The Eddie Hearn/ Tony Sins Connection

Apparently it goes like this,  Eddie married into the Sims family, his wifes madden name is Sims, and is business partners with Tonys daughter. It was apparently  Sims who talked Eddie into being a promoter so he could promote Darren Barker.

Below is a direct quote from Billy Nelson who is being very mature and philosophical about Burns leaving him to join Sims:

"It was my idea to have tony there (at Burns last fight) purely as an extra set of eyes, Ricky will be going to Tony to train in London, Tony phoned me like a man and said he'd been asked by Eddie to train him.
I have no issue with this whatsoever and only wish Ricky well, we all move on and get on with it."

Eddie is Rickys promoter Strongy, it's part of his job to advise him and he's obviously advised him it may be time to freshen it up. Doubt that it's anything unusual.

hampo171 wrote:Eddie is Rickys promoter Strongy, it's part of his job to advise him and he's obviously advised him it may be time to freshen it up. Doubt that it's anything unusual.

I guess it comes under the managers duties to help chose a trainer. In this case Nelson got ditched as a trainer in favour of one of Eddie's in laws. Nelson did a remarkable job to make Burns a two weight strap holder with 7 winning title fights, he deserves better. I can't see Sims improving Burns.

Next week: the Eddie Hearn/Hitler/Mugabe/Saddam/Satan connection.

Boxtthis wrote:Next week: the Eddie Hearn/Hitler/Mugabe/Saddam/Satan connection.

Watch all the rats following the pied piper to Sims gym. Nepotism at its finest.

I don't think I care about any boxer enough to want to know who their promoter is married to. I didn't realise this was a pre-requisite to being a boxing fan.

Dipper Brown wrote:I don't think I care about any boxer enough to want to know who their promoter is married to. I didn't realise this was a pre-requisite to being a boxing fan.

You're going to have to shape up or ship out, dipper.  Strongy's posting history will make or break you.

Eddie Hearn killed JFK with his bumhole.

When Groves floored Froch, Hearns' bumhole exploded like JFKs head

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:Next week: the Eddie Hearn/Hitler/Mugabe/Saddam/Satan connection.

Watch all the rats following the pied piper to Sims gym. Nepotism at its finest.

I don't know much about Sims, but if he's a good trainer then I don't see a huge issue. Nepotism is quite an elastic concept. One person's nepotism is another person's 'networking'. Most jobs/business deals are awarded through prior relationships and how these are leveraged so that someone can gain advantage. Nepotism only becomes a problem if the people getting certain roles are useless. If Sims is a decent trainer and feels as though he can improve certain fighters then there's no real issue with him using contacts to gain advantage.

Again, you seem to have taken a slightly-less-than-fair action by Hearn (one that is really quite common i.e. help out your pals and your relatives) and now seem to be making him out to be some kind of horrible person. He might be, but not on this evidence.

Hennessy, who lost Froch to Hearn's Matchroom outfit in 2011, said he was concerned that Hearn had approached DeGale.

"The agreement had several years to run and we had put him into an excellent position on the world super-middleweight stage," said Hennessy.

"Unfortunately the company has been given no alternative but to put the matter into the hands of its lawyers and we are currently considering our legal options against DeGale."




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mick might find that DeGale's new lawyers come from a higher price bracket than he can afford. Using legal might to ride rough shod over existing contracts would appear to me to be the order of the day at Matchroom. I can remember some on here saying the Hearn's were more ethical than the rest. From what I can see they have unearthed a new compartment at the bottom of the barrel.

In all fairness boxthis when you can slag a guy off for making a fight everyone wants to see in a venue big enough to handle the demand you don't need much in the way of evidence.

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:Next week: the Eddie Hearn/Hitler/Mugabe/Saddam/Satan connection.

Watch all the rats following the pied piper to Sims gym. Nepotism at its finest.

I don't know much about Sims, but if he's a good trainer then I don't see a huge issue. Nepotism is quite an elastic concept. One person's nepotism is another person's 'networking'. Most jobs/business deals are awarded through prior relationships and how these are leveraged so that someone can gain advantage. Nepotism only becomes a problem if the people getting certain roles are useless. If Sims is a decent trainer and feels as though he can improve certain fighters then there's no real issue with him using contacts to gain advantage.

Again, you seem to have taken a slightly-less-than-fair action by Hearn (one that is really quite common i.e. help out your pals and your relatives) and now seem to be making him out to be some kind of horrible person. He might be, but not on this evidence.

Let Ricky Burns be the first case study, let's see what Sims does with him at world title level.


With Burns Hearn meddled in a perfectly good relation between fighter and trainer on the basis that Sims can supposedly do a better job. Billy Nelson has done the business with Scott Harrison and Ricky Burns coming out of a small gym. Sims has had Darren Barker having trained many more fighters than Nelson. Billy Nelson is one of the most loyal people I have ever seen in boxing. Nelson dedicated a lot of time on social media to backing Burns up when burns was getting criticized after having bad performances. His pride for Ricky shone out like a beacon. Why should I look at a ruthless promoter and think ah well who cares if he smashes up relationships and contracts, it's all justifiable if it's in the pursuit of money?

Rowley wrote:In all fairness boxthis when you can slag a guy off for making a fight everyone wants to see in a venue big enough to handle the demand you don't need much in the way of evidence.

Although you chose to slight my objections to Hearn's you should not let that blind you to the fact that there is some merit is the things I say even if you don't like the way I say it.

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:In all fairness boxthis when you can slag a guy off for making a fight everyone wants to see in a venue big enough to handle the demand you don't need much in the way of evidence.

Although you chose to slight my objections to Hearn's you should not let that blind you to the fact that there is some merit is the things I say even if you don't like the way I say it.

There may well be some merit to what you say. I don't think anyone is denying this at all. What people are laughing at you about concerns the tenuous links made between seemingly normal business-type behaviours and Eddie somehow being a terrible person. You could take your objections about Eddie's actions and apply them to almost any promotion-orientated business person. It seems strange to pick just him out. And with an almost comical degree of venom.

Meanwhile, most of us normal boxing fans are happy that he's seemingly playing a role in making good fights and raising the profile of the sport in the UK. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that we are all somehow being duped by Eddie (whereas you, by your implications, are the only one who 'gets it'). It's simply that he hasn't done anything yet that has been so bad that it outweighs the contribution he's making to the sport. We're all aware that he's a promoter and that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature. It's pretty much par for the course. But, to get so upset about it seems really bizarre. It'd almost be comical, if it wasn't so weird.

Give it a rest.

Could not have put it better myself boxthis, excellent response.

I have to say one thing for you though strongy. You're brilliant at insulating yourself against ever having to change your position. As if the Barry caveat was not enough you have added another string to your bow.

Now to most people if enough of these threats to sue Eddie came to nothing common sense would dictate they would be forced to admit the claims had no merit. However in saying Eddie will have better lawyers than the likes of Mick you will never have to do this. Genius.

To be honest Rowley, I can't work out whether he genuinely hates Eddie Hearn this much or if he is a genuine honest to God very good WUM.

AlexHuckerby wrote:To be honest Rowley, I can't work out whether he genuinely hates Eddie Hearn this much or if he is a genuine honest to God very good WUM.

I think it's a bit of both. Az, for example, was a great windup merchant. He was able to create these types of circular, justifiable-from-multiple-angles arguments. But, I think he believed lots of what he said. It's like the old 'the best lies contain a smattering of truth'. The best WUMs contain a smattering of belief.

Rowley wrote:I have to say one thing for you though strongy. You're brilliant at insulating yourself against ever having to change your position. As if the Barry caveat was not enough you have added another string to your bow.

Now to most people if enough of these threats to sue Eddie came to nothing common sense would dictate they would be forced to admit the claims had no merit. However in saying Eddie will have better lawyers than the likes of Mick you will never have to do this. Genius.

Doesn't matter how good your lawyers are, a breach of contract is a breach of contract.

superflyweight wrote:

Rowley wrote:I have to say one thing for you though strongy. You're brilliant at insulating yourself against ever having to change your position. As if the Barry caveat was not enough you have added another string to your bow.

Now to most people if enough of these threats to sue Eddie came to nothing common sense would dictate they would be forced to admit the claims had no merit. However in saying Eddie will have better lawyers than the likes of Mick you will never have to do this. Genius.

Doesn't matter how good your lawyers are, a breach of contract is a breach of contract.

There is certainly room for interpretation in the wording of certain clauses in a contact. If something comes down to a matter of opinion the sh!t stirring starts and solicitors start rubbing their hands.

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Rowley wrote:I have to say one thing for you though strongy. You're brilliant at insulating yourself against ever having to change your position. As if the Barry caveat was not enough you have added another string to your bow.

Now to most people if enough of these threats to sue Eddie came to nothing common sense would dictate they would be forced to admit the claims had no merit. However in saying Eddie will have better lawyers than the likes of Mick you will never have to do this. Genius.

Doesn't matter how good your lawyers are, a breach of contract is a breach of contract.

There is certainly room for interpretation in the wording of certain clauses in a contact.  If something comes down to a matter of opinion the sh!t stirring starts and solicitors start rubbing their hands.  

Generally not the case that contracts (particularly standardised contracts such as these) contain much in the way of ambiguity.  If they do, then the lawyers that drafted them have not done their job.

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Rowley wrote:I have to say one thing for you though strongy. You're brilliant at insulating yourself against ever having to change your position. As if the Barry caveat was not enough you have added another string to your bow.

Now to most people if enough of these threats to sue Eddie came to nothing common sense would dictate they would be forced to admit the claims had no merit. However in saying Eddie will have better lawyers than the likes of Mick you will never have to do this. Genius.

Doesn't matter how good your lawyers are, a breach of contract is a breach of contract.

There is certainly room for interpretation in the wording of certain clauses in a contact.  If something comes down to a matter of opinion the sh!t stirring starts and solicitors start rubbing their hands.  

Generally not the case that contracts (particularly standardised contracts such as these) contain much in the way of ambiguity.  If they do, then the lawyers that drafted them have not done their job.

Yep, and while there might be some room for interpretation/manipulation, I'd imagine it's highly unlikely that one guy - i.e. Eddie Hearn/Darth Vader - would somehow be able to consistently ignore/abuse contracts while other professional promoters could not. For some reason, no amount of solid legal preparation from professional legal teams can protect all the other promoters. They might have thought they had watertight agreements, but, in the end, they'll be left ruing the day they tangled with boxing's force of darkness.

I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't quite sound right to me that Eddie is somehow the only ever beneficiary from weaknesses in contract law, while others are helpless. Unless he has the British legal system in his back pocket? Yeah, that's probably it. Makes sense now.

Ricky Hatton tells an interesting story in his autobiography. When he split with Warren Frank claimed he had a contract with him for another three fights I believed and as always he threatened legal action etc. According to Hatton Warren's claims were based on a letter he sent Ricky in the run up to one of his fights, the letter was related to training or accommodation expenses or something mundane and routine like that. However in the small print it said something along the lines that "by signing this letter you are agreeing to be promoted by Sports Network for your next three fights"

Now even to someone who is not a lawyer that would seem questionable, firstly is sly and underhand and a contract extension is surely too big a thing to be added to the small print of a completely unrelated letter. Have to say if these are the kind of business practices that are common place in the sport is little wonder they are routinely ignored or ridden roughshod over and I personally have little sympathy for anyone who would try to enforce such a tenuous agreement.

Warren had a big case with Benn about a similar thing in the late 80s or early 90s. He had a contract with Benn to promote him but the two fell out and Benn switched to Mendy. Legally it seemed Warren was right but he lost the case anyway because it was just contrary to public policy to enforce these kind of contracts. The theme of it was that these kind of boxer/manager contracts are not viewed as ironclad because of the ease which one party can exploit another. Probably why very rarely do these splits actually get found in favour of the manager/promoter even if the contract technically backs him up.

Rowley wrote:Ricky Hatton tells an interesting story in his autobiography. When he split with Warren Frank claimed he had a contract with him for another three fights I believed and as always he threatened legal action etc. According to Hatton Warren's claims were based on a letter he sent Ricky in the run up to one of his fights, the letter was related to training or accommodation expenses or something mundane and routine like that. However in the small print it said something along the lines that "by signing this letter you are agreeing to be promoted by Sports Network for your next three fights"

Now even to someone who is not a letter that would seem questionable, firstly is sly and underhand and a contract extension is surely too big a thing to be added to the small print of a completely unrelated letter. Have to say if these are the kind of business practices that are common place in the sport is little wonder they are routinely ignored or ridden roughshod over and I personally have little sympathy for anyone who would try to enforce such a tenuous agreement.

Genius get out of jail free card there Rowley. It trumps just about any argument.

Not at all have said it all along if Hearn is breaching contracts he will be sued and deservedly so. However the fact he continually is not sued suggests to me one of a couple of things. Firstly he is not doing anything wrong or secondly the 'contracts' he is breaching are legally unenforceable.

Mine is a sensible conclusion based on my limited understanding of the law and some of the anecdotal stories I have read about boxing contracts. Can only wait for the day you draw a conclusion based in anything other than Eddie being the anti Christ

Eddie is circumventing contracts. He's done it to Hennessy now as well who is no way a competitor. The Hearn's and Warren have history but Mick has done nothing remotely offensive in his career as a promoter.

Part of the M.O. is that the fighter announces through a public medium that he is no longer contracted to his current promoter.  A week later a press conference is called and the fighter is welcomed to the Matchroom stable.  Even by boxing standards it is extremely underhand to approach a fighter under contract and encourage them to leave their current promoter by telling them the contract they have is not worth the paper it is written on.

Hennessy had a tv deal for DeGale and had provided him with a shot at a world strap. Hennessy kept up his end of the bargain but DeGale still decided to listened to Hearn and do the dirt on Hennessy.  If people think that this is anything other than sleazy, unscrupulous, devious behavior boarding on the fraudulent then I have underestimated the the lack of values some people have.

To say boxing is dirty and therefore what Hearn is doing is ok is to support the worst actions of the Arum's, King's, Warren's and Hearn's of this world.

Let see how long it takes Eddie to get DeGale a world title shot or might it be the case as with some of Hearn's fighters that he feeds him to the lions.  

More likely Eddie is trying to recreate the the 90's in Britain again with a lot of hype created around a few SMW British fighters so they can make a lot of money in a small pool fighting each other and never have to venture out and fight the best SMW's out there.

So does Hennessy have a legally enforceable contract with Degale or not?

Mick Hennessy commented:

"We are extremely surprised and disappointed that DeGale has terminated his long term contract with us. The agreement had several years to run and we had put him into an excellent position on the world super middleweight stage. Unfortunately the company has been given no alternative but to put the matter into the hands of its lawyers and we are currently considering our legal options against DeGale. We are also extremely concerned about the possible involvement of any other parties in DeGale’s decision to terminate our contract and if necessary we will take the appropriate legal action against any other promoter, broadcaster or sanctioning body that is found to have been involved in this decision.”

If that statement is true I have no doubt the courts will find in Mick's favour, and rightly so. Would guess time will tell.

In the past people have paid a lot of money into pension plans only to find out on maturity  the pension companies policy had changed and they would only receive half the pension they were originally told they would get.  I suppose this is ok because a 25 year old signing up to  a pension that would mature in 40 years should have fully understood the implications of the small print he signed up to.

This is clearly poor form but the contact allows it. The financial industry is more treacherous than boxing with much further reaching consequences to their actions but do we think bankers, pension companies and insurers are fair minded?

The Hearn's sell themselves as being more ethical than the rest and pride themselves on paying on time etc but let's be real...........Eddie couldn't go any lower if he tried.

Have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now, sorry.

Rowley wrote:If that statement is true I have no doubt the courts will find in Mick's favour, and rightly so. Would guess time will tell.

Mick thought he had a contract in good faith is what I would read from it.

The second part of the statement from Hennessy could be read as implying Matchroom advised a fighter to tear up his contract and declare himself a free agent.

Lots of contracts or policies have loopholes, the government gets caught out soon after they deliver a new budget every year, ask Jimmy Carr. Of course some of these loopholes are there for Osborne's chums.

What comes around goes around and Hearn won't have the Sky deal forever. Sky have facilitated Matchroom having an almost monopoly on British boxing.

You're no longer making any sense, in your haste to criticise all things Hearn your argument is near on incoherent.

Rowley wrote:Have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now, sorry.

Just some reflections on how contracts and policies can be manipulated. It happens everyday from a personnel level to government level. Not particularly complicated or difficult to interpret.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're no longer making any sense, in your haste to criticise all things Hearn your argument is near on incoherent.

Is there an echo in here?

Strongback wrote:

Rowley wrote:Have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now, sorry.

Just some reflections on how contracts and policies can be manipulated.  It happens everyday from a personnel level to government level.  Not particularly complicated or difficult to interpret.

But seemingly Eddie Hearn is the only person that is able to manipulate them in his favour? Is that what you're saying? It's certainly what you're implying. That's the part of your argument (well, one part of many) that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, he's been a bit of a toerag. What exactly are fans supposed to do about it? Boycott Eddie! Some guy I don't even know. It's a weird thing to get worked up over.

And comparing him to Arum....well, unlike Arum, Hearn appears to be actively putting on exciting fights. When he stops putting on fights I want to see - essentially the only thing in this that affects my life - then maybe I'll care slightly more about his unscrupulous business dealings (although probably not, because, as far as I can see, they are no more underhand/immoral than an enormous variety of similar actions that happen on a daily basis across just about every industry).

1. Thought this had been done last week?

2. Thought it had been agreed this crap would stop??

Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

1) I thought we'd all agreed Super was a carp lawyer (political topics where shutdown because we couldn't rely on him)
2- Are we going to go through this every week?

superflyweight wrote:Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

Pretty sure your daughter posting on here would make a welcome change from some of the odure we have to endure

DAVE667 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

Pretty sure your daughter posting on here would make a welcome change from some of the odure we have to endure

"Odure".  And I'm the one that gets accused of pseudo-intellectualism.

superflyweight wrote:Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

Which specific argument are you referring to?

superflyweight wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

Pretty sure your daughter posting on here would make a welcome change from some of the odure we have to endure

"Odure".  And I'm the one that gets accused of pseudo-intellectualism.

Dave the intellectual is an oxymoron.

So is 'Strongy' and 'original thought'.

So someone other than me was thinking of making an oxymoron gag as well, then? Small world.

Tbh, reading this thread, the 'oxy' is largely superfluous.....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tbh, reading this thread, the 'oxy' is largely superfluous.....

Superfluous.......just like all your posts.


You're a typical judgmental type willing to jump in if they think they have mass of numbers behind them. You're what's wrong with modern society, the type that is always willing to pile in with the 'I told you so's'.

You haven't met too many people like me and that confuses you, people with opinions that might not always follow the status quo or garbage information that most lap up like a good ole Big Mac.