BoxRec

Would it not be a good idea for the Board to advise young boxers turning pro to sign managerial / promotional contracts with PEOPLE and NOT limited companies. There's potential business here for aspiring young lawyers to offer to act for any/all boxers thinking of turning professional and to sit with them during any contract talks. If the managers and promoters don't want to sign them up on contracts with themselves AND their company then they can walk away,and there's a few decent managers/promoters out there who'd happily comply.

There is so much that is just wrong about this. If Burns's claim that Warren asked him to sign a contract minutes before a fight is true that is utterly disgusting. I'd have pulled off the gloves and went straight to the Adam smith to explain why i wouldn't be fighting. Furthermore what the hell is the point of Alex Morrison? He should have dealt with that situation for Burns. Its not like FW doesnt have previous for not claiming management fees initially before using it in court years later (e.g. Calzaghe).

Why oh why do boxers not employ professional management/sports agencies to represent their interests? Even a lawyer would be better.

Better Call Saul

Earsjohn,
He wasn't managed and promoted by the same person.
He was managed jointly by Wazza and Morrison and promoted by FW Promotions.
FW Promotions owes Ricky £102k but is in liquidation.
Ricky owes Wazza £73k.
Ricky has earned a moral victory but such victories dont pay bills.

What's it got to do with any of us? When you think about it, it's a bit like a knitting club in here sometimes.

Sklar wrote:What's it got to do with any of us? When you think about it, it's a bit like a knitting club in here sometimes.

that could be said about any news mate...its a talking point and without talking points...the forum wouldn't be that great would it.

Yeah, I mean, people on a boxing forum discussing a legal issue pertaining to a dispute between a boxer and a boxing promoter - what a bunch of bleeding gossips eh?

Such a nice guy, allegedly. I hope he loses all his "top" fighters to rival promoters who don't shaft their fighters when it comes to payment.

So in sort. Even though Mr Warren lost the court case. He's actually came out the winner yet again. As he owes Burns nothing but Burns owes him £73,000.

Burns would be lucky to even get 5p in a £1 against FW Promotions.

Mr Warren wins again.

Parson Cross wrote:Jimjim
If you don't have any fighters you can have as many licences as you want - there is no trade. Time for fighters to wake up and smell the coffee.

Time for the fighters to organise themselves and set up a union. Look at other individual sports like tennis and golf. The participants hold all the power, the 'promoters' just set up the events and get a fair proportion of the earnings (not much). It should be the same in boxing.

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.

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.

Jack B wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Jimjim
If you don't have any fighters you can have as many licences as you want - there is no trade. Time for fighters to wake up and smell the coffee.

Time for the fighters to organise themselves and set up a union. Look at other individual sports like tennis and golf. The participants hold all the power, the 'promoters' just set up the events and get a fair proportion of the earnings (not much). It should be the same in boxing.

Didn't Barry McGuigan try that a few years ago and no one joined?

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

expe wrote:

Jack B wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Jimjim
If you don't have any fighters you can have as many licences as you want - there is no trade. Time for fighters to wake up and smell the coffee.

Time for the fighters to organise themselves and set up a union. Look at other individual sports like tennis and golf. The participants hold all the power, the 'promoters' just set up the events and get a fair proportion of the earnings (not much). It should be the same in boxing.

Didn't Barry McGuigan try that a few years ago and no one joined?

Yes he tried to set one up and clearly it didn't work out. That's not to say it couldn't work out now though. It would seem an obvious way for the boxers to organise and empower themselves and become the dominant force financially (the way it should be).

There are clear role models here. Lennox was burnt early in his career and then made sure he had a good lawyer, and an accountant, paid by the hour , not the percentage to draft everything. Mayweather, for all the flaws with Ellerbe, has taken that to the next level.

I'm not personally privy to what Matchroom do, but I'm reliably informed the contracts are properly constituted. I certainly know that Joshua is being very well advised , and that the Hearns are perfectly comfortable with that ie facing a good adviser in negotiations with their fighters. I certainly don't ever see Froch falling out with Matchroom, again, the contracts are correctly drafted.

I wish Burns luck. Sadly , this dispute coincides with his decline as a fighter.

Wow didn't Derry Matthews and Liam Smith recently sign 3 year deals with queensbury. Good luck fella's. Feel for Burns if he ends up paying out. The sad thing is it really doesn't look like he's going to earn too much in the future.

TheCobra wrote: Edited by mod

Be very very careful with your wording fella. He has history on this forum for comments like that and I doubt you can afford to pay out

Both claiming a victory.

broomy7s wrote:Feel for Burns if he ends up paying out. The sad thing is it really doesn't look like he's going to earn too much in the future.

I feel for Burns, after all he has given and all he has achieved he deserves much more from the sport.

Warren is making a mockery of the system, unfortunately the fighters are paying for it. If the board wont stand up to him perhaps we fans should? If anyone has the clout, connections and know how to stir up a meaningful boycott of anything he is involved with I'd be on board with it.

tobyh5 wrote:

TheCobra wrote: Edited by mod .

Be very very careful with your wording fella. He has history on this forum for comments like that and I doubt you can afford to pay out

It would be the forum owner who paid, not the individual. It's the distribution of defamatory material that carries the penalty, and thus the publication, not the individual which is held accountable.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

TheCobra wrote: Edited by mod .

Be very very careful with your wording fella. He has history on this forum for comments like that and I doubt you can afford to pay out

It would be the forum owner who paid, not the individual. It's the distribution of defamatory material that carries the penalty, and thus the publication, not the individual which is held accountable.

Yes please be careful with your wording guys or this thread will have to be locked or deleted. Thanks.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

TheCobra wrote: Edited by mod .

Be very very careful with your wording fella. He has history on this forum for comments like that and I doubt you can afford to pay out

It would be the forum owner who paid, not the individual. It's the distribution of defamatory material that carries the penalty, and thus the publication, not the individual which is held accountable.

Thanks for the clarification on that point. I was unsure how it worked out. But as said, be very wary posting such things.

There must be an awful lot of money kicking about in the sport for people to act so badly.

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.