BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:Maybe allegedly can use some of the money to pay back Calzaghe from that company that ceased trading

It's pretty mental that in this country you can just wind down a company, and start another one, thereby avoiding paying your creditors - I don't understand how the law is so lax as to allow that to happen - is there no personal liability in these instances?

One thing is certain, getting into a legal battle with allegedly, only ever seems to end one way. I think the only person who vaguely came out on top, was Don King, but I seem to recall they came to some sort of terms in the end?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:Maybe allegedly can use some of the money to pay back Calzaghe from that company that ceased trading

It's pretty mental that in this country you can just wind down a company, and start another one, thereby avoiding paying your creditors - I don't understand how the law is so lax as to allow that to happen - is there no personal liability in these instances?

whole point of a limited company is that your liability is limited, as long as you haven't treated certain creditors preferentially then you can do it and start up again, buying the assets and work in progress cheaply and leave the debts behind as this can protect jobs, designed to try and protect employees but open to abuse by the unscrupulous

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Leaves Liam Smith in a tricky spot methinks.

True and I would imagine if Liam's mind was not yet made up to move, this would do it - the bit about Paul now owing somebody 47k I mean.

As a fighter could you sign up with a promoter as a limited company? If the promoter can do it could the fighter do the same?

rio wrote:As a fighter could you sign up with a promoter as a limited company? If the promoter can do it could the fighter do the same?

Don't see why not but it would be up to the promoter and they probably wouldn't like it for the reasons being discussed

There is no promoter in the history of British boxing who has done more for the game then FW.

It's very easy to try to paint him as some kind of uk don king and say 'poor Ricky burns/smith etc blah blah blah' but the fact is without promoters we don't have boxing full stop.

The overwhelming fact is this - FW has made more fighters mega rich/well off/comfortable then any other promotional organization in British boxing.

Ricky Burns breached his contract as stated in a Court of law, yes he was poorly advised by Alex Morrison and fast Eddie (who should be ashamed) but he is his own man who thought he could screw the man who gave him (a relatively limited fighter) two world title opportunities on home soil and in turn showed Frank zero loyalty when he was financially struggling.

As a result, Burns who is now totally shot will probably be fighting 8 rounders all over the uk on undercards against Euro trash or African bums like Saturday's until he's in his 40s...the grass is not always greener.

Though the grass is sometimes greener and Mr Warren has been at the top of British boxing for decades, he's paid boxers what he felt they were worth/what he could get away with, he's not paid them over the odds out of kindness - the same as every other business man, including fast Eddie I'd imagine.

Burns bass been a pro for donkeys years and had an Indian summer to his career, if he wanted to be financially set through his efforts then of course he'd listen to other people and take advice. My mind boggles that a lawyer would advise him to jump ship of he were under a contract, the lawyer ought to be made to explain their advise, Burns can't be faulted really, Warren will have made good money off his back and I imagine his home is bought and paid for and he's no worries for retirement - let's be clear about it, Mr Warren has risked money while the boxers have risked their health and lives.

Manchester Hitman wrote:There is no promoter in the history of British boxing who has done more for the game then FW.

It's very easy to try to paint him as some kind of uk don king and say 'poor Ricky burns/smith etc blah blah blah' but the fact is without promoters we don't have boxing full stop.

The overwhelming fact is this - FW has made more fighters mega rich/well off/comfortable then any other promotional organization in British boxing.

Ricky Burns breached his contract as stated in a Court of law, yes he was poorly advised by Alex Morrison and fast Eddie (who should be ashamed) but he is his own man who thought he could screw the man who gave him (a relatively limited fighter) two world title opportunities on home soil and in turn showed Frank zero loyalty when he was financially struggling.

As a result, Burns who is now totally shot will probably be fighting 8 rounders all over the uk on undercards against Euro trash or African bums like Saturday's until he's in his 40s...the grass is not always greener.

Joe Calzaghe

JimJim2009 wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Leaves Liam Smith in a tricky spot methinks.

True and I would imagine if Liam's mind was not yet made up to move, this would do it - the bit about Paul now owing somebody 47k I mean.

Paul owing Warren money is down to him and his lawyers, they tried to take a dispute over a managerial contract that clearly said that all disputes will be handled by the British Boxing Board of Control into court. Unsurprisingly the court threw it out, said that jurisdiction remained with the board and ordered Smith to pay Fwank's legal costs. The case also named Jamie McDonnell and Dennis Hobson, so I presume that McDonnell now has to pay Hobson's costs too.

Liam's always been clear that he's his own man and he'll decide what's best for his career, if anything it shows him that he shouldn't try and get into a legal battle with Warren. If he wants his world title fight he'll stick around for a while yet.

Deadendgeneration wrote:

Manchester Hitman wrote:There is no promoter in the history of British boxing who has done more for the game then FW.

It's very easy to try to paint him as some kind of uk don king and say 'poor Ricky burns/smith etc blah blah blah' but the fact is without promoters we don't have boxing full stop.

The overwhelming fact is this - FW has made more fighters mega rich/well off/comfortable then any other promotional organization in British boxing.

Ricky Burns breached his contract as stated in a Court of law, yes he was poorly advised by Alex Morrison and fast Eddie (who should be ashamed) but he is his own man who thought he could screw the man who gave him (a relatively limited fighter) two world title opportunities on home soil and in turn showed Frank zero loyalty when he was financially struggling.

As a result, Burns who is now totally shot will probably be fighting 8 rounders all over the uk on undercards against Euro trash or African bums like Saturday's until he's in his 40s...the grass is not always greener.

Joe Calzaghe

What about him? Are you talking about the years of promotional work and investment put into him when Joe by his own admission wasn't a very willing self promoter, didn't sell tickets, cancelled fights due to injuries, threatened to pull out of ours such as Lacey, didn't want to get on planes etc?

Or are u referring to the bankruptcy thing? Well if u do your research then you will know that the judge was almost equally scathing to both Joe and Frank about there antics. the two have since mad up as evidence with Joe being ringside at Cleverly fights when he was with Frank and they settled the financials

As far as i was led to believe Burns wasnt getting paid what he was owed by Wazza and thats the main reason why he jumped ship

Wasn't Joe bought along on the undercards of better known fighters until he could headline a show? He certainly seemed to ratchet up the knockout wins, Joe seemed to do a lot of self promotion by knocking people silly and he was well known to boxing fans before he turned pro having won 3 ABA titles at different weights, the first person to do so. Calzaghe was just about a certainty to have a successful and lucrative career, it was him, Hamed and Shaun Gray from that era who had the skill and power to be big names.

palooka wrote:Wasn't Joe bought along on the undercards of better known fighters until he could headline a show? He certainly seemed to ratchet up the knockout wins, Joe seemed to do a lot of self promotion by knocking people silly and he was well known to boxing fans before he turned pro having won 3 ABA titles at different weights, the first person to do so. Calzaghe was just about a certainty to have a successful and lucrative career, it was him, Hamed and Shaun Gray from that era who had the skill and power to be big names.

Shame about Calzaghe's hands later on or he would've been even better

You can say the same about Mayweather too

Would Burn's career have been different if he had kept with FW ? If he wasn't being paid he would have been better taking legal advice on that rather than jumping ship, whatever he has been poorly advised throughout. Surely that is why he had a manager to check contracts etc and if there has been negligence then he has a case against him ?

tony1234 wrote:Would Burn's career have been different if he had kept with FW ? If he wasn't being paid he would have been better taking legal advice on that rather than jumping ship, whatever he has been poorly advised throughout. Surely that is why he had a manager to check contracts etc and if there has been negligence then he has a case against him ?

I'm at a loss as well Tony, it seems as if Smith, Burns and Jamie had professional advice prior to jumping ship, how is it that they are liable for any money? Isn't it the professionals who have given shoddy advice who are liable? You're supposed to be able to trust a lawyer to know the law - I'm sure they charge as professional experts so their advice should be up to scratch.

palooka wrote:

tony1234 wrote:Would Burn's career have been different if he had kept with FW ? If he wasn't being paid he would have been better taking legal advice on that rather than jumping ship, whatever he has been poorly advised throughout. Surely that is why he had a manager to check contracts etc and if there has been negligence then he has a case against him ?

I'm at a loss as well Tony, it seems as if Smith, Burns and Jamie had professional advice prior to jumping ship, how is it that they are liable for any money? Isn't it the professionals who have given shoddy advice who are liable? You're supposed to be able to trust a lawyer to know the law - I'm sure they charge as professional experts so their advice should be up to scratch.

I wouldn't fancy my chances of winning a court case against a legal advisor.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

palooka wrote:

tony1234 wrote:Would Burn's career have been different if he had kept with FW ? If he wasn't being paid he would have been better taking legal advice on that rather than jumping ship, whatever he has been poorly advised throughout. Surely that is why he had a manager to check contracts etc and if there has been negligence then he has a case against him ?

I'm at a loss as well Tony, it seems as if Smith, Burns and Jamie had professional advice prior to jumping ship, how is it that they are liable for any money? Isn't it the professionals who have given shoddy advice who are liable? You're supposed to be able to trust a lawyer to know the law - I'm sure they charge as professional experts so their advice should be up to scratch.

I wouldn't fancy my chances of winning a court case against a legal advisor.

Though don't advisers have indemnity insurance? A client ought to be able to get coherent and true legal advice and if a judge makes a judgement against the client, isn't it the adviser at fault?

I would have thought that legal advisors must be protected somehow, otherwise every single time a court case went against someone, they could then sue the legal advisors.

Unless you could prove negligence, or professional misconduct, I don't see how you could sue someone simply because a judgement went against you, that would be completely unworkable.

I imagined that professional standards were there to maintain the quality of advice given, the law is the law, surely? If I had a legal query and went to a solicitor who said one thing and I went to another who told me different I'd be flabbergasted. A contract is supposed to be clear in its expectations, they are drawn up by lawyers so there's supposed to be little quibble?

Sugar Ray Leonard is one of the smartest boxers in the history of the game. The reason I say that is the first thing he did when he turned pro was to hire a top lawyer.... Mike Trainer. There's a lesson there somewhere.

palooka wrote:I imagined that professional standards were there to maintain the quality of advice given, the law is the law, surely? If I had a legal query and went to a solicitor who said one thing and I went to another who told me different I'd be flabbergasted. A contract is supposed to be clear in its expectations, they are drawn up by lawyers so there's supposed to be little quibble?

You would think so, but who knows, I've never seen such a contract, so I've no idea.

rio wrote:As a fighter could you sign up with a promoter as a limited company? If the promoter can do it could the fighter do the same?

If course they can, but it wont happen.

Unless you are an Anthony Joshua and have managers and promoters queuing up to sign you (and the money to pay for the specialist advice), it will be a case of "there's a contract, either sign it or don't".

All of this "it is the boxer who employs the manager/promoter" etc. is one of those cases where it is fine in theory, but we all know that it really isn't the case in practice.

palooka wrote:I imagined that professional standards were there to maintain the quality of advice given, the law is the law, surely? If I had a legal query and went to a solicitor who said one thing and I went to another who told me different I'd be flabbergasted. A contract is supposed to be clear in its expectations, they are drawn up by lawyers so there's supposed to be little quibble?

A lawyer gets paid no matter if you win or lose. It's unlikely they'd tell Burns he was going to lose the case.

It's absolutely beyond belief that Burns still has anything to do with Alex Morrison. Whilst Hearn and FW can be slagged off (and neither come out of this smelling of roses), ultimately the promoter is - in effect - employing the boxer. It's surely the manager's duty (rather than the promoter) to protect the best interests of the boxer and, therefore, it is he that has to be accountable when a disaster like this occurs. Why, oh why, has Burns not removed AM and got somebody different involved?

Surely at some point boxers will realise it's in their best interests to try and set up some sort of union?!?!?

expe wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:Leaves Liam Smith in a tricky spot methinks.

True and I would imagine if Liam's mind was not yet made up to move, this would do it - the bit about Paul now owing somebody 47k I mean.

Paul owing Warren money is down to him and his lawyers, they tried to take a dispute over a managerial contract that clearly said that all disputes will be handled by the British Boxing Board of Control into court. Unsurprisingly the court threw it out, said that jurisdiction remained with the board and ordered Smith to pay Fwank's legal costs. The case also named Jamie McDonnell and Dennis Hobson, so I presume that McDonnell now has to pay Hobson's costs too.

Liam's always been clear that he's his own man and he'll decide what's best for his career, if anything it shows him that he shouldn't try and get into a legal battle with Warren. If he wants his world title fight he'll stick around for a while yet.

He'd be better off with his brothers at matchroom. If fwank delivers a world title fight, he would put a contract extension in front of him first and effectively Liam would be tied to the channel. If you have to sign a deal you are better off on sky.

Regardless of why Paul owes the 47k, it doesn't take a genius to work out who's face will be on the family dartboard in the smith household. That was the point I was trying to make.