Warren wins case against Burns

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.

Who wrote the article?

If the above is true Hearn has basically ruined a young mans life from a financial perspective.

You've got a good point there Strongy. I'd be interested to know who it was that gave him the advice and if it was Hearn, does that make him liable for costs etc for bad advice?

Burns solicitors are the same ones Matchroom use - Mischon De Reya. He probably should have got independent legal advice rather than using the same solicitors Matchroom use before signing. Hopefully there is a way he can pass the costs. He looked shockingly bad in his last fight. I dont think he will going beyond domestic level unless he goes down th route of taking beatings for paydays.

Not sure you can blame Hearn for this. Hes not a lawyer so he was following his legal teams advice just as much as Burns. Really feel for Ricky Burns who seems like a top bloke and doesnt deserve all this. Frank Warren really is a snake. No surprise everyone is leaving him. Hopefully Eddie Hearn can get Burns another title shot in the near future,

Can hardly blame Warren for the situation Burns finds himself in now.

Burns will not get money owed to him due to the liquidation of a Warren company


You can blame him for that though, it's not the first time he's done it, and probably not the last. It's bad form really, especially in a sport where your getting hit in the face for that money.

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."


I think this quote from the OP is misleading. The full quote is as follows:

He (Hearn) told Sky Sports News: "There is no contract now. Ricky Burns has terminated that agreement, and it's up to those two.

"If Frank Warren believes Ricky's terminated that agreement wrongly, no doubt they'll meet each other in a court of law, but having seen that letter of termination I'd be very comfortable if I was Ricky Burns.

"We're very comfortable. I expect it, but it's just something we'll get on with and there'll be no issue with the 11 May fight.

"We're a big organisation, we've taken our advice from our lawyers and we're very comfortable. We're looking forward to the future."




I believe the Legal advice Hearn was referring to was whether he could put Burns on a Matchroom card which he has done without ramifications for Matchroom.  Unfortunately Ricky has got caught out on his dealings with Warren.

The point on which I would have issue with Hearn are the words I have bolded.  It seems Hearn was reading Burns' legal documents on the termination of the Warren contract and offering advice.  Of course it's only advice so not legally binding is how it appears to me. Poor Ricky, it really is a sorry mess.

Such a mess. You've got to feel sorry for ricky. His career seems to have come to its natural conclusion, but chances are he'll have to fight on. Hearn is protected and frank liquidates another company rather than pay his liability, burns is probably at risk of losing the roof over his head and that is considered justice.

Let's be clear, Burns won the legal case and Frank lost.

However the practical reality is Frank knows how to screw his fighters and basically has redone the job he did on JC but on a smaller scale.

Contract fighters to a company, rack up debts by not paying them and then collapse the company to keep you in the clear. Warren fighters should ask for personal guarantees in their contracts.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Let's be clear, Burns won the legal case and Frank lost.

However the practical reality is Frank knows how to screw his fighters and basically has redone the job he did on JC but on a smaller scale.

Contract fighters to a company, rack up debts by not paying them and then collapse the company to keep you in the clear.  Warren fighters should ask for personal guarantees in their contracts.

Agreed Warren is a scumbag in this but Hearn I feel also misguided Burns in regard to the termination of the Warren contract. Promoters don't give a fiddlers about fighters only profit. I feel a lot of sympathy for Burns who is basically financially ruined. Burns manager Alex Morrison also deserves scrutiny.

Another three years of Burns then, Hearn screwed him here.

Is Hearns a lawyer? No. If his vernacular was not perfectly legally sound it shouldn't be surprising and Burns should not have relied on it as legal advice.

Feel really bad for Burns in all this, and neither promoter has covered themselves in glory, but let's be clear - FW is the only one to have actively gone out to screw Burns.

Any half decent boxer would be mad to sign with FW, especially without cast-iron personal guarantees.

DDGO2 wrote:Another three years of Burns then, Hearn screwed him here.

How?

And how not Warren?

Only 1 collapsed his company to avoid wages the Court had deemed him liable to pay.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Is Hearns a lawyer? No. If his vernacular was not perfectly legally sound it shouldn't be surprising and Burns should not have relied on it as legal advice.

Feel really bad for Burns in all this, and neither promoter has covered themselves in glory, but let's be clear - FW is the only one to have actively gone out to screw Burns.

Any half decent boxer would be mad to sign with FW, especially without cast-iron personal guarantees.

But there is also the aspect of one rival promoter try to get one over the other. I have no doubt tapping up took place and lines like 'my solicitor says you have nothing to worry about' were used. Burns had/has a manager advising him also, what was he saying?

There is an element of Burns getting caught in the cross fire between two promoters. Ricky was too trustful and didn't realize it isn't only in the ring you have to protect yourself at all times.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Is Hearns a lawyer? No. If his vernacular was not perfectly legally sound it shouldn't be surprising and Burns should not have relied on it as legal advice.

Feel really bad for Burns in all this, and neither promoter has covered themselves in glory, but let's be clear - FW is the only one to have actively gone out to screw Burns.

Any half decent boxer would be mad to sign with FW, especially without cast-iron personal guarantees.

------ Hearn openly describes himself as a numbers man and has a very capable law and accountancy staff, don't be so naive. Matchroom is worth tens of millions, maybe even more than that. Silly comment.

Silly comment

As Toppie has already said - only one promoter here has screwed Burns. If Hearn had been so dastardly to dupe Burns then am pretty sure Ricky would be taking him to the cleaners. He's not, so lets not make silly comments as you say.

DDGO2 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Is Hearns a lawyer? No. If his vernacular was not perfectly legally sound it shouldn't be surprising and Burns should not have relied on it as legal advice.

Feel really bad for Burns in all this, and neither promoter has covered themselves in glory, but let's be clear - FW is the only one to have actively gone out to screw Burns.

Any half decent boxer would be mad to sign with FW, especially without cast-iron personal guarantees.

------ Hearn openly describes himself as a numbers man and has a very capable law and accountancy staff, don't be so naive. Matchroom is worth tens of millions, maybe even more than that. Silly comment.

you're full of sh!t you dopey moron.

go back to the emore shaped hole you crawled out of.

tophat you are losing all debates, shoosh, you look like an idiot.

Nah, you've got that market sewn up, emore.

merry christmas mate, don't want to fight, let's keep it friendly and boxing related.

As anyone who read the original determination will know Warren folding his company only actually screwed Burns out of around 100K. Whilst this does not make the act any less contemptible it does mean that Ricky would still have failed to come out of this in much better shape financially.

Was Superfly his legal counsel?

I would say all 4 parties are at fault here. Warren for liquidating his company (again?) to not have to pay . Hearn for giving Burns obviously bad advice (although it's only bad in hindsight,) the lawyers for telling him he was fine. And Burns really for not getting a completley independent look at the contract.

Seems a fair assessment Derby, just tragic that the bloke who ends up out of pocket is the guy who can almost certainly least afford it and who actually risks life and limb in the ring.

Rowley wrote:As anyone who read the original determination will know Warren folding his company only actually screwed Burns out of around 100K. Whilst this does not make the act any less contemptible it does mean that Ricky would still have failed to come out of this in much better shape financially.

Mods are on too much money. It becomes clear why they have let the boxing section turn into the financial section of late.

jimdig wrote:

Rowley wrote:As anyone who read the original determination will know Warren folding his company only actually screwed Burns out of around 100K. Whilst this does not make the act any less contemptible it does mean that Ricky would still have failed to come out of this in much better shape financially.

Mods are on too much money. It becomes clear why they have let the boxing section turn into the financial section of late.

Peanuts to us Yorkshiremen that Jim.

Below was posted on the Matchroom website:



STATEMENT FROM RICKY BURNS
Burns to appeal

Having successfully defended a claim of nearly £2m by Frank Warren last month, Ricky Burns was disappointed to have been ordered to pay an element of costs towards Warren in relation to the far smaller award in Warren’s favour for unpaid management commission. Burns will be appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Whilst the Judge did not believe Burns should be responsible for Warren’s costs of nearly £800,000, he did, however, require Burns to pay £100,000 to Warren as an interim payment. It is hoped that this sum will be set off against the monies due to Burns from Warren once the matter has been dealt with by the British Boxing Board of Control. Burns remains owed the sum of £102,000 from his fight against Kevin Mitchell over two years after Frank Warren’s wife put his promotional company, Frank Warren Promotions Limited, into Administration.

More easy money yet again for a promoter that is taken from a boxers hard earned wallet

Surely there's got to be some sort of British boxing board which would ensure that promoters who owe various fighters six figure sums of money aren't allowed to promise more fighters six figure sums?

That's crazy talk Raf, maybe somewhere like Luxemberg has that???

Lol exactly.

BBBC got egg on its face with that episode and hasn't the balls to try again.

Lol I forgot about that... Gotta love lax trade restrictions.

Can we all stop using "LOL"?! We all just haven't hit puberty and flick the bean over one direction MEN!

Surely the BBBoC can do something though? There must be some ethical hammer they can bring down on Frank?!

Nowt wrong with 1D, they dance all night to the best song ever (or so my daughter tells me) after she LOL's a lot of course

Coxy001 wrote:Can we all stop using "LOL"?! We all just haven't hit puberty and flick the bean over one direction MEN!

Surely the BBBoC can do something though? There must be some ethical hammer they can bring down on Frank?!

You'd like to think so, but the Fury Chisora incident pretty much emasculated them. In a sensible world this £100,000 Burns has been ordered to pay Warren would be subtracted from the £102,000 Frank owes him. However legally it is questionable they could do this and after the Luxenbourg affair you can't help but get the impression they would be too scared to even try, pathetic state of affairs all round.

Rowley wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Can we all stop using "LOL"?! We all just haven't hit puberty and flick the bean over one direction MEN!

Surely the BBBoC can do something though? There must be some ethical hammer they can bring down on Frank?!

You'd like to think so, but the Fury Chisora incident pretty much emasculated them. In a sensible world this £100,000 Burns has been ordered to pay Warren would be subtracted from the £102,000 Frank owes him. However legally it is questionable they could do this and after the Luxenbourg affair you can't help but get the impression they would be too scared to even try, pathetic state of affairs all round.

Hopefully somewhere in the appeal the court rules that Frank has to meet certain criteria (actually paying his fighters would be a good start) with each and every show he puts on.

I'm not going to pretend I'm in full possession of the facts, but surely the breach of contract was instigated by Frank by not paying Burn's?

As much as some don't like Hearn at least he appears to at least reimburse his fighters for their efforts. I would say Frank has gone down in my estimation but he's dropped some many notches there aren't any notches left and thus no profanities left to describe him.

Is sad to hear as it isn't like Burn's is at the pinnacle of his career any more. If this ruling stands up then he's gonna be a gatekeeper then punch bag for the up'n'comers for a good few years to come. Be nice if Sky could offer him some punditry work, think he'd be half decent at it to be honest and wouldn't join their pied piper brigade.

Coxy001 wrote:Can we all stop using "LOL"?! We all just haven't hit puberty and flick the bean over one direction MEN!

Coxy...I thought you were banned from here for good? LOL

A High court of common sense would be great in these circumstances.

Judge: "So, let's start from the beginning".
Burns: "Well, I fought this guy years ago and he didn't pay me".
Judge: "Frank, is this true? Can you prove you did pay?"
Frank: "Technically yes it's true, I can't prove I paid him".
Judge: "F@!k sakes Frank you plumb. Sling yer hook."

Interesting couple of tweets:

16 Dec
Mohammed @King_Raj786
@BarryHearn @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn you guys did advise him reference his previous contract, let's be honest


Barry Hearn        ✔ @BarryHearn

@King_Raj786 @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn Not true. His lawyers advised him We are not lawyers we are boxing promoters.


The Hearn's are a pair of rats deserting the sinking ship as far as I'm concerned.  Every bit as callus as Warren.

Apparently Burns lawyers are the same as Matchrooms lawyers. I would never trust the legal advice of promoters with a vested interest.

The firm are the same but the personnel will be seperate and be seperately engaged.

If there was even a hint of impropriety then Burns could validly take a complaint to the Law Society - lawyers are very tightly regulated.

And once again, there isn't a snowball in hell's chance of those lawyers being engaged without PI cover in place - certainly way more than the costs Burns has been hit with. If he's been negligently or fraudulently advised, he can sue.

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

Strongback wrote:Interesting couple of tweets:

16 Dec
Mohammed @King_Raj786
@BarryHearn @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn you guys did advise him reference his previous contract, let's be honest


Barry Hearn        ✔ @BarryHearn

@King_Raj786 @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn Not true. His lawyers advised him We are not lawyers we are boxing promoters.


The Hearn's are a pair of rats deserting the sinking ship as far as I'm concerned.  Every bit as callus as Warren.

Would suspect your tone of voice is going to take you in to the realms of slanderous statements Strongy.

Can I suggest you provide factually based proof that Hearn himself gave implicit instructions to Burns to leave Warren? Otherwise, shut up

Coxy001 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Interesting couple of tweets:

16 Dec
Mohammed @King_Raj786
@BarryHearn @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn you guys did advise him reference his previous contract, let's be honest


Barry Hearn        ✔ @BarryHearn

@King_Raj786 @Evsy_1 @rickyburnsboxer @EddieHearn Not true. His lawyers advised him We are not lawyers we are boxing promoters.


The Hearn's are a pair of rats deserting the sinking ship as far as I'm concerned.  Every bit as callus as Warren.

Would suspect your tone of voice is going to take you in to the realms of slanderous statements Strongy.

Can I suggest you provide factually based proof that Hearn himself gave implicit instructions to Burns to leave Warren? Otherwise, shut up

I'm a big boy and I am only giving my opinion.  Eddie of course did say in the press that having seen correspondence between Burns and Warren's solicitors he would be comfortable with the arrangement if he was Ricky Burns.  In doing that Hearn admitted he was reading legal correspondence and giving his opinion on it to Ricky Burns.


Here'a a direct quote from Eddie:

"If Frank Warren believes Ricky's terminated that agreement wrongly, no doubt they'll meet each other in a court of law, but having seen that letter of termination I'd be very comfortable if I was Ricky Burns."

As i've said before I think all parties (inc Ricky) need to have a look at this and realise they all take some blame.

Warren has the most as regardless of the fact he left, Burns earned him a lot of money by getting punched in the face and once again he's shown a reluctance to pay his fighters what they're due without dragging them through the courts.

Hearns needs to look at if he advised Burns to use the law firm he did and what exactly he did say to Burns. Really he should have kept quiet until after the lawsuit had ended.

The lawyers hopefully advised him from an impartial standpoint, but how impartial can you be when advising on an issue that directly impacts a client that pays a lot of money.

Burns will hopefully serve as a lesson to other younger boxers not to trust promoters completely and try and sign them into iron cast contracts (Think Toppy mentioned getting personal guarantees.)

It's a sad state of affairs that shows no-one in a good light.

On another note, how peed off would you be if you'd won a court case to see the other guy/gal be able to declare their company bankrupt before swanning back off to their mansion.

What this should teach young fighters is that they should not walk out of their contract and also they should not listen to a rival promoter whispering sweet nothings in their ear.

Sweet and nothing being the operative words.

It should teach young fighters to get proper legal advice when signing their first contract and then in any subsequent contractual decisions. I wouldn't have let Ricky end his relationship from Warren without an indemnity from Matchroom that they would cover his losses incurred as a result of walking away from Warren. Let Matchroom stand behind their own legal advice and don't accept any risk.

What superfly said. A fighter should be able to leave if he's offered more money elsewhere, especially if his previous employer wasn't paying his wages in full.

You wouldn't continue working at ASDA if they only paid you half your wages, no matter what you'd signed. neither should they.

Different type of contract to an employee with Asda.

There was a notion going around that a boxing contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Nobody thinks that now.