Ricky Burns bt Frank Warren TKO

So.....

http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/

Turns out Frank has taken another pasting in the courts....

And another liquidated company that owes a boxer money.

What a suprise

Why does any boxer stay with a promoter that does this? and surely someone should be looking into why people can get away with liquidating a company to avoid paying someone what they're rightly owed.

Beyond contempt. I don’t expect any promoter to be an angel, nice guys would last about two minutes in the business, but for me ripping off the fighters who risk life and limb (literally) for our entertainment is shameful. I hope Burns gets every penny he is owed and the board actually show some backbone and back him in pursuit of his outstanding funds.

I agree rowley cant see burns getting his money though

Frank Warren has lost his £2m claim against Ricky Burns. The Judge dismissed his claim as “fanciful” and said that it bore “no relation to reality”.

Are we sure that Strongy isn't Frank Warren?

superflyweight wrote:

Frank Warren has lost his £2m claim against Ricky Burns. The Judge dismissed his claim as “fanciful” and said that it bore “no relation to reality”.

Are we sure that Strongy isn't Frank Warren?

When I read the statement I assumed Warren had you representing him Super.

You can be very hurtful at times, jeff.

Frank up to his old tricks again. Witholding purses, crazy counter claims so that the boxer is scared of going broke. Liquidating rather than paying and flat out lying in court. Classic frank.

For all the criticism of eddie at least he pays fighters

superflyweight wrote:

Frank Warren has lost his £2m claim against Ricky Burns. The Judge dismissed his claim as “fanciful” and said that it bore “no relation to reality”.

Are we sure that Strongy isn't Frank Warren?

A bit one sided the report in the OP although this is hardly surprising as Matchroom wrote it. Burns was ordered to pay Warren £73k for walking away from his contract with Warren. The judge didn't go with Warren's claim for £2 million.

wheelchair1991 wrote:For all the criticism of eddie at least he pays fighters

Barry Hearn is no angel and he has had a judge calling him a shyster and the like,

Vintage Warren

Warren has released a statement basically claiming the complete opposite to matchrooms press relese

More Vintage Warren

There is a link to the full determination in the article. Quite easy to read it all and make your own mind up.

Strongy, are you having difficulty reading again?

Warren's statement loses credibility when it says 'Burns career crashed after joining Eddie Hearn'. What's that got to do with the price of fish? Spiteful and short sighted.

It also loses credibility when the judge calls his evidence fanciful

The ruling still doesnt seem to do much for Burns. He doesnt get paid the money he is owed because of a liquidation and then has to pay an extra 73k in fees to Warren?

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Frank Warren has lost his £2m claim against Ricky Burns. The Judge dismissed his claim as “fanciful” and said that it bore “no relation to reality”.

Are we sure that Strongy isn't Frank Warren?

A bit one sided the report in the OP although this is hardly surprising as Matchroom wrote it.  Burns was ordered to pay Warren £73k for walking away from his contract with Warren.  The judge didn't go with Warren's claim for £2 million.  

I agree, sounds like Warren knew he was owed management fee's so did not pay Burns his Fight fee, I imagine Burns was putting pressure on Warren for his money so Warren tried it on to see what he could get in court..

here is a more balanced report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/30045000

Shocking if Burns isn't paid the £102k yet is made to pay back £73k as a result of some dodgy "side agreement".

Think if you sue someone for 2 million quid and come out with seventy odd grand and in the course of doing this give a high court judge cause to describe you as unreliable, unrealistic and fanciful as well as describing the evidence you present to the court as shockingly poor it takes remarkable chutzpah to present that as a win.

Old frank has done it though

Rowley wrote:Think if you sue someone for 2 million quid and come out with seventy odd grand and in the course of doing this give a high court judge cause to describe you  as unreliable, unrealistic and fanciful as well as describing the evidence you present to the court as shockingly poor it takes remarkable chutzpah to present that as a win.

Sounds like the OJ SImpson trial


Anyway, here's my favourite bit, "Warren had argued that, as a result, he had lost £1.8m in profits that would have been made from three further title defences by Burns." Struggling to see how Burns generates that kind of interest outside of Scotland let alone nearly £2million, unless Frank had a "Buckfast and deep fried anything" franchise at the venues

It's a bit of a shambles that a company, who have been put into administration to avoid paying, money are allowed to claim back funds from a fighter. I'd have no problem with the above if it were the administrators were claiming the funds, but they're not, Frank is.
Admittedly, I may be reading this wrong..

You're clearly reading this wrong...much like Warren when he sued Don King for £3million, ended up paying Don a £1 million and claimed it was a real victory

trottb wrote:It's a bit of a shambles that a company, who have been put into administration to avoid paying,  money are allowed to claim back funds from a fighter. I'd have no problem with the above if it were the administrators were claiming the funds, but they're not, Frank is.
Admittedly, I may be reading this wrong..

I think that was why frank and his son cooked up the 50/50 promotional 'agreement' between FWP and Queensbury. With FWP in administraion Queensbury could still have claimed half of the £1.8m from "administrators appointed by Frank Warren’s wife."

Dave I would love to argue against your use of blatant stereotyping of scottish people but I really do love a bottle of buckfast.