BoxRec

So there is currently now Ricky Burns and Kevin Mitchell who are going to be or have been served notice by W@rrens legal team. Obviously Hearn thinks he is fine to sign them and Franky doesn't....it will be interesteing to see what happens hear. Anyone got any information as to what both fighters are using as there legal loop hole out of their contracts?

I think the general argument is that the contract specifies payment for fights within a set period of time, the promoter has broken this condition, and thanks in part to the BBBC ruling on the Bellew case, fighters believe the contract is void and they are free to enter into another one. Since they're cheesed off at how their careers are going, and don't want to spend the rest of their fighting days on an obscure subscription channel, they see greener grass on Eddie's side of the valley and are heading over there en-masse.

Its a subject that interests me but I'm just an armchair fan so I don't think either of the parties involved will be rushing to sign me for legal representation just yet....

What's particularly interesting is that w.arren claimed his legal fight against Burns is so stacked in his favour, that his lawyers offered to do it on a no-win, no fee basis. That might have been an exaggeration to save face or frighten the other party.

What's also interesting is how fighters have left w.arren after he gave up trying to sue over the Bellew case. You can see why he throws the book at anyone daring to stand up to him - first rock of the landslide and all that. A few rocks have tumbled, it'll be interesting to see who's next.

The subject name is a bit of a misnomer. The war isn't between bunny and nice guy Eddie; it's between Bunny and the fighters that choose to leave him.

I would be surprised if Nice guy Eddie is footing the bill for his newly acquired fighters

ThereByTheGrace wrote:The subject name is a bit of a misnomer. The war isn't between bunny and nice guy Eddie; it's between Bunny and the fighters that choose to leave him.

I would be surprised if Nice guy Eddie is footing the bill for his newly acquired fighters

Nice guy

JimJim2009 wrote:What's particularly interesting is that w.arren claimed his legal fight against Burns is so stacked in his favour, that his lawyers offered to do it on a no-win, no fee basis. That might have been an exaggeration to save face or frighten the other party.

What's also interesting is how fighters have left w.arren after he gave up trying to sue over the Bellew case. You can see why he throws the book at anyone daring to stand up to him - first rock of the landslide and all that. A few rocks have tumbled, it'll be interesting to see who's next.

If its so stacked in his favour, rather than instructing someone on a no-win, no-fee basis, he'd instruct a decent firm knowing the court will award his costs when he wins....

Was there not a press release stating that allegedly had nothing to do with Kevin Mitchell, and that Mitchell was signed to Queensberry and not allegedly?

Cant blame em all, we all go to work and expect to get paid !!!!!

lusop wrote:Cant blame em all, we all go to work and expect to get paid !!!!!

to be fair though if it cost your boss loads to get you to work and pay out all sorts and then you turned up and didn't give a toss etc then they'd not be best pleased either.

JimJim2009 wrote:I think the general argument is that the contract specifies payment for fights within a set period of time, the promoter has broken this condition, and thanks in part to the BBBC ruling on the Bellew case, fighters believe the contract is void and they are free to enter into another one. Since they're cheesed off at how their careers are going, and don't want to spend the rest of their fighting days on an obscure subscription channel, they see greener grass on Eddie's side of the valley and are heading over there en-masse.

Its a subject that interests me but I'm just an armchair fan so I don't think either of the parties involved will be rushing to sign me for legal representation just yet....

So it'll all come down to whether his not paying within the set period of time is a 'repudiatory breach' of the contract that has the effect of ending the contract immediately. Without express wording in the contract saying that that is what would happen (unlikely if the lawyers who represented Warren when the contract was drafted were any good at all), the legal test is whether Warren not paying on time removes substantially all the benefit of the contract to the fighter.

At a guess, whether the contract is void or not would depend on a) whether Warren and the fighters intended the contract to end immediately if Warren didn't pay within a certain time - this depends on the contract's wording and possibly also the communications between Warren and the fighter in the time before the contract was made - and b) how far after the set period of time Warren paid the fighters and the effect this had on the fighter.

palooka wrote:

lusop wrote:Cant blame em all, we all go to work and expect to get paid !!!!!

to be fair though if it cost your boss loads to get you to work and pay out all sorts and then you turned up and didn't give a toss etc then they'd not be best pleased either.

For such a legality obsessed individual, its a bit surprising that such occurences weren't accounted for in the contracts of his men. Not Hearns fault that, nor the fighters.

Standard employment contracts include conditions for lack of punctuality and absence so its hardly unprecedented.