BoxRec

Every example you have come up with were sued for a reason. Whether you like it or not it was perceived by the other party to the contract that there was still a binding contract in force.
Of the examples you've given how many did the boxer win ?
In the cases of Bellew and Burns the outcome is not yet known.

Bloody hell Parson !

The general point I was making is that I think its good for boxers if we can move away from the occurrence of fighters leaving promoters being a dirty, nasty thing, to being a transparent and open business transaction. I think, in general terms, that this is a good thing for the sport. You keep going on about specifics. Here goes then...

In Hatton's biography he claims that he was on a fight by fight basis with W.arren and chose to go in another direction, ie, not work with him anymore. W.arren sued him, and according to that book the legal action eventually petered out into nothing.

Bellew vs w.arren was heading to the high court when w.arren threw in the towel.

Calzaghe left w.arren and legal action followed, resulting in Joe not getting paid a substantial amount of money for the hopkins fight. The high court judge ridiculed w.arren's claim of a "verbal contract" being in existence for W.arren to promote more fights for Joe than the paper contract covered. This emphasises my point precisely - it is a grey area and it turns nasty. It should be open, transparent, and in black and white so both parties know where they stand.

We don't know the outcome of the Burns legal action but Ricky says the contract is ended, w.arren clearly doesn't think so. This underlines my whole point. A footballer's contract comes to an end at the end of a season, and it should (imo) be like that in boxing - it should be open knowledge, to avoid these nasty recriminations. If you don't agree, fair enough. Personally I don't particularly care, you're entitled to your opinion. I just don't like to see fighters getting sued over arguments about whether or not a promotional contract has ended, which is why I would like to see more transparency and openness on this subject instead of it being shrouded in secrecy.

That's my general point and I stick by it.

I thought Warren won in court against something Hatton claimed and subsequently his book was taken off the shelf.

G0mez wrote:I thought Warren won in court against something Hatton claimed and subsequently his book was taken off the shelf.

Yes, it was pulped.

Ricky "Man of the People" also claimed live on TV that he had a fight with a kid from Bradford written into his contract.

The replies about the Hatton affair are accurate. On the Bellew affair you are wrong in that you are confusing the Management Contract dispute with the Promotional dispute. That as I understand it isn't resolved.
It's important to keep any argument in balance. Boxers aren't always squeaky clean.

MarkMcBurney wrote:Crolla's a Hatton fighter too isn't he?

Yes he is but his last 2 fights have been on other promoters shows. The Farrell fight was Coldwell and the Matthews rematch was Matchroom.

I feel for Scott just now because he is Hattons most promising fighter IMO. He was scaringly good against Rendall Munroe and its dissappointing he has done nothing since. Everyone else in the stable has had a fight or got something lined up since Rickys comeback. Murray and Buckland are in Argentina in a few weeks, Crolla has fought twice, Jazza Dickens won the English Super Bantam title last weekend on the Bellew Chilemba card and Rabchenko had a defence of his Euro title on the Golovkin card in Monte Carlo.

Hope Scott sorts something out pretty sharpish as he is at that stage in his career he should be builidng up momentum in an attempt to hit the BIG time not slowing down.

Couldn't agree with you more mate. I hope Hatton Promotions come up with something and I would be surprised if they don't. That said its not easy. Scott is in danger of being avoided and we all know the thing that makes the avoidance disappear ££££££. Without TV revenue it makes the Promoters job that much harder.

Don't understand people slagging Hatton's shows before he lost the TV deal - if you look at some of the shows he put on a lot of them were far btter than matchroom and maloney's at the time.

Parson Cross wrote:The replies about the Hatton affair are accurate. On the Bellew affair you are wrong in that you are confusing the Management Contract dispute with the Promotional dispute. That as I understand it isn't resolved.
It's important to keep any argument in balance. Boxers aren't always squeaky clean.

Parson you're missing the point I'm trying to make - I am talking about a boxer wanting to leave a promoter, full stop, as in walk away from the guy. If the manager and promoter are one and the same person, or are a father and son team, then its still the same problem - a boxer's career stutters, he loses income and career momentum, opportunities fall by the wayside, and these guys only have a finite amount of time to earn good money. So at the risk of being a broken record, my original point stands - it would be beneficial for the fighters if there was more openess and transparency about their contractual status in terms of remaining fights, because it could help the current problem of hostile departures, legal action, threats, nasty comments to the press, and so on.

I made reference to Bellew because he had been with wa.rren for several years, wanted to leave, was threatened with legal action and the resultant inactivity, legal proceedings were commenced, and he had to continue with his career under this shadow of this - a horrible situation for a fighter to be in. You're splitting hairs by saying "ah but there are two issues, management contracts and promotional contracts". If they're with the same bloke then the substantive problem remains. In legal terms they matter, for the purpose of this debate its stupid. I am not claiming Bellew was entitled to leave, nor am I claiming he wasn't - my point is, it would be better if this sort of important information was open and transparent, in the same way that footballers contracts are, so that all parties know where they stand and don't resort to dirty tactics to keep a fighter.

Parson if you're not keen on this, what would you prefer - the status quo ? Ricky Burns is currently being taken to court by w.arren. W.arren has called him ungrateful and disloyal, and he publicly branded Burn's manager as being "stupid". W.arren has publicly bragged that his case is so watertight, he lawyers are doing it on a no-win, no-fee basis. Even Eddie Hearn has taken the view that if W.arren does have a claim, then its a matter between him and Burns. So Ricky may stand to lose a substantial amount of his earnings through this legal action, it stands to reason that Ricky and his people believe he is in the right and the contract is terminated. Which brings me back to the original point - it would be better for there to be no doubt, so both parties can act accordingly and hostile legal proceedings and mud slinging can be avoided. That makes sense to me, would you prefer to see the current mess continue ?

JimJim2009 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:The replies about the Hatton affair are accurate. On the Bellew affair you are wrong in that you are confusing the Management Contract dispute with the Promotional dispute. That as I understand it isn't resolved.
It's important to keep any argument in balance. Boxers aren't always squeaky clean.

Parson you're missing the point I'm trying to make - I am talking about a boxer wanting to leave a promoter, full stop, as in walk away from the guy. If the manager and promoter are one and the same person, or are a father and son team, then its still the same problem - a boxer's career stutters, he loses income and career momentum, opportunities fall by the wayside, and these guys only have a finite amount of time to earn good money. So at the risk of being a broken record, my original point stands - it would be beneficial for the fighters if there was more openess and transparency about their contractual status in terms of remaining fights, because it could help the current problem of hostile departures, legal action, threats, nasty comments to the press, and so on.

I made reference to Bellew because he had been with wa.rren for several years, wanted to leave, was threatened with legal action and the resultant inactivity, legal proceedings were commenced, and he had to continue with his career under this shadow of this - a horrible situation for a fighter to be in. You're splitting hairs by saying "ah but there are two issues, management contracts and promotional contracts". If they're with the same bloke then the substantive problem remains. In legal terms they matter, for the purpose of this debate its stupid. I am not claiming Bellew was entitled to leave, nor am I claiming he wasn't - my point is, it would be better if this sort of important information was open and transparent, in the same way that footballers contracts are, so that all parties know where they stand and don't resort to dirty tactics to keep a fighter.

Parson if you're not keen on this, what would you prefer - the status quo ? Ricky Burns is currently being taken to court by w.arren. W.arren has called him ungrateful and disloyal, and he publicly branded Burn's manager as being "stupid". W.arren has publicly bragged that his case is so watertight, he lawyers are doing it on a no-win, no-fee basis. Even Eddie Hearn has taken the view that if W.arren does have a claim, then its a matter between him and Burns. So Ricky may stand to lose a substantial amount of his earnings through this legal action, it stands to reason that Ricky and his people believe he is in the right and the contract is terminated. Which brings me back to the original point - it would be better for there to be no doubt, so both parties can act accordingly and hostile legal proceedings and mud slinging can be avoided. That makes sense to me, would you prefer to see the current mess continue ?

I think you will find that the problem lies in the Contract all parties have signed that are not Board contracts coz if its a Boxer/Manager contract which runs for 1 or 3 years either party can walk away at the end of the contact indeed the board at the conclusion the board instruct the boxer to submit another contract The Problems really start when Boxers have signed a contract with the Manager/promotor which has nothing whatsoever to do with the board and thats when litigation comes in as its a civil matter

I thought the Bellew cases were all sorted. The management issue was resolved by legal means (with both sides claiming victory). I recall that the promotional dispute was settled outside of the courtroom.

earsjohn wrote:I thought the Bellew cases were all sorted. The management issue was resolved by legal means (with both sides claiming victory). I recall that the promotional dispute was settled outside of the courtroom.

In the immediate aftermath of Burns and Groves moving to matchroom, Warren mentioned in an interview that he'd dropped his legal action against Bellew after being advised that Bellew was "small fry" by a member of his legal team, and wasn't worth the effort. fwank went on to say that Burns and Eddie need not draw any conclusions from that decision, ie, that he would be a pushover in terms of Burns leaving him.

Hearn and Bellew claimed victory and I saw an interview with w.arren where he admitted that he pretty much threw in the towel as it wasn't worth the hassle. Of course, that would be spin. So anyway I concluded that w.arren had basically failed, you don't instigate legal proceedings in the high court just to throw in the towel later.......

Tell you what I prefer mate is for ALL parties to stick to contracts. Simple. You would not believe some of the contracts boxers sign because they can't be arsed to get proper legal advice at the outset then when it goes wrong its every other fuckers fault.
Likewise with Promotors. Stick to the terms. Some Promotors treat fighters like women. They pick the best shag them senseless then when they get bored they cast them aside - however often they don't want the next man to have em so find a reason to hang on.

Parson Cross wrote:Jim jim,
Boxers have Contracts with Promotors - often 2 years or 3 years.
At the end of the Contract the fighter can either re negotiate or seek a deal elsewhere.
During the life of the Contract terms and conditions apply.
If either side breaches the Contract then either side can rescind the Contract by taking appropriate action initially via the Board or vis the Courts.
If the fighter wins then he is free from the Contract and can join whoever he pleases.
If the fighter loses he is deemed to be under Contract and must stay.
The Contract is not bound by confidentiality so if the fighter wants to reveal details he can.
A copy is lodged with the Board.

Which part of this do you consider is any different to that of a professional footballer ?

That a footballer has an agent and a very supportive 'trade union' and gets paid a weekly wage in the tens of thousands of pounds regardless if they play or not? JIm had a good point - all bets would be off if the the boxer lost a couple on the spin or even boxed an unexciting bout - the relationship often more parasitic than symbiotic. Though I understand that not every every boxer is a saint there must be a few who deserve a 'Bosman' - also the high cost of legal advice can be an issue - maybe more than the boxer can't be bothered to get advice it is that the average boxer turning pro will not have the spare money to pay the £100+ per hour charges, (+ £30 a letter sent).

Parson Cross wrote:Tell you what I prefer mate is for ALL parties to stick to contracts. Simple. You would not believe some of the contracts boxers sign because they can't be arsed to get proper legal advice at the outset then when it goes wrong its every other fuckers fault.
Likewise with Promotors. Stick to the terms. Some Promotors treat fighters like women. They pick the best shag them senseless then when they get bored they cast them aside - however often they don't want the next man to have em so find a reason to hang on.

Spot on mate lots of boxers just sign anything thats put in front of them then as you say blame everybody else when it goes pear shaped just because the carnt be bothered to read it or take advice personally i have no sympathy

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Ricky "Man of the People" also claimed live on TV that he had a fight with a kid from Bradford written into his contract.

Yeah I remember, poor Junior Witter chased that fight for so long to no avail.

spudder56 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Tell you what I prefer mate is for ALL parties to stick to contracts. Simple. You would not believe some of the contracts boxers sign because they can't be arsed to get proper legal advice at the outset then when it goes wrong its every other fuckers fault.
Likewise with Promotors. Stick to the terms. Some Promotors treat fighters like women. They pick the best shag them senseless then when they get bored they cast them aside - however often they don't want the next man to have em so find a reason to hang on.

Spot on mate lots of boxers just sign anything thats put in front of them then as you say blame everybody else when it goes pear shaped just because the carnt be bothered to read it or take advice personally i have no sympathy

I take the point, but I also wonder what sort of pressure is put on boxers to sign an extension to the contract. Burns alluded to this when he split from w.arren. In a lot of areas of life, it is accepted for you to take a proposal away, give it due consideration and reflection, and seek advice. Wonder if boxers get that option, or if they're pressured to just sign another extension behind closed doors. Ie, you might be frowned upon for asking if you can take the proposal away and have it checked out by, for example, eddie hearn before signing it

spudder56 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Tell you what I prefer mate is for ALL parties to stick to contracts. Simple. You would not believe some of the contracts boxers sign because they can't be arsed to get proper legal advice at the outset then when it goes wrong its every other fuckers fault.
Likewise with Promotors. Stick to the terms. Some Promotors treat fighters like women. They pick the best shag them senseless then when they get bored they cast them aside - however often they don't want the next man to have em so find a reason to hang on.

Spot on mate lots of boxers just sign anything thats put in front of them then as you say blame everybody else when it goes pear shaped just because the carnt be bothered to read it or take advice personally i have no sympathy

Most people sign things when they haven't read the small print; for the most part it is because they do not have any leaverage to get a better deal or offer and have to take it or leave it. Most contractual disagreements are over the interpretation of terms; that is why highly paid advocates earn very good money going over the finer details and wording- they get paid by the day (hour) and can string a case on for a long time. An average professiona boxer does not box even for an area title and does not make tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds and they cannot hope to have the financial clout to fight it out in court - they risk losing everything; the bigger promotional firms have legal insurance and or paid legal advisers (on salary); it's pretty much a mismatch really.

palooka wrote:

spudder56 wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Tell you what I prefer mate is for ALL parties to stick to contracts. Simple. You would not believe some of the contracts boxers sign because they can't be arsed to get proper legal advice at the outset then when it goes wrong its every other fuckers fault.
Likewise with Promotors. Stick to the terms. Some Promotors treat fighters like women. They pick the best shag them senseless then when they get bored they cast them aside - however often they don't want the next man to have em so find a reason to hang on.

Spot on mate lots of boxers just sign anything thats put in front of them then as you say blame everybody else when it goes pear shaped just because the carnt be bothered to read it or take advice personally i have no sympathy

Most people sign things when they haven't read the small print; for the most part it is because they do not have any leaverage to get a better deal or offer and have to take it or leave it. Most contractual disagreements are over the interpretation of terms; that is why highly paid advocates earn very good money going over the finer details and wording- they get paid by the day (hour) and can string a case on for a long time. An average professiona boxer does not box even for an area title and does not make tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds and they cannot hope to have the financial clout to fight it out in court - they risk losing everything; the bigger promotional firms have legal insurance and or paid legal advisers (on salary); it's pretty much a mismatch really.

Fair point but if they only signed board contracts you wouldnt need solicitors

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Ricky "Man of the People" also claimed live on TV that he had a fight with a kid from Bradford written into his contract.

Do these contracts have to be shared with the BBBofC when signed? Or some other office organisation which could easily clarify whether or not a contract was still valid?

black panther wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Ricky "Man of the People" also claimed live on TV that he had a fight with a kid from Bradford written into his contract.

Yeah I remember, poor Junior Witter chased that fight for so long to no avail.

Still makes me laugh when people say Witter had his number though. I like Witter, he's a good fighter but he'd have been handily beaten by Ricky.

So why didn't Ricky fight him, for an easy pay day ?

Parson Cross wrote:So why didn't Ricky fight him, for an easy pay day ?

It would not have been an easy payday. He would undoubtedly have made Ricky look bad and possibly put thousands of casuals who followed Rick off the sport! Watching Witter box Gavin just confirmed to me Hatton had made the right decision. Ricky was an all action, exciting fighter, Junior was the complete opposite.