BoxRec

mahatma wrote:congratulations to joe calzaghe on his latest victory, pleased he won

Man invents wheel

http://forum.boxrec.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=98095

Gwannnnn, Joe!

I would not be surprised to see Fwank wind up Sports Networks to avoid paying him!


Mash him down!!!

Is there a Lawyer in the house...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/480.html

How to pay the sanctioning fees on a £2.2m purse, allegedly

# On 2 November 2007 the Defendant and Mr Warren signed a document which reflected the terms which had been agreed on 1 November 2007. This document, however, contained the following addition beneath the signatures of the two men.

"For the purposes of sanctioning fees Sports Network will disclose to each of the governing bodies that you have received one million pounds only".

Those words were written by Mr Lyndon Roberts. It is he who had produced the final document to the Defendant for his signature. Mr Roberts' evidence, which I accept, was that the Defendant suggested the addition of those words. Mr Roberts also said that the Defendant did not sign the document until the words had been added although I am less clear about whether that is correct. I say that for this reason. I have no doubt that Mr Roberts would not have written those words upon that document unless expressly sanctioned to do so by Mr Warren or Mr Simons. Quite what the sequence of events was, in those circumstances, is, in my judgment, impossible to discern.

The words written upon the document by Mr Roberts reflect no credit on the Claimant or the Defendant. The words were intended to deceive the relevant governing bodies as to the true amount of the remuneration received by the Defendant in respect of his fight with Mr Kessler. The words had the effect of reducing the Defendant's liability for sanctioning fees. He wished to avoid paying a proportion of the correct fees and the Claimant and one or more of its senior officers or employees were complicit in the deception.

Ant Evans wrote:I've printed the whole thing out and it is next to the bog. I intent to read through every world while taking a dump. Is that wrong?

That is one long shit you're gonna have !

Ant Evans wrote:I've printed the whole thing out and it is next to the bog. I intent to read through every world while taking a dump. Is that wrong?

Yes, it sounds like a serious bout of constipation.

I've just read the entire judgement.

Not sure I want to give my professional opinion on a forum like this in too much detail, but in broad strokes: (i) the judge was highly critical of everyone's conduct, for the media to focus solely on Calzaghe's bad faith is highly one-sided and (ii) the judge utterly rejected the idea of an oral contract between Calzaghe and SN for the Jones fight.

Not quite sure what the basis of Fwank's appeal would be.

What I would say, is that the standard of drafting for contracts is shocking.

how more fights does khan have under warren ? im sure his contract expires in June /july somtime.
i reakon khan will leave warren soon though.
all ican say is good one Joe. hahaha warren !what a sore loser.

Loynesy wrote:I've just read the entire judgement.

Not sure I want to give my professional opinion on a forum like this in too much detail, but in broad strokes: (i) the judge was highly critical of everyone's conduct, for the media to focus solely on Calzaghe's bad faith is highly one-sided and (ii) the judge utterly rejected the idea of an oral contract between Calzaghe and SN for the Jones fight.

Not quite sure what the basis of Fwank's appeal would be.

What I would say, is that the standard of drafting for contracts is shocking.

Spineless gutless media

Autobarn wrote:

Loynesy wrote:I've just read the entire judgement.

Not sure I want to give my professional opinion on a forum like this in too much detail, but in broad strokes: (i) the judge was highly critical of everyone's conduct, for the media to focus solely on Calzaghe's bad faith is highly one-sided and (ii) the judge utterly rejected the idea of an oral contract between Calzaghe and SN for the Jones fight.

Not quite sure what the basis of Fwank's appeal would be.

What I would say, is that the standard of drafting for contracts is shocking.

Spineless gutless media

The big issue is that Calzaghe had a binding agreement that Joe would get 50% of the profits of the Hopkins fight (Hopkins getting the other 50%). These profits would then be split with Warren 80/20 in Joes favour. Joe fought the fight but Warren withheld a share of Joe's money...allegedly

My T Sharp wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

Loynesy wrote:I've just read the entire judgement.

Not sure I want to give my professional opinion on a forum like this in too much detail, but in broad strokes: (i) the judge was highly critical of everyone's conduct, for the media to focus solely on Calzaghe's bad faith is highly one-sided and (ii) the judge utterly rejected the idea of an oral contract between Calzaghe and SN for the Jones fight.

Not quite sure what the basis of Fwank's appeal would be.

What I would say, is that the standard of drafting for contracts is shocking.

Spineless gutless media

The big issue is that Calzaghe had a binding agreement that Joe would get 50% of the profits of the Hopkins fight (Hopkins getting the other 50%). These profits would then be split with Warren 80/20 in Joes favour. Joe fought the fight but Warren withheld a share of Joe's money...allegedly

yeah well it serves warren right to sue joe in the first place. hahaha.

My T Sharp wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

Loynesy wrote:I've just read the entire judgement.

Not sure I want to give my professional opinion on a forum like this in too much detail, but in broad strokes: (i) the judge was highly critical of everyone's conduct, for the media to focus solely on Calzaghe's bad faith is highly one-sided and (ii) the judge utterly rejected the idea of an oral contract between Calzaghe and SN for the Jones fight.

Not quite sure what the basis of Fwank's appeal would be.

What I would say, is that the standard of drafting for contracts is shocking.

Spineless gutless media

The big issue is that Calzaghe had a binding agreement that Joe would get 50% of the profits of the Hopkins fight (Hopkins getting the other 50%). These profits would then be split with Warren 80/20 in Joes favour. Joe fought the fight but Warren withheld a share of Joe's money...allegedly

Because by the time all the money was in, Warren knew Calzaghe wanted to do a further fight by himself. Depending on who you believe, this was either (i) justifiable as a means of set-off from the money Fwank should have got from the oral agreement to promote the Jones fight or (ii) a negotiating tactic - its always harder to sue for money if you don't have it.....

Loynesy wrote:Because by the time all the money was in, Warren knew Calzaghe wanted to do a further fight by himself. Depending on who you believe, this was either (i) justifiable as a means of set-off from the money Fwank should have got from the oral agreement to promote the Jones fight or (ii) a negotiating tactic - its always harder to sue for money if you don't have it.....

Got to be (ii) I think Joe begrudged paying Warren 20% of the Hopkins money because Golden Boy were doing all the main promotional work. Obviously he didn't want to pay the same for the Jones fight, but Frank didn't want to give up 20% of a huge amount...allegedly

If I was involved with any young fighter I would make them read this judgement. The profit motive is obvious for promoters and of course if the promoter doesn't make money then he goes out of business. But there is a way to do it honestly, and this is just the latest, and most visible example of Sports Network/ FW and his crowd doing business in an extremely underhand way.

It is interesting that Joe made FW (and assoc.) put a clause in his contract stipulating best endevours to secure a unification fight. This seems to back up the argument that Joe's career stagnation was down to Warren not Joe.

Surely the boxers involved with Warren will read this and hopefully now watch him like a hawk. The judge suggested there were quite a number of unfair terms in one of the contracts which massively favoured the promoter/manager.

As for fraudulently understating the purse vs Kessler! This is virtually on a par with tax evasion! Say what you want about the alphabets, but this is outrageous. How will they react to this? Surely they have a case for clawing it back?
Joe is clearly no angel either, but he comes across as naive at best and a little sneaky at worst.

Having read the judgement in full, I felt sick reading some of the sh1te reported in the media. Why no mention of the £1m alphabets swindle?