SMALL AXE1 wrote:Hearns should pay this. Will he? No.thepocketrocket wrote:If Matchroom gave Ricky awful advice, Matchroom should be paying the bill.
Sadly they won't as Hearn, despite the nice suit is like any other promoter. All these mongs who are on 'Team Hearn' on twitter need to realise that! Business is business to everyone.
And him also!Tomasino wrote:SMALL AXE1 wrote:Hearns should pay this. Will he? No.thepocketrocket wrote:If Matchroom gave Ricky awful advice, Matchroom should be paying the bill.
Sadly they won't as Hearn, despite the nice suit is like any other promoter. All these mongs who are on 'Team Hearn' on twitter need to realise that! Business is business to everyone.
Thomas Hearns?
I agree however if marketed right FW could still make money out of him, he's a big draw in scotland still and frank could get him some entertaining intercontinental and eliminator fights.mickey1975 wrote:Why would Fwank want him back? He's been beaten twice, arguably three times, and knocked from pillar to post in his only successful defence! His last bout was on an undercard in Leeds. Fwank can point at Burns as an example of how the grass isn't always greener.Finn wrote:If I were Burns and providing he isn't locked into a contract with matchroom, I would be contacting FW cap in hand and apologetic, asking if there were some type of agreement they could come to if he was willing to sign him again.
People give FW a lot of stick but fighters also need to remember the grass isnt always greener, FW protected Burns and did some fantastic match making for him.
Hearn on the other hand stuck Burns in with Terrence (turns out he's awesome) Crawford, even after seeing him struggle with lower level fighters, and from what i hear are now looking to stick him in with someone else he is unlikely to beat.
True but its not hearn he owes a fortune to.Parson Cross wrote:If Wazza can make money out of him so can Hearn.
i suppose it all depends on the contract he has with hearn.palooka wrote:If he went back to Frank could Eddie sue him (Burns)?
Kugan is like the Paul Foot, or the John Pilger, of pugilism journalism isn't he?ALI wrote:Its a shame Kugan failed to discuss the matter with Hearn during the recent 2 hour IFLTV 1 on 1 question and answer session. Perhaps it was agreed prior to the interview that legal matters concerning Burns/Warren and Matchrooms supposed involvement in all of it was not to be brought up?
Teddy's Toupee wrote:Hearn's says Kugan's tongue is the finest toilet paper he's ever experienced, allegedly.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that is going to be discussed by either side? It's an on-going legal matter (now Burns has appealed.) IFL have done interviews with Mr Warren since the ruling and Burns' appeal too, why didn't Kugan ask him about his thoughts? Because it is on-going and it isn't appropriate to discuss it yet.ALI wrote:Its a shame Kugan failed to discuss the matter with Hearn during the recent 2 hour IFLTV 1 on 1 question and answer session. Perhaps it was agreed prior to the interview that legal matters concerning Burns/Warren and Matchrooms supposed involvement in all of it was not to be brought up?
Ok, understood, thanks for enlightening this idiot Burns has appealed and the case is still ongoing, i guess i missed that headline!jameswilson wrote:You'd have to be an idiot to think that is going to be discussed by either side? It's an on-going legal matter (now Burns has appealed.) IFL have done interviews with Mr Warren since the ruling and Burns' appeal too, why didn't Kugan ask him about his thoughts? Because it is on-going and it isn't appropriate to discuss it yet.ALI wrote:Its a shame Kugan failed to discuss the matter with Hearn during the recent 2 hour IFLTV 1 on 1 question and answer session. Perhaps it was agreed prior to the interview that legal matters concerning Burns/Warren and Matchrooms supposed involvement in all of it was not to be brought up?
Agreed, but i did not know it was ongoing, hence why i was interested to hear what Hearn has to say as i feel Matchroom may be partly responsible for Burns current predicament. I'm a big fan of IFLTV, i think they are a blessing for British boxing fans, they do some great work. You've misinterpreted my post, theres no moaning from me.jameswilson wrote:Yeah sorry for calling you an idiot, but come on, discussing ongoing legal stuff is always a no no in these kinds of interviews, and moaning about what IFL do amazes me.
It also amazes me that there seemed to be this huge 'oh noooooo' reaction when one recent ruling went in Burns's favour and then when this one went against him there seemed to be a huge celebration and everyone high fiving each other.
No that last paragraph I wasn't directing at yourself. I do get a clear feeling some on here are glad part of. The ruling has gone against Burns tho, and were likewise slightly gutted the other part of the ruling didn't go the other way.ALI wrote:Agreed, but i did not know it was ongoing, hence why i was interested to hear what Hearn has to say as i feel Matchroom may be partly responsible for Burns current predicament. I'm a big fan of IFLTV, i think they are a blessing for British boxing fans, they do some great work. You've misinterpreted my post, theres no moaning from me.jameswilson wrote:Yeah sorry for calling you an idiot, but come on, discussing ongoing legal stuff is always a no no in these kinds of interviews, and moaning about what IFL do amazes me.
It also amazes me that there seemed to be this huge 'oh noooooo' reaction when one recent ruling went in Burns's favour and then when this one went against him there seemed to be a huge celebration and everyone high fiving each other.
In respect the the recent ruling going against Burns, the reaction i'm seeing is one of anger towards Fwanks business practicies and pitty for Burns as he may be financially ruined if this holds up. Where have you witnessed a huge celebration Fwank won the case and will recieve substantial sums for loss of earnings (from a fighter he failed to pay) and for costs incurred???
JimJim2009 wrote:At some point before Ricky jumped ship, he was given advice that he could do so and not get into hot water over it. Eddie publicly endorsed that advice. Subsequent court decisions have shown that advice to be dubious. For all we know Ricky may be more angry with the advice provider than with fwank. Morrison as the manager has proven to be poor in terms of good advice at vital times. With him as your manager and fwank your enemy, you're knackered really.
Hence the reason i'd like to hear what both Burns and Eddie have to say on the matter. If the case is ongoing we are probably going to have to wait a while longer before they speak publicly on it. Saying that, Warren himself has been vocal enough.JimJim2009 wrote:At some point before Ricky jumped ship, he was given advice that he could do so and not get into hot water over it. Eddie publicly endorsed that advice. Subsequent court decisions have shown that advice to be dubious. For all we know Ricky may be more angry with the advice provider than with fwank.