BoxRec

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/warren ... al-damages

I'm very, very puzzled - nay, astonished - by the comments attributed to FW by Jeff Powell of the Mail.

http://hostpicturefree.com/images/jlawokbob.gif

>_> who is she?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:That picture is extraordinarily childish.

What's the point of the news part of this site if it's just going to be used for personal attacks?

Thanks for the feedback.

It isn't just used for personal attacks though, is it? Even this piece isn't one.

This weekend the news site reported from three London bills, Motherwell, Dundee, Swindon and Dundalk.

Which other site is doing that?

"...While this was pending he was paid a large part of his purse for his latest fight..."

He says it like he's doing Burns a favour! (if he did indeed say it)

I find it interesting that they're holding-off until Wed to announce their next signing. I thought why not do it today ?

Perhaps their next signing is awaiting their license to be renewed tomorrow by the BBBoC.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

dondada wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:That picture is extraordinarily childish.

What's the point of the news part of this site if it's just going to be used for personal attacks?

Thanks for the feedback.

It isn't just used for personal attacks though, is it?

This weekend the news site reported from three London bills, Motherwell, Dundee, Swindon and Dundalk.

Which other site is doing that?

So good aspects of the news section make up for childish attacks, that have nothing to do with the news being presented? The glee over recent events has been practically palpable on here, is it too much really to expect the news site to take a more partial view of goings on? I would expect a picture like that on the board, not in the news.

Oh well, I'm afraid everything can't be governed by what you, personally, 'would expect'.

Please copy and paste the text of ONE 'childish attack' (on the individual in question, that is). You won't find one, not because of the impeccable character of the many writers involved in contributing to the site but more so because of the appalling law of defamation which exists in this country, the revision of which is hugely overdue (and is currently and tragically being scuppered by Lord Puttnam).

Actually, the pic has gone which is good because she was doing my head in.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:http://hostpicturefree.com/images/jlawokbob.gif

>_> who is she?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lawrence

greenyox3 wrote:"...While this was pending he was paid a large part of his purse for his latest fight..."

He says it like he's doing Burns a favour! (if he did indeed say it)

Does this sentence expose the whole thing ?? If "his latest fight" means the Kevin Mitchell one, that we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

I presume this is a correct interpretation, the only other way to read it would be if W.arren is referring to paying Burns upfront for the Vasquez fight. I don't think it means this.

We can deduce something else - Warren says he is now deducting his management fee from Burns, and is backdating the deductions. These will be deducted from the remaining balance of the part-paid purse, presumably the one for the Kevin Mitchell fight. So Warren is shafting Burns then - basically he's saying he will not pay Burns in full for the Mitchell fight. What a robbing bastard. It gives fans a new trivia question, what have Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Burns got in common.... they had big fights under this shyster promoter and never got paid

JimJim2009 wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:"...While this was pending he was paid a large part of his purse for his latest fight..."

He says it like he's doing Burns a favour! (if he did indeed say it)

Does this sentence expose the whole thing ?? If "his latest fight" means the Kevin Mitchell one, that we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

I presume this is a correct interpretation, the only other way to read it would be if W.arren is referring to paying Burns upfront for the Vasquez fight. I don't think it means this.

We can deduce something else - Warren says he is now deducting his management fee from Burns, and is backdating the deductions. These will be deducted from the remaining balance of the part-paid purse, presumably the one for the Kevin Mitchell fight. So Warren is shafting Burns then - basically he's saying he will not pay Burns in full for the Mitchell fight. What a robbing bastard. It gives fans a new trivia question, what have Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Burns got in common.... they had big fights under this shyster promoter and never got paid

The situation regarding Calzaghe's unpaid purse from the Hopkins fight was disgusting and still rankles with me, and is perhaps one of the reasons why fwank gets such open disdain from the British boxing public.

Why did the BBBoC never revoke Fwank's manager and promoters licence following the Court judgment in that case??

Why did the BBBoC never revoke Fwank's manager and promoters licence following the Court judgment in that case??[/quote]

Last year's Haye vs Chisora show, or rather the fuss surrounding it, showed exactly what authority the BBBoC really have......

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

Without knowing the agreement/contract between them we can't deduce anything. It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract or Ricky would have been off ages ago, I would have thought.

I think he's been getting away with it by promising "jam tomorrow" - he admits he had offered Ricky an "improved contract" after the Mitchell fight. Yet, by his own admission, he hasn't paid Burns in full for that fight. It seems like fwank was dangling a carrot in front of Ricky, ie, "okay I'm not paying you in full right now, however here's a better contract". Sometimes this approach will work, sometimes it doesn't, as with Bellew, DeGale etc.

Most contracts that state payment within say 30 days will get breached at some point in time, late payments are a fact of life.

By the way was anyone else struck by how crap Burns' overall wages have been since the Martinez fight ? Fwank says Ricky has earned "close to" a quarter of a million pounds over the seven world title fights. That's around a hundred grand per fight on average. Hardly peanuts but hardly fantastic either for a popular world champ.

JimJim2009 wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

Without knowing the agreement/contract between them we can't deduce anything. It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract or Ricky would have been off ages ago, I would have thought.

I think he's been getting away with it by promising "jam tomorrow" - he admits he had offered Ricky an "improved contract" after the Mitchell fight. Yet, by his own admission, he hasn't paid Burns in full for that fight. It seems like fwank was dangling a carrot in front of Ricky, ie, "okay I'm not paying you in full right now, however here's a better contract". Sometimes this approach will work, sometimes it doesn't, as with Bellew, DeGale etc.

Most contracts that state payment within say 30 days will get breached at some point in time, late payments are a fact of life.

By the way was anyone else struck by how crap Burns' overall wages have been since the Martinez fight ? Fwank says Ricky has earned "close to" a quarter of a million pounds over the seven world title fights. That's around a hundred grand per fight on average. Hardly peanuts but hardly fantastic either for a popular world champ.

Look at WHO he's been fighting though, Cook, Evensen and Laryea won't have been worth too much combined, surely?
Martinez I don't think he'll have gotten THAT much for considering he was the challenger and a pretty bit under dog
Katsidis and Mitchell would have been nice pay days though I'd imagine.

And like Dark Destroyer said, I'd read 3/4 of a million as well.

I believe Fwank is clutching at straws. I doubt Morrison and Burns would have left had they been in a binding contract. According to Hearn only Morrison is registered with BBBofC as Burns manager and I believe this is something he would have checked out before signing him.

Warren just strikes me as an angry person, even before all this started you could see in interviews from last year that he gets really wound up and defensive whenever discussing other promoters. Eddie Hearn said yesterday the Burns situation was a carbon copy of the Bellew case so I guess Frank is likely to lose again.

Sorry, meant to write three quarters of a million, not a quarter. My mistake. Don't sue me fwank !

So Dubya is withholding some of the Mitchell money to offset the management fee he has never taken but all of a sudden feels he is due?! Incredible.

I thought there was a rule that you couldn't be promoter and manager, since that would be like negotiating with yourself?

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

Without knowing the agreement/contract between them we can't deduce anything. It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract or Ricky would have been off ages ago, I would have thought.

Your consistent and stock defence is that we don't know enough to make any judgments on this matter. Firstly, quite a few people on here know plenty of detail. If you don't, I understand where you're coming from.

But now, in the face of a direct quote from FW seeming to say that Burns wasn't paid in full for his last fight, you're now saying not being paid in full according to the BBBoC rules is likely to be in Burns' contract. Seriously?

Your consistent and stock defence is that we don't know enough to make any judgments on this matter. Firstly, quite a few people on here know plenty of detail. If you don't, I understand where you're coming from.

But now, in the face of a direct quote from FW seeming to say that Burns wasn't paid in full for his last fight, you're now saying not being paid in full according to the BBBoC rules is likely to be in Burns' contract. Seriously?[/quote]

Given that Burns has left w.arren and gone with a new promoter, and given that w.arren is now suing Burns, it is fair and reasonable to presume that the payments were late, and the contract did not allow for this.

You wrote this: "It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract"

That seems quite straightforward to interpret but perhaps you meant something else.

You're right to draw a distinction re what's public knowledge and what isn't.

As for your 'common sense' approach, there's an alternative view which says if one left, one might not get the money one is owed at all; if one stays, there is a chance.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

dondada wrote:You wrote this: "It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract"

That seems quite straightforward to interpret but perhaps you meant something else.

You're right to draw a distinction re what's public knowledge and what isn't.

As for your 'common sense' approach, there's an alternative view which says if one left, one might not get the money one is owed at all; if one stays, there is a chance.

I also said 'Without knowing the agreement/contract between them we can't deduce anything.' I didn't think I'd have to write it twice. As for staying and you might get paid, that did occur to me, but it's been nearly six months. Why would you put up with it for this long? It's been about four and a half months since he was supposed to have been paid by BBBofC rules, you would probably give someone a grace period but after that you'd start legal proceedings, wouldn't you? This is a lot of money he's not getting paid. allegedly might be a lot of things but he's not above the law, if a contract says X and he doesn't do X he's in breach of the contract. That's why I think it must be something they've agreed to in some way. Have Burns' camp even stated their reasons for leaving yet? I'm interested to hear them when they do.

I'm guessing that having a carrot dangled in front of you for even bigger bucks might keep you going. Imagine a scenario where you are owed £10k, get £6k and told you'll have a job in between to get £3k and a mega job next summer for £25k. You would probably think to yourself that's a good deal, may as well stick it out. When the £3k job never materialises you hold out hope for the £25k job but when that goes, you get out.

The figures are low and have no link to any other issues in this topic!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

dondada wrote:You wrote this: "It does baffle me how he seemingly gets away with paying his fighters so late (if at all) it must be in the contract"

That seems quite straightforward to interpret but perhaps you meant something else.

You're right to draw a distinction re what's public knowledge and what isn't.

As for your 'common sense' approach, there's an alternative view which says if one left, one might not get the money one is owed at all; if one stays, there is a chance.

I also said 'Without knowing the agreement/contract between them we can't deduce anything.' I didn't think I'd have to write it twice. As for staying and you might get paid, that did occur to me, but it's been nearly six months. Why would you put up with it for this long? It's been about four and a half months since he was supposed to have been paid by BBBofC rules, you would probably give someone a grace period but after that you'd start legal proceedings, wouldn't you? This is a lot of money he's not getting paid. allegedly might be a lot of things but he's not above the law, if a contract says X and he doesn't do X he's in breach of the contract. That's why I think it must be something they've agreed to in some way. Have Burns' camp even stated their reasons for leaving yet? I'm interested to hear them when they do.

You don't have to write anything twice for me. All I'm saying is you suggested late payment might be in the contract. Didn't you? That, as far as I'm concerned, is an utterly ludicrous suggestion. 'Agreeing' to it (retrospectively?) is rather different.

I can understand your incredulity and the logic you outline...but that pot of gold was always just over the horizon...perhaps...

freddydoesdallas wrote: I'm guessing that having a carrot dangled in front of you for even bigger bucks might keep you going. Imagine a scenario where you are owed £10k, get £6k and told you'll have a job in between to get £3k and a mega job next summer for £25k. You would probably think to yourself that's a good deal, may as well stick it out. When the £3k job never materialises you hold out hope for the £25k job but when that goes, you get out.

Et, voila.

JimJim2009 wrote:

greenyox3 wrote:"...While this was pending he was paid a large part of his purse for his latest fight..."

He says it like he's doing Burns a favour! (if he did indeed say it)

Does this sentence expose the whole thing ?? If "his latest fight" means the Kevin Mitchell one, that we can deduce two things; (a) Burns wasn't paid on time, (b) Burns only received part of the purse, not the whole amount.

I presume this is a correct interpretation, the only other way to read it would be if W.arren is referring to paying Burns upfront for the Vasquez fight. I don't think it means this.

We can deduce something else - Warren says he is now deducting his management fee from Burns, and is backdating the deductions. These will be deducted from the remaining balance of the part-paid purse, presumably the one for the Kevin Mitchell fight. So Warren is shafting Burns then - basically he's saying he will not pay Burns in full for the Mitchell fight. What a robbing bastard. It gives fans a new trivia question, what have Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Burns got in common.... they had big fights under this shyster promoter and never got paid

I agree there are more things to take from this piece that shine a NEGATIVE light on Warren than there are positive. The man is a total snake.

So we can deduce that Burns has only received part-payment for Mitchell fight 'whilst Warren tried to renegotiate his contract', supposedly being offered better terms, but probably being tied in to Warren more and more tightly. So basically, it actually sounds like bribery.

Warren is saying , "I'm keeping this other payment for Mitchell, as a gun to your head, until you sign this new contract with me and will keep this money if you then decide to go off with Eddie Hearn".

I therefore feel, that if this were to go to court, Warren wouldn't actually have a leg to stand on, as he has witheld payments owed to burns and tried to use them as a negotiating tool. What a scumbag.

I have to say I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned that Hearn completely rules out any major fight for Burns in the near future. He admits Broner likely wont be coming back from 147 and that Vazquez is not an immediate priority. He's going to 'build' Burns in Glasgow which seems completely unecessary given he's had numerous title defences there and already attracts 10k plus.

Sadly, 'building' probably means a string of utterly appalling defences. Contrast the reality with Hearn's claim that Burns immediately mentioned Broner. I cannot fathom that - does Burns fundamentally not understand boxing? He was offered the fight as late as last weekend and turned it down, Broner is gone for him.

For me Burns is peaking and its now or never for the big fights. Sadly he appears to have decided he'd rather be a WBO stay at home paper champ rather than an actual top level fighter. Such a shame.