The Eddie Hearn/ Tony Sins Connection

First topic message reminder :

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."

This is getting beyond a joke now, do we have to put up with the same baseless vitriol each and every day on here because one poster can't hack Hearn being a success?

Winnable title shots at home might well be better but not always achievable, Bellew had to travel to face Stevenson he had no choice. Barker got £1mil to fight Sturm, a sum he was never going to turn down while Purdy was lucky to get a shot at all. Everything is relative to previous earnings, they would all have got career high pay days and a once in a lifetime opportunity, what is wrong with that?

Froch and Burns have had the comfort of home in every fight they've had under Hearn against good opposition too. Far better than defending at home against nobodies like Karpency or Hawk.

Hearn must be doing something right by his fighters because he keeps getting guys to jump ship and only Frampton of the top guys has left him. Degale, Cleverly, Quigg, Froch, Burns, the Smiths etc. have decided live would be better being promoted by Matchroom, that is good enough for me.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:
4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

Think that is the crux of your problem with Eddie. You resent the fact that you think Eddie has had his success gifted to him and has not had to “earn” it, whatever that means. Is reverse snobbery of the worst kind.

Now we're getting somewhere.

hampo171 wrote:Dawson couldn't get Stevenson to go to the States and he was champ, so what chance did Bellew have of getting him to Liverpool?

Purdy didn't earn his shot and stepped in last minute, Barker got paid well for travelling.

You can't criticise him for getting these shots, it's a stupid and unbalanced argument.

Bellew had little chance of winning and Stevenson is the best SMW so I don't see how that is good match making by his manager. Bellew would never be expected to beat Adonis or Kovalev so why not look elsewhere? While we often dislike the way a promoter protects a fighter it is generally a well traveled road to allow a fighter to get into position where they might win. Eddie though had no problem with the away fights as he was not promoting and did not have to put any money up, easy money for him and he getting the Sky money as well.

I criticize Hearn for Bellew having to start all over again after an obvious defeat happening.

Boxtthis wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:
4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

Think that is the crux of your problem with Eddie. You resent the fact that you think Eddie has had his success gifted to him and has not had to “earn” it, whatever that means. Is reverse snobbery of the worst kind.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Ahh..................Rowley's cheer leader is back!

Where else could he have looked?

Hopkins or Shumenov who've had a unification bout in the making for some time, Bellew was going to be an underdog regardless of which champion he fought. He should be applauded not criticised for targeting THE champion at light heavyweight not the weakest champion whom wasn't even available.

This thread is the only show in town on v2 boxing.....

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Is there a standard BBBoC licence agreement for promoters?  If there is any prohibition on approaching rival fighters then I would expect to see it in that licence.  In which case, breach of that prohibition would be a matter for the BBBoC and not a rival promoter.  There would be nothing that a rival promoter could do other than raise a complaint to the BBBoC.

As far as I know promoter contracts are more to do with particular fights and cover things like the fighter turning up and then making weight etc along with payment arrangements and requirements to fulfill PR obligations and the like.   To my knowledge it is the boxer\ management contracts that tie the two parties together over the long period.  I have previously read BBBofC Form 36 which I believe you are referring to.  It's a fairly light document and it doesn't surprise me it is being circumvented fairly easily.  Tony Bellew's legal adviser was able to successfully argue that Warren favoured Nathan Cleverly over Tony Bellew and this effected Bellew's career. The fact that Bellew got to fight Clevely in a world title fight was overlooked.  Bellew's advisor goes by the pseudonym "Rumpole" and has written quite a bit on the subject on a number of boxing website.  He basically explains the methods to get out of a BBBofC contract.  

I suspect the BBBofC like the FA once were do not have the resources to take on complaints made by experts in sports law.  It's all a bit pathetic really.

Not sure you can really criticise Hearn for his work with Rees and Purdy, neither particularly deserved their shots and were unlikely to win against any of the reigning champions, now or any time in the future. As such Eddie has two choices, accept this and deny them the shot, and the payday and chance of glory that goes with it, or roll the dice and give them the chance, which he did.

Not sure what you are suggesting he should have done differently in this circumstance.

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Is there a standard BBBoC licence agreement for promoters?  If there is any prohibition on approaching rival fighters then I would expect to see it in that licence.  In which case, breach of that prohibition would be a matter for the BBBoC and not a rival promoter.  There would be nothing that a rival promoter could do other than raise a complaint to the BBBoC.

As far as I know promoter contracts are more to do with particular fights and cover things like the fighter turning up and then making weight etc along with payment arrangements and requirements to fulfill PR obligations and the like.   To my knowledge it is the boxer\ management contracts that tie the two parties together.  I have previously read BBBofC Form 36 which I believe you are referring to.  It's a fairly light document and it doesn't surprise me it is being circumvented fairly easily.  Tony Bellew's legal adviser was able to successfully argue that Warren favoured Nathan Cleverly over Tony Bellew and this effected Bellew's career. The fact that Bellew got to fight Clevely in a world title fight was overlooked.  Bellew's advisor goes by the pseudonym "Rumpole" and has written quite a bit on the subject on a number of boxing website.  He basically explains the methods to get out of a BBBofC contract.  

I suspect the BBBofC like the FA once were do not have the resources to take on complaints made by experts in sports law.  It's all a bit pathetic really.  

Think you've summed up everyone's opinion relating to this subject and your tedious obsession with Eddie Hearn quite nicely.

Time to lock the thread as it's all getting a bit repetitive now methinks

Rowley wrote:Not sure you can really criticise Hearn for his work with Rees and Purdy, neither particularly deserved their shots and were unlikely to win against any of the reigning champions, now or any time in the future. As such Eddie has two choices, accept this and deny them the shot, and the payday and chance of glory that goes with it, or roll the dice and give them the chance, which he did.

Not sure what you are suggesting he should have done differently in this circumstance.

Deny them the shot and they begin to think their promoter doesn't have their best interests at heart. They might start thinking about their careers and the finite nature of the life of a boxer and wonder if they might be better off looking elsewhere.

Someone else might suggest they look a bit further into this and the next thing you know, some nutter is blathering on about fighters being tapped up as opposed to promoters being poor.

Rowley wrote:Not sure you can really criticise Hearn for his work with Rees and Purdy, neither particularly deserved their shots and were unlikely to win against any of the reigning champions, now or any time in the future. As such Eddie has two choices, accept this and deny them the shot, and the payday and chance of glory that goes with it, or roll the dice and give them the chance, which he did.

Not sure what you are suggesting he should have done differently in this circumstance.

Depends how much they got paid I suppose.  Rees was long in the tooth so I would have less of an issue with him.  Purdy was still being built up, he then went on to lose his next fight.

Would Hearn have put his hand in his pocket to pay for a promotion to make these fights happen.  I don't think he would have as it wouldn't have been lucrative.  It's easy to send your fighter off and take 25% of his purse when you have no risk in terms of promoting the fight.

The same thing that every other promoter does.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This is getting beyond a joke now, do we have to put up with the same baseless vitriol each and every day on here because one poster can't hack Hearn being a success?

Winnable title shots at home might well be better but not always achievable, Bellew had to travel to face Stevenson he had no choice. Barker got £1mil to fight Sturm, a sum he was never going to turn down while Purdy was lucky to get a shot at all. Everything is relative to previous earnings, they would all have got career high pay days and a once in a lifetime opportunity, what is wrong with that?

Froch and Burns have had the comfort of home in every fight they've had under Hearn against good opposition too. Far better than defending at home against nobodies like Karpency or Hawk.

Hearn must be doing something right by his fighters because he keeps getting guys to jump ship and only Frampton of the top guys has left him. Degale, Cleverly, Quigg, Froch, Burns, the Smiths etc. have decided live would be better being promoted by Matchroom, that is good enough for me.

That's because McGuigan is as wiley as any of them. There isn't a fighter or promoter on the British scene of today who sold himself better than McGuigan did. Watch Barry take Frampton to America and really clean up. Froch is the best fighter in the Matchroom stable and a world champion but he did that under Hennessy. For all Matchrooms money and TV deals why is there only one world belt holder at Matchroom? I'll tell you why........bad match making.

Nothing to do with them not being good enough then?

You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Strongback - are you suggesting a contract where a fighter can't talk to a rival promoter exists? Or would be a good thing?

If you are, and I'm really not sure what you are suggesting tbh, take a step back and think about it. As well as almost certainly bring illegal under various freedom of speech laws, it's just encouraging a form of "slave" contract.

General life lesson - when 99% of people say you are wrong - keep going, you'll convert them in the end champ.

The Hennessy thing goes against the whole sending his fighters abroad argument that he was crying about. How many fights has Froch had abroad while being promoted by Hearn, did he not get Bute and Kessler over here to fight or did I imagine that.

Froch as an exciting fight anybody well known boxer can get the top men in his backyard but domestic level guys like Bellew, Purdy or Rees cannot, they have to travel or miss out.

catchweight wrote:You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Froch made his name in the Super 6. Hearn had nothing to do with that.

If fact it would appear to me Hearn is attempting to set up his own super 6 in Britain. He has Froch, Cleverly, DeGale, Groves if the price is right and Bellew in house. One of his better moves I say, he can now flog this like Warren and his old man did with Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collin's and not biother with Andre Watd. A smart move buts its a pity he had to urine on a few of the less offensive promoters to make it happen

What with Bellew and Cleverly moving up to Cruiserweight and Froch nearing retirement you must have come up with that based on what exactly?

ChelskiFanski wrote:Strongback - are you suggesting a contract where a fighter can't talk to a rival promoter exists? Or would be a good thing?

If you are, and I'm really not sure what you are suggesting tbh, take a step back and think about it. As well as almost certainly bring illegal under various freedom of speech laws, it's just encouraging a form of "slave" contract.

General life lesson - when 99% of people say you are wrong - keep going, you'll convert them in the end champ.

I've had work contacts that stated I could not speak with rival companies.   In other sports is it allowed for a player to be tapped up?  Remember when Chelsea were caught tapping up Ashley Cole?   all hell broke lose with all party to the incident getting fined.  You won't see a fighter walk away from Golden Boy or Arum unless there is a very good reason, in America the contracts are tighter.  The BBCofC contract can be circumvented by saying your promoter didn't love you enough.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What with Bellew and Cleverly moving up to Cruiserweight and Froch nearing retirement you must have come up with that based on what exactly?

Cleverly isn't committed to cruiser yet and Bellew said he can make 175lb although he thinks it effects his performance.

Then you have Froch who's said he has no intention of stepping up to 175lbs so you have a concocted an idea that would never happen.

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Froch made his name in the Super 6.  Hearn had nothing to do with that.

If fact it would appear to me Hearn is attempting to set up his own super 6 in Britain.  He has Froch, Cleverly, DeGale, Groves if the price is right and Bellew in house. One of his better moves I say, he can now flog this like Warren and his old man did with Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collin's and not biother with Andre Watd.  A smart move buts its a pity he had to urine on a few of the less offensive promoters to make it happen

Hearn has taken Froch to heights he never came close to with Hennessy. The Super 6 lost Froch his title, put him on the road (poor matchmaking Mick!) all for half the money he makes under Hearn. Hearn got him his title back at a home fight and turned him into a ppv attraction that cleans up financially at home whoever he fights.

Bellew won't be visiting 175 again, pretty sure of that. He didn't look a world beater in his debut at 200 the other week, but the fact that his power carried through to the late rounds in a way it never did at Light-Heavy should be all the confirmation he needs that he's more suited to Cruiser.

Put it this way, if Bellew is to be believed the night before the Stevenson weigh in he'd managed to get himself down to 175. That evening he had two pieces of chicken and a bottle of water, re-weighed himself, and was already back up to 180. He said he was in such a bad, desperate state the following morning trying to get back down to 175 that he was literally bursting in to tears unprovoked.

Froch's first fight on Sky was against Johnson coincidentally the first fight he had Hearn as his promoter that was followed by the Ward fight which was extensively promoted. You then have his huge fights against Bute, Kessler and Groves, the Froch name is all Hearn's doing and had he stayed with Hennessy he'd still only be known by the die hards.

"I've had work contacts that stated I could not speak with rival companies."

And what would have happened if you spoke to them? You could have got sacked...

Can't have a contract preventing you speaking to other firms about potential employment, the idea is ridiculous. It happens all the time in football, regardless of their rules, as it isn't against the law.

catchweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Froch made his name in the Super 6.  Hearn had nothing to do with that.

If fact it would appear to me Hearn is attempting to set up his own super 6 in Britain.  He has Froch, Cleverly, DeGale, Groves if the price is right and Bellew in house. One of his better moves I say, he can now flog this like Warren and his old man did with Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collin's and not biother with Andre Watd.  A smart move buts its a pity he had to urine on a few of the less offensive promoters to make it happen

Hearn has taken Froch to heights he never came close to with Hennessy. The Super 6 lost Froch his title, put him on the road  (poor matchmaking Mick!)  all for half the money he makes under Hearn. Hearn got him his title back at a home fight and turned him into a ppv attraction that cleans up financially at home whoever he fights.

Froch was a name in boxing before Eddie got him, Froch is what 36\37. How long has he been at Matchroom 2 or 3 years. The lord himself couldn't make Froch a household name. He's never broken through on that level and never will.

Strongback wrote:The lord himself couldn't make Froch a household name.

No need to stand on ceremony here, Strongy. Just call him Eddie.

88Chris05 wrote:Bellew won't be visiting 175 again, pretty sure of that. He didn't look a world beater in his debut at 200 the other week, but the fact that his power carried through to the late rounds in a way it never did at Light-Heavy should be all the confirmation he needs that he's more suited to Cruiser.

Put it this way, if Bellew is to be believed the night before the Stevenson weigh in he'd managed to get himself down to 175. That evening he had two pieces of chicken and a bottle of water, re-weighed himself, and was already back up to 180. He said he was in such a bad, desperate state the following morning trying to get back down to 175 that he was literally bursting in to tears unprovoked.

Bellew was actually a heavyweight as an amatuer. I've read similar things from Bellew as you are writing but he also said he can make 175 but it is just too draining and effects his performance. I think Eddie will want to make Bellew v Cleverly 2 but the soundings I have heard from Cleverly is he is yet to fully commit to cruiser although he was to fight at Cruiser before he jumped ship. I'm not sure of his plans now. I could see Cleverly v Bellew at a catchweight. Eddie has lots of options between SWM and CW.

88Chris05 wrote:

Strongback wrote:The lord himself couldn't make Froch a household name.

No need to stand on ceremony here, Strongy. Just call him Eddie.

  


Makes a change from Tophat calling me names.

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Froch made his name in the Super 6.  Hearn had nothing to do with that.

If fact it would appear to me Hearn is attempting to set up his own super 6 in Britain.  He has Froch, Cleverly, DeGale, Groves if the price is right and Bellew in house. One of his better moves I say, he can now flog this like Warren and his old man did with Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collin's and not biother with Andre Watd.  A smart move buts its a pity he had to urine on a few of the less offensive promoters to make it happen

Hearn has taken Froch to heights he never came close to with Hennessy. The Super 6 lost Froch his title, put him on the road  (poor matchmaking Mick!)  all for half the money he makes under Hearn. Hearn got him his title back at a home fight and turned him into a ppv attraction that cleans up financially at home whoever he fights.

Froch was a name in boxing before Eddie got him, Froch is what 36\37.  How long has he been at Matchroom 2 or 3 years.  The lord himself couldn't make Froch a household name.  He's never broken through on that level and never will.

What are you arguing here? Froch has been promoted by Hennessy and Hearn. Its an absolute no brainer who he has been more successful with in terms of profile and money earned. It worked out miles better for Froch with Hearn. Hearn made him a bigger name. A far bigger name. He is fighting in front of 80,000 in Wembley next fight. But because Hennessy promoted him first (less effectively), Hearn therefore had nothing to do with Frochs subsequent rise? Is that the argument? It was Hennessy all along? Hennessy deserves all the credit? Hearn just fluked it again?

ChelskiFanski wrote:"I've had work contacts that stated I could not speak with rival companies."

And what would have happened if you spoke to them? You could have got sacked...

Can't have a contract preventing you speaking to other firms about potential employment, the idea is ridiculous. It happens all the time in football, regardless of their rules, as it isn't against the law.

It breaks the FA's rules and the FA enforce the rules. You didn't get Chelsea saying they did nothing wrong and they are not paying the fines did you?

In terms of employment contracts I have have had garden leave clauses that stated that if I left that employment I couldn't work for a rival or poach any of the their clients for at least two years. Luckily for me the contract was not enforceable.

I have carried out contracts for the manufacturers of semi conductors as in computer processors. I did some work for the largest manufacturer of computer processors in the world and had to sign up to very stringent conditions relating to intellectual property. I was told that if I were to get my hands on sensitive information and pass it to a rival they would push for a custodial sentence.

If you work for the MoD and sign the official secrets act I am guessing you would be advised not to start blathering.

catchweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:You cant seriously say that Froch made it under Hennessy. He is the one shining example if there was one of how much better things worked out for him under Hearn than Hennessy. He went from a guy who fought top names and could barely get on tv to the biggest draw in British boxing who fights on ppv. All with a personality that would make your skin crawl.

Froch made his name in the Super 6.  Hearn had nothing to do with that.

If fact it would appear to me Hearn is attempting to set up his own super 6 in Britain.  He has Froch, Cleverly, DeGale, Groves if the price is right and Bellew in house. One of his better moves I say, he can now flog this like Warren and his old man did with Benn, Eubank, Watson and Collin's and not biother with Andre Watd.  A smart move buts its a pity he had to urine on a few of the less offensive promoters to make it happen

Hearn has taken Froch to heights he never came close to with Hennessy. The Super 6 lost Froch his title, put him on the road  (poor matchmaking Mick!)  all for half the money he makes under Hearn. Hearn got him his title back at a home fight and turned him into a ppv attraction that cleans up financially at home whoever he fights.

Froch was a name in boxing before Eddie got him, Froch is what 36\37.  How long has he been at Matchroom 2 or 3 years.  The lord himself couldn't make Froch a household name.  He's never broken through on that level and never will.

What are you arguing here? Froch has been promoted by Hennessy and Hearn. Its an absolute no brainer who he has been more successful with in terms of profile and money earned. It worked out miles better for Froch with Hearn. Hearn made him a bigger name. A far bigger name. He is fighting in front of 80,000 in Wembley next fight. But because Hennessy promoted him first (less effectively), Hearn therefore had nothing to do with Frochs subsequent rise? Is that the argument? It was Hennessy all along? Hennessy deserves all the credit? Hearn just fluked it again?

What I am saying is Hennessy did a lot for Froch. Hearn came along to lap up the cream at the end of Froch's career.

Who has Froch fought under Hearn? A past it Kessler which a no brainer of a fight for a promoter to make. Bute in fairness was good business all around especially if they really knew Bute would wilt under Froch's pressure. Groves was a filler in fight that nobody thought would be great. Eddie lucked out when Groves put Froch on his arse. The card that night up to then was dire. The controversial ending added fuel to the fire and the rematch then sold itself.

Strongy - your taking about giving away IP! Very different from earning a living!

Working for a rival in industry where there is privileged info is different from working in an area like boxing.

Carry on arguing your corner, but the idea you can't talk to a rival promoter is ludicrous.

ChelskiFanski wrote:Strongy - your taking about giving away IP! Very different from earning a living!

Working for a rival in industry where there is privileged info is different from working in an area like boxing.

Carry on arguing your corner, but the idea you can't talk to a rival promoter is ludicrous.

I was just giving some example of contracts I have signed at work that placed restrictions on me because you asked for some examples.  Employment contracts are different to the rules around sports contracts, Superflyweight told me that.   

If Bob Arum was caught approaching a Golden Boy fighter there would be a law case.  It is down to the clauses in the contract and how strong a boxing commission is in upholding their rules.  You have an example in football.  It's not easy for a player under contract to instigate a move if his club are adamant they are not selling him.

If anything all this shows is British boxing contracts are meaningless if a fighter can slip out of all responsibilites by saying his manager loved another fighter more than him.  Have a read of the poster "Rumpole" who has posted authoritively on this subject on Boxrec and CheckHookBoxing forums.  Rumpole represented Bellew when he split from Warren or Bunny as Rumpole likes to call him.

It is worth repeating that a contract between a fighter and a promoter is not an employment contract.  There may well be exclusivity arrangements in the contracts, but they won't bear resemblance to anything in your employment contract.  In supplier/customer relationships, customers will often speak to other suppliers (to benchmark performance and cost).  If they want to move to that supplier, they then need to find a way to do that under the contract, or come to a commercial arrangement with the original supplier (e.g. severance payment).

superflyweight wrote:It is worth repeating that a contract between a fighter and a promoter is not an employment contract.  There may well be exclusivity arrangements in the contracts, but they won't bear resemblance to anything in your employment contract.  In supplier/customer relationships, customers will often speak to other suppliers (to benchmark performance and cost).  If they want to move to that supplier, they then need to find a way to do that under the contract, or come to a commercial arrangement with the original supplier (e.g. severance payment).

To be fair, I don't think it is worth repeating. Any information that undermines the "Eddie Hearn is always in the wrong" angle will be dismissed out of hand.

It was worth it for preserving my own sanity!

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Am not a lawyer, but since you are, a question: How can a contract bind a party not party to it?

ChelskiFanski wrote:"I've had work contacts that stated I could not speak with rival companies."

And what would have happened if you spoke to them? You could have got sacked...

Can't have a contract preventing you speaking to other firms about potential employment, the idea is ridiculous. It happens all the time in football, regardless of their rules, as it isn't against the law.

Not 100% sure about that. The one I just signed had various non-compete clauses in it.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Am not a lawyer, but since you are, a question: How can a contract bind a party not party to it?

A contract can say just about anything?

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Am not a lawyer, but since you are, a question: How can a contract bind a party not party to it?

A contract can say just about anything?

A contract could say the world was flat, would that mean cruise liners would start falling off the sides all of a sudden??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Am not a lawyer, but since you are, a question: How can a contract bind a party not party to it?

It can't. The parties could try, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

Exactly.

Though Strongy clearly thinks differently....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Exactly.

Though Strongy clearly thinks differently....

It's difficult to name a third party if you do not know who the third party might be.


In football contracts there are clauses that prevent players from speaking to other other clubs. This is the way it should be. In British boxing the contracts are loose and the BBBofC are not difficult to bully. This is not Eddie Hearn's doing he is just exploiting the situation and influencing fighters to leave their current manager\ promoter.

Footballers are employees of the relevant clubs. As such it is an employment contract. Boxers are not employees of the promoters. How many more people need to say this before you grasp the distinction.

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Exactly.

Though Strongy clearly thinks differently....

It's difficult to name a third party if you do not know who the third party might be.


In football contracts there are clauses that prevent players from speaking to other other clubs.  This is the way it should be.  In British boxing the contracts are loose and the BBBofC are not difficult to bully.  This is not Eddie Hearn's doing he is just exploiting the situation and influencing fighters to leave their current manager\ promoter.

If third parties aren't named you're in danger of committing libel by naming Eddie and also (although it's clearly not a concern of yours) looking like a frigging idiot for spouting opinion as fact.

Rowley wrote:Footballers are employees of the relevant clubs. As such it is an employment contract. Boxers are not employees of the promoters. How many more people need to say this before you grasp the distinction.

It is not employment law that stops players talking to other clubs.  It is the rules of the FA and the fact that they are enforced.

The BBBofC is being shown up to have little control of how mangers/ promoters behave.

The strongest statement I have seen from the BBBofC in relation to fighters determining contracts is below.


Taken from FW website....

The British Boxing Board of Control have today decided that British Super-Featherweight Champion Stephen Smith will not be allowed to defend his title on any promotion other than that of his promoter FW, which is scheduled for Saturday 7th December at the Liverpool Echo Arena.


Earlier this month, Smith announced that he would participate in the defence of his title against Gary Sykes on Saturday 23rd November in Manchester on a show promoted by Eddie Hearn.

However, Smith and Hearn chose to ignore the fact that the BBBofC has already formally sanctioned the fight to take place at the Liverpool Echo Arena on Saturday 7th December.

Robert Smith, the General Secretary of the BBBofC, today stated that until the Board has heard the dispute and made a decision Stephen Smith "will not be able to appoint another person to act on his behalf as manager nor will he be able to negotiate with others on his own behalf. It follows that, prior thereto, the Board will not allow him to participate in a contest arranged by a third party."

Should any party wish to engage the services of Stephen Smith, they should contact FW Promotions"

You're conveniently ignoring the most important part of that statement, give it up Strongy you're making yourself look more embarrassing each post.

Don't have the energy to read through the whole of the thread but strongy, have you provided any proof or evidence that boxers talking to third parties is against any board rules or laws of the land yet?