Warren wins case against Burns

First topic message reminder :

Seems like Warren has wound up winning his case against Burns ultimately. Burns can appeal but looks set to lose alot of dough as it stands. Burns will not get money owed to him due to the liquidation of a Warren company and on top is expected to pay 370k in legal expenses to cover his own and Warrens making this a costly episode (over 500k in total). I imagine this would scupper any retirement plans Burns has.

It was another legal victory for longtime promoter Frank Warren, who saw the latest courtroom battle versus boxer Ricky Burns land in his favor. The court ruled that there was no basis for Burns to break from his promotional and managerial contracts with Warren upon their messy split last spring.

Burns fled from Warren's promotional banner shortly after—though not necessarily related to—a lightweight title unification bout with Miguel Vazquez twice fell through the cracks. The Scot signed with rival Eddie Hearn's Matchroom Boxing, a move that sparked a series of lawsuits between the two sides.

Hearn was confident at the time that Warren's case without merit. "We've been provided with a letter from Burns as confirmation that he has terminated his agreement," it was noted by Hearn's office upon Burns' defection last March. "We have advice from our lawyers and I'm very comfortable. There is no contract now."

Except that there was, and—as it turned out—Burns wound up the victim of poor legal advice. The lapse in judgment will now cost the former two-division titlist £370,000 in legal fees - £200,000 of his own, plus an additional and a further £170,000 to cover Warren's end, which must be settled by January 31, 2015.

The ruling was the latest in a series of devastating blows to Burns' side. Warren was awarded a libel suit against Burns' co-manager Alex Morrison in late October .

In all, Burns' defection to Matchroom Boxing hasn't proven very successful in the ring or in the courtroom. The veteran boxer captured belts at 130 lb. and 135 lb., the latter reign ncluding high profile wins over Michael Katsidis—to win the vacant title—and a 4th round knockout over Kevin Mitchell in what would serve as the Scot's last official fight under Warren's promotional banner.

Upon signing with Matchroom Boxing, Burns struggled to a stoppage win over Jose 'Chelo' Gonzalez—who quit on his stool after nine rounds of a fight he was handily winning—last May, and a highly controversial draw versus Raymundo Beltran later that year.

Burns' title reign came to an end in March, dropping a decision to Terence Crawford, whose big win on the road kicked off what has become a Fighter of the Year-worthy campaign. Anxious to rebound, Burns returned the ring less than four months later, but found himself outgunned in suffering an upset loss to undefeated but—at the time—unheralded Dejan Zlaticanin.

This past October saw Burns return to the win column, scoring an eight-round decision over Alex Lepelley. The rest of the year has been spent trading legal blows with Warren, with the latest defeat coming Monday morning in a British courtroom.

“I'm glad that the Court upheld my management and promotional agreements," Warren said, though with regret for what the series of events have come to following what was once a successful working relationship. "I'm sorry that it came to this, as under my guidance Ricky became a double world champion, but his reliance on the advice of others has unfortunately cost him dearly.”

Burns has made it clear he will appeal.

Big positive is that Warren isn't going to be able to screw anyone else over in a years time because he won't have a stable of fighters (not that he does now to be honest) willing to get screwed over

More money and power for Eddie 'My fighters are on Sky Sports' Heard

I think you might be wrong there, Warren might not have the stars of tommorow but he hasn't got liabilities either. Think match room may have over extended a bit and now have to scramble to put together cards. They kinda got lucky with groves froch 1...had groves won he was a free agent so he would have played for thr highest bidder and nailed hearns balls to the wall. Problem for both hearn and Warren is that boxing just doesn't command a majority so though they are surviving and prospering now...a wrong move could see everything fall down for either.

ShahenshahG wrote:I think you might be wrong there, Warren might not have the stars of tommorow but he hasn't got liabilities either. Think match room may have over extended a bit and now have to scramble to put together cards. They kinda got lucky with groves froch 1...had groves won he was a free agent so he would have played for thr highest bidder and nailed hearns balls to the wall. Problem for both hearn and Warren is that boxing just doesn't command a majority so though they are surviving and prospering now...a wrong move could see everything fall down for either.

If they scramble shows together they do a bloody fine job as they seem to run like clockwork. The same can't be said for Warren's last attempt where people (the travellers) were stealing seats whilst the walkways became urinals.

Groves didn't win and it still sold out the 02 first time round. Even if the fight had continued you could bet your bottom dollar that there would've been a rematch anyway. Matchroom would've made a shed load of money out of the rematch regardless how much Groves would've "nailed their balls to the wall".

I know which show I'd rather watch if both put on 10 in a year.

The only person in the wrong here is Warren, firstly he doesn't pay Burns money he's owed, he then has the temerity to sue him for terminating his contract. 

The only way to describe him is as a gutless, money grabbing, scum of the earth prat who should be banned from promoting.

It shouldn't be though Strongy, even you can't say it's right that he wasn't paid properly.

You can say what you want about Eddie, but at least he's paid his fighters. The point is that you (nor anybody) would be happy for working for a pay cheque and then only being paid a portion of it.

Strongy, I have a question:

Frank Warren comes to you and says he wants you to build him a nice new 10 bedroom house. He says he'll pay you after the job is done.

Eddie Hearn then calls you and also wants a 10 bedroom house built and will also pay after the job is done.

Because you're so busy earning millions you can only take on one of the jobs. Based on Warren's recent dealings (and with boxers previously) which would you rather do work for?

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Derbymanc wrote:Toppy, does that mean that the Law firm can cover Burns costs with this PI cover thing???

PI or (PII) is proffessional indemnity insurance and protects the lawyers, not client.

Ergo, Burns would have to successfully sue the lawyers, prove negligence and/or fraud, and the insurance company would pay out (if it loses or concedes).

Where's superfly when you need him? Or has he gone in to hiding because he was in fact Burns' lawyer?

Superfly posted earlier, suspect he has no great desire to either repeat himself and/or address points that are irrelevant.

But it helps us plebians have a better idea on whats going on Rowley.

Could it be found that Burns lawyers had a conflict of interest?
Is contract law really different for boxers?
and does it not make a huge difference as surely Frank Warren not paying his wages is a bigger breach of contract, and if not then how come?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Superfly said in the past employment contracts are different to legal contracts between a boxer and promoter.

Regular employees have a right to be able to work and to move between jobs.  Boxing contracts it would appear don't afford that luxury.

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Superfly said in the past employment contracts are different to legal contracts between a boxer and promoter.

Regular employees have a right to be able to work and to move between jobs.  Boxing contracts it would appear don't afford that luxury.

I didn't think employment law, or contract law, discriminated between professions?

Thing is though Strongy everyone's protected by employee law aren't they? For instance, with my new-ish job if I hadn't have been paid my tens of thousands by now I'd be well within my right to walk as they have terminated a basic agreement that I would be remunerated in the form of the pre-agreed salary/earnings.

That's how I see it anyway.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Superfly said in the past employment contracts are different to legal contracts between a boxer and promoter.

Regular employees have a right to be able to work and to move between jobs.  Boxing contracts it would appear don't afford that luxury.

I didn't think employment law, or contract law, discriminated between professions?

Seems not., from memory Superfly said a fighter has a promotional contract with his promoter and not an employment contract. The promoter does not employ the fight is what I think he said.

Coxy001 wrote:Thing is though Strongy everyone's protected by employee law aren't they? For instance, with my new-ish job if I hadn't have been paid my tens of thousands by now I'd be well within my right to walk as they have terminated a basic agreement that I would be remunerated in the form of the pre-agreed salary/earnings.

That's how I see it anyway.

An employment contract in my experience is fairly weak. Basically a company cannot enforce some of the things it writes in it's contracts. Stuff like not joining a rival company, giving extended notice periods, not poaching clients etc etc

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Superfly said in the past employment contracts are different to legal contracts between a boxer and promoter.

Regular employees have a right to be able to work and to move between jobs.  Boxing contracts it would appear don't afford that luxury.

I didn't think employment law, or contract law, discriminated between professions?

Seems not., from memory Superfly said a fighter has a promotional contract with his promoter and not an employment contract.  The promoter does not employ the fight is what I think he said.

Yes but surely somewhere there is an amount/split the fighter is to receive?! Again, if there is an agreement of XYZ and one party doesn't make good on said agreement the contract is surely null and void?

If that isn't the case a promoter then in theory doesn't have to pay his fighters?

Sorry for the duplication of questions

Coxy001 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

In the context of contract law, that being the discussion point here, how so?

Superfly said in the past employment contracts are different to legal contracts between a boxer and promoter.

Regular employees have a right to be able to work and to move between jobs.  Boxing contracts it would appear don't afford that luxury.

I didn't think employment law, or contract law, discriminated between professions?

Seems not., from memory Superfly said a fighter has a promotional contract with his promoter and not an employment contract.  The promoter does not employ the fight is what I think he said.

Yes but surely somewhere there is an amount/split the fighter is to receive?! Again, if there is an agreement of XYZ and one party doesn't make good on said agreement the contract is surely null and void?

If that isn't the case a promoter then in theory doesn't have to pay his fighters?

The standard cut for a promoter under the BBBofC contract is 25%. The standard contract also says the fighter should be paid within 7 days.

In the Burns case I believe the judge stated that the period of time Burns was waiting for his his payment was not protracted enough to allow Burns to walk out of his contract.

I imagine it's like a company which pays but pays late knowing the supplier cannot afford to wait for the payment to leave and can't afford to leave without the payment so is stuck in limbo and unable to take their business to more reliable or punctual payers.

Hence Warren keeping his hooks into all but his most prosperous fighters khan calzaghe Hatton etc