BoxRec

Every time an ex fighter leaves Warren's stable to go to Matchroom he always says they are under contract and he will be taking legal action yet nothing ever comes of it.

Ricky Burns and Kevin Mitchell were the last 2 fighters I can think of who were going to be taken down by his team of lawyers but it always goes quiet almost making it seem like it is hot air coming from Warren.

Can anyone elaborate on whether any legal action took place or is taking place or are his contracts not worth the paper written on?

I believe there is a Board hearing about the boxers you named happening real soon. I presume court action will begin after?

TopGun wrote:Every time an ex fighter leaves Warren's stable to go to Matchroom he always says they are under contract and he will be taking legal action yet nothing ever comes of it.

Ricky Burns and Kevin Mitchell were the last 2 fighters I can think of who were going to be taken down by his team of lawyers but it always goes quiet almost making it seem like it is hot air coming from Warren.

Can anyone elaborate on whether any legal action took place or is taking place or are his contracts not worth the paper written on?

A good lawyer can get someone out of almost any contract, its a very grey area legally speaking.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:
A good lawyer can get someone out of almost any contract, its a very grey area legally speaking.

Greyer than a a copy of Glamour Grannies.

The Board have to adjudicate first before resorting to civil litigation.

I always want to see these contracts as FW says the fighter is still in contract and the fighter always says the contracts over ! Someone's telling porkies

jessi wrote:I always want to see these contracts as FW says the fighter is still in contract and the fighter always says the contracts over ! Someone's telling porkies

As i said, If you have a clever lawyer you can pretty much always get out of any contract, by claiming it has been breached or is unreasonable in terms of restraint of trade or whatever.

It won't be a case of a fighters contract expiring and FW pretending it isn't.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

jessi wrote:I always want to see these contracts as FW says the fighter is still in contract and the fighter always says the contracts over ! Someone's telling porkies

As i said, If you have a clever lawyer you can pretty much always get out of any contract, by claiming it has been breached or is unreasonable in terms of restraint of trade or whatever.

It won't be a case of a fighters contract expiring and FW pretending it isn't.

Surely if anyone has a good lawyer it must Fwank,christ the man must be busier than santa at xmas,he,ll have plenty of experience :P

handsofstone wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

jessi wrote:I always want to see these contracts as FW says the fighter is still in contract and the fighter always says the contracts over ! Someone's telling porkies

As i said, If you have a clever lawyer you can pretty much always get out of any contract, by claiming it has been breached or is unreasonable in terms of restraint of trade or whatever.

It won't be a case of a fighters contract expiring and FW pretending it isn't.

Surely if anyone has a good lawyer it must Fwank,christ the man must be busier than santa at xmas,he,ll have plenty of experience :P

Its much easier to get out of a contract than to keep someone under contact against their will.

I thought the Burns court case was due this spring, fwank has been incredibly confident of victory from day one, I recall him saying his lawyers evaluated the case and said they'd do it on a no-win, no-fee basis, such was their confidence. I'm not saying its been done on that basis, but fwank made the quip as if to underline his confidence.

Could be a bad spring for Ricky, he'll be dethroned in March and fwank has repeatedly said he is going for "substantial" damages.

I'm sure when Eddie was telling him the grass is greener on the other side, he promised to cover eventualities like Ricky being taken to the fxxking cleaners

JimJim2009 wrote:I thought the Burns court case was due this spring, fwank has been incredibly confident of victory from day one, I recall him saying his lawyers evaluated the case and said they'd do it on a no-win, no-fee basis, such was their confidence. I'm not saying its been done on that basis, but fwank made the quip as if to underline his confidence.

Could be a bad spring for Ricky, he'll be dethroned in March and fwank has repeatedly said he is going for "substantial" damages.

I'm sure when Eddie was telling him the grass is greener on the other side, he promised to cover eventualities like Ricky being taken to the fxxking cleaners

Maybe Eddie will let Bunny have Burns back for free in a couple of months DD

JimJim2009 wrote:I thought the Burns court case was due this spring, fwank has been incredibly confident of victory from day one, I recall him saying his lawyers evaluated the case and said they'd do it on a no-win, no-fee basis, such was their confidence. I'm not saying its been done on that basis, but fwank made the quip as if to underline his confidence.

Could be a bad spring for Ricky, he'll be dethroned in March and fwank has repeatedly said he is going for "substantial" damages.

I'm sure when Eddie was telling him the grass is greener on the other side, he promised to cover eventualities like Ricky being taken to the fxxking cleaners

I have to say I think he has reason to be confident, I haven't seen the contract and don't know anything of it or how boxing contracts work, but I don't see where a breach of contract came from. Ricky was in the ring regularly and after moving up to lightweight his opponents were all top 10 in the world after three gimmes to guarantee Warren made back the loss he likely made on the Martinez fight. Fights fell through in December through car crashes and the death of Ocampo's trainer, then there was the Vazquez debacle, but that fight was rearranged, whether Vazquez had agreed to that is unknown. Personally, I think Vazquez agreed to fight on the original date, but a purse wasn't agreed, but the fight wasn't announced and as the fight got closer, Vazquez felt it wasn't going to happen and eased off his training, a deal was then agreed, but Vazquez wanted more time to prepare, so they pushed the fight back and went with the dodgy seafood excuse, that was then ruined by the footage of him sparring when he was supposed to have the shits. That's just my view on it, but I don't see where the breach of contract was.

The Burns "camp" are confident that FW has breached their contract with the 3 late pull outs and FW's camp are "confident" that they have not.

It will just come down to who has the better lawyers and what the judge has had for lunch etc.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The Burns "camp" are confident that FW has breached their contract with the 3 late pull outs and FW's camp are "confident" that they have not.

It will just come down to who has the better lawyers and what the judge has had for lunch etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but the pullouts don't seem very good grounds for termination when Liam Walsh was in a car crash, Ocampo's trainer died and Alex Morrison is on record saying that so they must be pinning their hopes on the Vazquez pullout that was rearranged for 5 weeks later.

expe wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:I thought the Burns court case was due this spring, fwank has been incredibly confident of victory from day one, I recall him saying his lawyers evaluated the case and said they'd do it on a no-win, no-fee basis, such was their confidence. I'm not saying its been done on that basis, but fwank made the quip as if to underline his confidence.

Could be a bad spring for Ricky, he'll be dethroned in March and fwank has repeatedly said he is going for "substantial" damages.

I'm sure when Eddie was telling him the grass is greener on the other side, he promised to cover eventualities like Ricky being taken to the fxxking cleaners

I have to say I think he has reason to be confident, I haven't seen the contract and don't know anything of it or how boxing contracts work,

What a great start to a post, you should have stopped there.

expe wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The Burns "camp" are confident that FW has breached their contract with the 3 late pull outs and FW's camp are "confident" that they have not.

It will just come down to who has the better lawyers and what the judge has had for lunch etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but the pullouts don't seem very good grounds for termination when Liam Walsh was in a car crash, Ocampo's trainer died and Alex Morrison is on record saying that so they must be pinning their hopes on the Vazquez pullout that was rearranged for 5 weeks later.

Im not a lawyer either.

This conversations reminds me of one of those Smith and Jones head to head sketches...

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

expe wrote: I have to say I think he has reason to be confident, I haven't seen the contract and don't know anything of it or how boxing contracts work,

What a great start to a post, you should have stopped there.

May I introduce you to expe mate.

A man who moans when the 6th, 7th and 8th fights down a boxing card are not a 50-50 wars.

jameswilson wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

expe wrote: I have to say I think he has reason to be confident, I haven't seen the contract and don't know anything of it or how boxing contracts work,

What a great start to a post, you should have stopped there.

May I introduce you to expe mate.

A man who moans when the 6th, 7th and 8th fights down a boxing card are not a 50-50 wars.

Thanks for the introduction Old Chap, from the little I've seen of him, he is a very exciting prospect.

Only a true great can get away with starting a post by stating "I have no idea what I'm talking about"

Its almost arrogant.

jameswilson wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

expe wrote: I have to say I think he has reason to be confident, I haven't seen the contract and don't know anything of it or how boxing contracts work,

What a great start to a post, you should have stopped there.

May I introduce you to expe mate.

A man who moans when the 6th, 7th and 8th fights down a boxing card are not a 50-50 wars.

and then makes excuses for frankie gavins poor opponents......

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:The Burns "camp" are confident that FW has breached their contract with the 3 late pull outs and FW's camp are "confident" that they have not.

It will just come down to who has the better lawyers and what the judge has had for lunch etc.

"Justice is the whim of the judge."

A bit harsh on Expe there ?!

He's only chipping in with his thoughts, which is what a boxing forum's all about. It's a fascinating subject and the eventual court decision will have serious ramifications through the domestic promotional landscape. I see where Expe is coming from. I guess that Ricky was paid late, and in instalments. There may be nothing specific in the standard contracts about this sort of thing (ie, does a late or part payment invalid the whole agreement), therefore one party to the contract thinks it has been breached, the other party does not. Each will have legal opinion in support.

That's my guess. I am sure whatever money was owed eventually got paid in full, minus deductions for losses incurred when Ricky withdrew from the title fight already arranged (Fwank has already said publicly he is keeping that money), thus the promoter will think he has a solid case that the contract remains valid.

then there was the Vazquez debacle, but that fight was rearranged, whether Vazquez had agreed to that is unknown. Personally, I think Vazquez agreed to fight on the original date, but a purse wasn't agreed, but the fight wasn't announced and as the fight got closer, Vazquez felt it wasn't going to happen and eased off his training, a deal was then agreed, but Vazquez wanted more time to prepare, so they pushed the fight back and went with the dodgy seafood excuse, that was then ruined by the footage of him sparring when he was supposed to have the shits. That's just my view on it, but I don't see where the breach of contract was.[/quote]

There's been a lot of this sort of thing going on though - announcing a fight before it's been formally agreed. I bet its usually kept hush hush but every now and then publicity breaks and we get a peek behind the curtain, as with Wilder-Chisora. It's alright the promoter moaning about legal problems keeping Wilder out of the UK but part of your job when booking a fight is to make sure the marquee opponent booked to come over, can actually come over. That period of time with Ricky Burns was laughable, one fight after another was announced, and Bronner caused mischief by offering to fight Ricky in Feb, it was no surprise when Ricky gave up on his promoter. I felt it was a case of the boxer mirroring what the fans felt - that the announcements and proposed fights weren't to be trusted.

It always seems to be FW who announces fight before there signed,we seem to be seeing it again with the Cleverly/Amann fight for the Commonwealth title(which now Conquest is supposidely fighting for?)

Then we get Eddie announcing that fights are signed and sealed but we have to wait a week to find out who it is,granted nowhere near as bad but still a pain

JimJim2009 wrote:A bit harsh on Expe there ?!

He's only chipping in with his thoughts, which is what a boxing forum's all about. It's a fascinating subject and the eventual court decision will have serious ramifications through the domestic promotional landscape. I see where Expe is coming from. I guess that Ricky was paid late, and in instalments. There may be nothing specific in the standard contracts about this sort of thing (ie, does a late or part payment invalid the whole agreement), therefore one party to the contract thinks it has been breached, the other party does not. Each will have legal opinion in support.

That's my guess. I am sure whatever money was owed eventually got paid in full, minus deductions for losses incurred when Ricky withdrew from the title fight already arranged (Fwank has already said publicly he is keeping that money), thus the promoter will think he has a solid case that the contract remains valid.

Was a bit of selective quoting going on, followed by a couple of others having digs, but it's all good, although I'm not sure how someone who attempts to defend Kell Brook's opponents can have a go, people in glass houses, pot, kettle, black and all that.

Late payments do seem to be a complaint about Warren, I suspect he has cash flow issues because he's trying to run his own TV channel and the money he's plowed into that mean his cash reserves are low, although I'm sure he has plenty in his personal bank account. I think legal precedents may play a big part and what the contract stated about payments will be important in determining if there was a breach. Then there's the question of what happens afterwards, Fwank must know that he's not getting Burns back, but he will surely want compensation if he wins and his lawyers will be after their fees, so in that case someone would have to pay them, I just hope it isn't Ricky, he doesn't deserve to lose money because he was badly advised. Ricky's managed by Alex Morrison, so it's a different case to Stephen Smith, but like you said, it could have big ramifications, especially on Jamie McDonnell.

handsofstone wrote:It always seems to be FW who announces fight before there signed,we seem to be seeing it again with the Cleverly/Amann fight for the Commonwealth title(which now Conquest is supposidely fighting for?)

Then we get Eddie announcing that fights are signed and sealed but we have to wait a week to find out who it is,granted nowhere near as bad but still a pain

Speaking of god, he's been a bit quiet lately and hasn't many shows lined up. These promoters need to stop pinching each other's fighters and get some shows booked.