned from acting as a director of a company, as he was for most of the 1990s. Not only has he been proven in court to have lied in lawsuits related to his businesses, he has on more than on occasion wound up companies which owed very large sums of money to his boxers - and on at least two occasions there has been a very strong suspicion that this was done at least in part to evade personal responsibility for his debts to boxers. This is of course not illegal - limited companies are different legal persons from their shareholders and directors - but there are laws on director disqualification for a good reason. The administrator for FWP might want to look into whether Warren, contrary to the Insolvency Act 1986, allowed his company to continue trading when he knew it couldn't pay its debts - possibly when it became apparent that he was going to lose his suit with Burns. Anyone with more time than I have to look into this might like to contact the Insolvency Service (https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company).

Two other points arise. If FWP has gone into liquidation, none of the other boxers signed up to Warren via FWP are now under contract to him, unless of course these contracts were novated to a new allegedly company - which would require the boxer's consent. I wonder if he or his company, as their manager, has ever advised them of their freedom to move promoter? No conflict of interest there then...

Finally, there is certainly something extremely distasteful about FW using limited companies to shelter himself from liability to the boxers he employs while apparently not advising his boxers to do the same (unless someone can throw up an example for me of a Warren fighter that has actually done this). Given his duty as their manager to act in their best interests (fiduciary if not contractual), this is a pretty clear example of the inherent danger in allowing such conflicts of interest in British boxing.

Good post Dookus, interesting reading.

You might thing that somebody from the insolvency office, legal authorities, DTI or some body would actually do something.

I deliberately omitted the BBBofC from the list as I have no faith whatsoever that they would take any action.

I read the judgement document and learned that in the contract, the fighter can be transferred to another promotional company. Dunno if that is a standard thing.

I would be interested to know if the practice of folding boxing promotion companies is rare in this country. To the best of my knowledge Maloney, Hatton, Hennessy and matchroom have not done this once.

JimJim: Sort of. Under Clause 29, the Promoter has the right to transfer his rights under the contract to another entity of his choosing. For example, commission on the boxer's earnings. This is usually called in law an "assignment" of rights. But assigning one party's rights under the contract to a third party does not transfer the other party's obligations under the contract to a third party. To do that you need a "novation" which is essentially a brand new contract - hence it would require the boxer's consent.

As to whether this is standard, I couldn't answer that, but I can certainly see why you would want a clause allowing you to assign your rights under a contract to another entity if you have a history of winding up companies...

Excellent posts dookus, thank you

dookus wrote:JimJim: Sort of. Under Clause 29, the Promoter has the right to transfer his rights under the contract to another entity of his choosing. For example, commission on the boxer's earnings. This is usually called in law an "assignment" of rights. But assigning one party's rights under the contract to a third party does not transfer the other party's obligations under the contract to a third party. To do that you need a "novation" which is essentially a brand new contract - hence it would require the boxer's consent.

As to whether this is standard, I couldn't answer that, but I can certainly see why you would want a clause allowing you to assign your rights under a contract to another entity if you have a history of winding up companies...

It is standard practice. I was in a similar situation to the boxers in your example. The contract I had signed permitted assignment to a third party by the company I was dealing with. I had to give my permission but could only refuse it if the directors of the company the contract was being assigned to were not fit and proper (or words to that effect). I hope that makes sense - I'm no lawyer.

bripez wrote:Good post Dookus, interesting reading.

You might thing that somebody from the insolvency office, legal authorities, DTI or some body would actually do something.

I deliberately omitted the BBBofC from the list as I have no faith whatsoever that they would take any action.

Don't you have to either be declared bankrupt or an 'unfit person' in order to be barred from being a company director? Even then, there would be ways around this - I hasten to add, I am not suggesting that such things should happen in this case.

dookus wrote:Also, Warren has now been found to have lied under oath in two trials. This means that:

a) if he ever threatens to start a libel suit against anyone on Boxrec (or indeed anyone else) for calling him a dishonest, lying effing weasel, there is now a very straightforward defence, especially in light of the reformed defamation laws in England and Wales: he has been proven a liar in court on more than one occasion and there are therefore always legitimate grounds to doubt that anything he says (which is not corroborated by other evidence) is true.

b) it's high time that the possibility of opening proceedings for perjury and/or contempt of court against Warren is looked into. Lying in court is a sufficiently serious offence to merit prison time, and he clearly has not yet been discouraged from doing so.

c) as I stated above, the winding-up of FWP presents a fresh opportunity for the Official Receiver to look into whether it's not time to assess whether FW should once again be banned from acting as a director of a company, as he was for most of the 1990s. Not only has he been proven in court to have lied in lawsuits related to his businesses, he has on more than on occasion wound up companies which owed very large sums of money to his boxers - and on at least two occasions there has been a very strong suspicion that this was done at least in part to evade personal responsibility for his debts to boxers. This is of course not illegal - limited companies are different legal persons from their shareholders and directors - but there are laws on director disqualification for a good reason. The administrator for FWP might want to look into whether Warren, contrary to the Insolvency Act 1986, allowed his company to continue trading when he knew it couldn't pay its debts - possibly when it became apparent that he was going to lose his suit with Burns. Anyone with more time than I have to look into this might like to contact the Insolvency Service (https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company).

Two other points arise. If FWP has gone into liquidation, none of the other boxers signed up to Warren via FWP are now under contract to him, unless of course these contracts were novated to a new allegedly company - which would require the boxer's consent. I wonder if he or his company, as their manager, has ever advised them of their freedom to move promoter? No conflict of interest there then...

Finally, there is certainly something extremely distasteful about FW using limited companies to shelter himself from liability to the boxers he employs while apparently not advising his boxers to do the same (unless someone can throw up an example for me of a Warren fighter that has actually done this). Given his duty as their manager to act in their best interests (fiduciary if not contractual), this is a pretty clear example of the inherent danger in allowing such conflicts of interest in British boxing.

interesting, and valid point

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

bripez wrote:Good post Dookus, interesting reading.

You might thing that somebody from the insolvency office, legal authorities, DTI or some body would actually do something.

I deliberately omitted the BBBofC from the list as I have no faith whatsoever that they would take any action.

Don't you have to either be declared bankrupt or an 'unfit person' in order to be barred from being a company director? Even then, there would be ways around this - I hasten to add, I am not suggesting that such things should happen in this case.

You can be declared an "unfit person" for your conduct in relation to the insolvency of a company - but there are plenty of other reasons beside just bankruptcy or fraud for why disqualification might be deemed a suitable punishment. "Wrongful trading" under the Insolvency Act 1986 (broadly speaking, allowing a company which cannot avoid insolvency to continue trading) can lead to a disqualification order, for example. Additionally you don't have to actually be a director to be disqualified - it is enough to be a "shadow" director - i.e. someone who the legal directors follow in their decision-making. It does make you wonder how he carried on promoting while apparently disqualified as a director for a good chunk of the 90s...

dookus wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

bripez wrote:Good post Dookus, interesting reading.

You might thing that somebody from the insolvency office, legal authorities, DTI or some body would actually do something.

I deliberately omitted the BBBofC from the list as I have no faith whatsoever that they would take any action.

Don't you have to either be declared bankrupt or an 'unfit person' in order to be barred from being a company director? Even then, there would be ways around this - I hasten to add, I am not suggesting that such things should happen in this case.

You can be declared an "unfit person" for your conduct in relation to the insolvency of a company - but there are plenty of other reasons beside just bankruptcy or fraud for why disqualification might be deemed a suitable punishment. "Wrongful trading" under the Insolvency Act 1986 (broadly speaking, allowing a company which cannot avoid insolvency to continue trading) can lead to a disqualification order, for example. Additionally you don't have to actually be a director to be disqualified - it is enough to be a "shadow" director - i.e. someone who the legal directors follow in their decision-making. It does make you wonder how he carried on promoting while apparently disqualified as a director for a good chunk of the 90s...

You a solicitor Dookus? You have an impressive knowledge of legalities hence the question

Unmasked! I'm a trainee solicitor at a City firm.

dookus wrote:Unmasked! I'm a trainee solicitor at a City firm.

Don't give any more personal information away than that, mate. Seriously. London might be a big city but The City is small.

The courts seem to be like casinos where some people come out on top whether or not they are in the right; justice looks like pot luck and it seems a rich mans fancy.

Sklar wrote:

dookus wrote:Unmasked! I'm a trainee solicitor at a City firm.

Don't give any more personal information away than that, mate. Seriously. London might be a big city but The City is small.

And Fwank will comes out the shadows ....

I can see dookus waking up with a horses head in his bed.

palooka wrote:I can see dookus waking up with a horses head in his bed.

DD