Ricky Burns goes bankrupt

First topic message reminder :

According to the Herald Scotland, Burns has declared himself bankrupt with £400,000 worth of debt and just £229 in assets,
Such a sad situation for for a genuinly nice guy

I have based my entire opinion on the judges outcome.

You are the guy arguing stuff like "how do you know he was given bad advice" and "Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing".

Sure what does it matter, you probably cant even remember what you were arguing. Makes for a great laugh though.

You have in fact based it entirely on the daily mail, your quotation of figures reported only by them confirms it, wouldn't expect any different from you.

Nope my point was pretty simple. Burns received crappy legal from Matchrooms lawyers and they are the ones who should be footing the bill.

You have argued this point with one misinterpretation after another - but I dont expect you to remember what you were arguing in any case. At least the poster Derby had the grace to admit that he had argued against was incorrect. You have just blethered on with one c0ck up argument after another hoping tht if you argue enough and try to look like you know what your talking about then nobody would notice. After arguing that the judge did not find Burns in breach of his agreement, when you find out that in fact the judge DID find that Burns was not entitled to end the agreement you decide to come on and try and advise people on the judges findings! Its brilliant!

Was it bad advice? Who knows who advised him what, if he was advised he wasn't in breach that was incorrect according to the judge, but If they advised him he wouldn't have to pay frank a penny in compensation for ending the promotional agreement, they were correct. They weren't to know fwp was about to get wound up. And as I said earlier, any payments Ricky had to make to frank in past management fees, could have landed at his door anytime regardless of him leaving.

It's not black and white, just murky shades of grey.

Yeah well Hearn said they had looked at the contract at Burns had nothing to fear. A couple of months later hes bankrupt and the Hearns are claiming they arent lawyers.

If Burns wanted to release himself from Warrens contract it probably wouldnt have been too difficult and he could have done so if legally advised correctly. He might have lost out on any money owed but wouldnt have had to rack up 200k in costs and that again in damages fighting legal claims.

Im pretty happy to go with the option that Burns was the victim of poor legal advice. I think Matchroom thought they could poach him from Warren without much hassle and it turned out they got it wrong. The real loser in Burns.

He would have had to have paid management fees regardless of how he left, this is what you're not comprehending properly. Warren would always have taken him to court to recover that money.

Im comprehending everything just fine. Your the guy with the changing argument every few minutes.

You're doing your usual of accusing others of not having a clue despite not understanding what has happened. My argument has stayed the same throughout you however seem more intent on carrying on a childish feud because you're too thick to read simple English.

Your argument has been incorrect and fudged, as always. Trying to fudge everything you have argued before because you got things arsewise.

Of course Catchweight, if you shout that loud enough I might start taking your opinion seriously, the reality however is that you are wrong.

No but if you keep changing your argument enough times then maybe one of them might be right and nobody will ever remember what you were arguing in the first place.

Do you want to repeat that for me again, didn't catch it the first ten times.

Maybe you did but just forgot. Ten times might not be enough. Can you remember the topic?

Well I'm glad I posted the judgement. Knew it would clear things up for everyone.

I think catchweight and Hammersmith are in the midst of a long drawn out bitter divorce. Its the only explanation

Objection

ShahenshahG wrote:I think catchweight and Hammersmith are in the midst of a long drawn out bitter divorce. Its the only explanation

Well let's hope neither have appointed matchroom's lawyers

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I think catchweight and Hammersmith are in the midst of a long drawn out bitter divorce. Its the only explanation

Well let's hope neither have appointed matchroom's lawyers

I wonder if they'd be any better off with superfly. Could strengthen the Scottish fiscal case for independence on his taxes alone while he'd simply keep the aggro going.

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

My clue comes from the actual legal decision made in the court.

Which you don't have the acumen to fully understand. And the judgement also says nothing about your claim that Matchroom advised Ricky and should be accountable.

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms of Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs. That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

milkyboy wrote:Well I'm glad I posted the judgement. Knew it would clear things up for everyone.

It was perfectly clear for anyone capable of forming their own understanding of a matter rather than parroting shady tabloid reporting and general hearsay rubbish.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

My clue comes from the actual legal decision made in the court.

Which you don't have the acumen to fully understand. And the judgement also says nothing about your claim that Matchroom advised Ricky and should be accountable.

I dont think you have the acumen to even know the point you or I are arguing. All you did was add a thumbs up on on an article that lacked the actual court judgement of the point I was arguing.

I never argued the judgement said Matchroom should be held accountable. I said the judgement found that Burns had breached his contract - which people disputed. I said it was my opinion that Burns was poorly advised by Matchroom and their legal team an that they are the ones who should be paying the legal fees as a result.

If Burns had of been properly legally advised, he could have had his contract with Warren legally set aside and moved on with his career. He didnt and as a result he would up in a legal wrangle that cost hundred of thousands and ultimately bankrupted him.

What is the actual point you are arguing? That its a coincidence Burns uses the same legal team as Matchroom? That he recevied sound legal advice and wound up bankrupt nonetheless?

Tony Bellew settled with Warren out of court when he defected to Matchroom.

http://ringnews24.com/press-releases/item/14528-warren-wins-court-case-against-ricky-burns


The Court today confirmed that boxing promoter Frank Warren won his claim against boxer Ricky Burns. The Judge found that there was no basis for Burns to walk away from his promotional and management agreements.

Promoter Eddie Hearn advised Burns that Warren had no claim at all, saying last March, “we've been provided with a letter from Burns as confirmation that he has terminated his agreement... We have advice from our lawyers and I'm very comfortable. There is no contract now."

However this advice, now proven to be inaccurate, given to him by Hearn and his co-manager Alex Morrison, who did not give evidence nor attend the trial on any day, has proved costly to Burns who must now pay £200,000 of his own legal fees and a further £170,000 by the end of January to pay Warren's damages and costs, with other substantial sums to follow.

Morrison also lost an action to Warren recently in relation to a libel connected to this case and he too was ordered to pay £110,000 plus further substantial costs.

Coincidently Hearn’s solicitors Mischon De Reya also represented Ricky Burns.

Frank Warren said today, “I'm glad that the Court upheld my management and promotional agreements. 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.”

I don't know whether a frank warren press release is necessarily the beacon of objectivity on the matter catchy, but at least we know now the source of your figures.

We found out who shot JR but we never found out who shot FW !!

Reckon it was Sue Ellen !!.............

milkyboy wrote:I don't know whether a frank warren press release is necessarily the beacon of objectivity on the matter catchy, but at least we know now the source of your figures.

What part of it are you disputing?

milkyboy wrote:I don't know whether a frank warren press release is necessarily the beacon of objectivity on the matter catchy, but at least we know now the source of your figures.

What do you reckon the Judge meant when he said a compensation figure needed to be agreed for promotional services rendered.

That would be management services not promotional.

catchweight wrote:I have based my entire opinion on the judges outcome.

catchweight wrote:
What Warren lost on out on was a pie in the sky claim for damages of 2 million resulting from the breach. He instead won damages of 170k resulting from the breach. The court found Burns was not entitled to leave the contract and was ordered to pay Warrens legal costs and damages amounting to 400k total.

Where does it say the above in the judges outcome? It doesn't. It says it in frank's (queensbury's) press release. The judges outcome says there was a breach of the promotional agreement but nothing was due from that breach.

The damages are in relation to a separate management agreement that were previously undemanded and a separate matter to the breach of the promotional agreement.

I don't know the accuracy of franks figures quoted in the press release, but given the source, and the judge's (if we're quoting him) comments on his reliability as a witness in this matter, I certainly wouldn't just take them as gospel without questioning them and giving consideration to the purpose of the release.

Once W promotions folded, warren's downside (the remaining money from the mitchell purse) was negated. I don't imagine Ricky's legal advisers were aware that this would happen, so they'll have given advice based on the deck in front of them. In hindsight it doesn't look like good advice. It may have been poor advice even without the benefit of hindsight. I wouldn't know, I don't know what he was advised and what risk he knew he was taking with respect to the promotional agreement. Though it actually turned out to be zero in damages.

As I said earlier, Frank would no doubt be after the management fees even had the promotional agreement not been 'breached' (why wouldn't he be if he was due them?) and that would have been disputed and lead to legal costs on top. So, sadly, the reality is Ricky was getting significantly hit in the pocket, whatever hand he played.

milkyboy wrote:

catchweight wrote:I have based my entire opinion on the judges outcome.

catchweight wrote:
What Warren lost on out on was a pie in the sky claim for damages of 2 million resulting from the breach. He instead won damages of 170k resulting from the breach. The court found Burns was not entitled to leave the contract and was ordered to pay Warrens legal costs and damages amounting to 400k total.

Where does it say the above in the judges outcome? It doesn't. It says it in frank's (queensbury's) press release. The judges outcome says there was a breach of the promotional agreement but nothing was due from that breach.

The damages are in relation to a separate management agreement that were previously undemanded and a separate matter to the breach of the promotional agreement.

I don't know the accuracy of franks figures quoted in the press release, but given the source, and the judge's (if we're quoting him) comments on his reliability as a witness in this matter, I certainly wouldn't just take them as gospel without questioning them and giving consideration to the purpose of the release.

Once W promotions folded, warren's downside (the remaining money from the mitchell purse) was negated. I don't imagine Ricky's legal advisers were aware that this would happen, so they'll have given advice based on the deck in front of them. In hindsight it doesn't look like good advice. It may have been poor advice even without the benefit of hindsight. I wouldn't know, I don't know what he was advised and what risk he knew he was taking with respect to the promotional agreement. Though it actually turned out to be zero in damages.

As I said earlier, Frank would no doubt be after the management fees even had the promotional agreement not been 'breached' (why wouldn't he be if he was due them?) and that would have been disputed and lead to legal costs on top. So, sadly, the reality is Ricky was getting significantly hit in the pocket, whatever hand he played.

I am not taking anything of Warren as gospel. Burns legal costs and the costs he has to pay Warren has been reported all over the place. Not just from any Warren statements. Burns declaring bankrupcy isnt a rumour being spread by Warren.

The judge did find that Burns had breached the agreement he had with Warren. It was this breach that left Burns open to having to fend off a costly lawsuit. Had he been properly advised he could have had his contract with Warren set aside and got on with his career.

He was being represented by legal advisors for Matchroom, whos interests were to promote Burns and make money off his fights. I think its reasonably clear, unless you believe that the quote attributed to Hearn has been made up, that Burns was lead to believe there would be no significant legal ramifications of ditching Warren and joining Matchroom. This didnt turn out to be the case.

Also, 200k legal fees to fend of a Warren claim that the judge insinuated Lionel Hutz could have fended off doesnt strike me as being great value when the outstanding amount owed to Burns was only circa 100k (liqudation of Warrens company or not).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be management services not promotional.

Good boy.........gold star for you.

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

My clue comes from the actual legal decision made in the court.

Which you don't have the acumen to fully understand. And the judgement also says nothing about your claim that Matchroom advised Ricky and should be accountable.

I dont think you have the acumen to even know the point you or I are arguing. All you did was add a thumbs up on on an article that lacked the actual court judgement of the point I was arguing.

I never argued the judgement said Matchroom should be held accountable. I said the judgement found that Burns had breached his contract - which people disputed. I said it was my opinion that Burns was poorly advised by Matchroom and their legal team an that they are the ones who should be paying the legal fees as a result.

If Burns had of been properly legally advised, he could have had his contract with Warren legally set aside and moved on with his career. He didnt and as a result he would up in a legal wrangle that cost hundred of thousands and ultimately bankrupted him.

What is the actual point you are arguing? That its a coincidence Burns uses the same legal team as Matchroom? That he recevied sound legal advice and wound up bankrupt nonetheless?

You, with no basis or ability to judge, have said Ricky received bad advice from Matchroom's lawyers. You have zero knowledge about this and are just tabloid-esque speculating. See my response to Strongy below on the same point;

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms of Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs. That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That would be management services not promotional.

Good boy.........gold star for you.

For someone who is apparently so high and powerful, your inability to read things properly never ceases to amaze me.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

My clue comes from the actual legal decision made in the court.

Which you don't have the acumen to fully understand. And the judgement also says nothing about your claim that Matchroom advised Ricky and should be accountable.

I dont think you have the acumen to even know the point you or I are arguing. All you did was add a thumbs up on on an article that lacked the actual court judgement of the point I was arguing.

I never argued the judgement said Matchroom should be held accountable. I said the judgement found that Burns had breached his contract - which people disputed. I said it was my opinion that Burns was poorly advised by Matchroom and their legal team an that they are the ones who should be paying the legal fees as a result.

If Burns had of been properly legally advised, he could have had his contract with Warren legally set aside and moved on with his career. He didnt and as a result he would up in a legal wrangle that cost hundred of thousands and ultimately bankrupted him.

What is the actual point you are arguing? That its a coincidence Burns uses the same legal team as Matchroom? That he recevied sound legal advice and wound up bankrupt nonetheless?

You, with no basis or ability to judge, have said Ricky received bad advice from Matchroom's lawyers.  You have zero knowledge about this and are just tabloid-esque speculating. See my response to Strongy below on the same point;

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms of Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs.  That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

Like I say, my opinion is based on the legal outcomes of the case. Fact 1. Burns was found to have terminated his agreement with Warren prematurely. Fact 2. He ended up bankrupt defending a legal action because of it.

You are the guy waffling on with cowpat amateur legal interpretations that count for absolutley nothing.

Burns was defended was by the same legal firm that represent Matchroom. That is yet another fact. You must be having a laugh if you cant make the connection on that one. Hearn is even on record saying Matchroom and their legal team looked at Burns contract and were confident there was no binding agreement with Warren for petes sake. Which the judge ruled against.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms They Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs.  That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

You do know lawyers are often refereed to as "liars". A solicitor will argue anything you want one he's getting paid. They ain't whiter than white.

Fact 1. Burns was found to have terminated his PROMOTERS agreement with FWP prematurely. But NO damages were awarded.
Fact 2. He ended up bankrupt defending a legal action that included Fact 1, but ALSO a claim for unpaid management fees to Frank Warren himself (a co claimant with FWP), which had accrued but not been demanded previously and were entirely separate to the promoter's agreement. This is where compensation was awarded.

The reality is that Ricky was between a rock and a hard place. The decision to leave bankrupted him, which is really sad. But you can't just say, it cost him 'x', without considering what the other options he had would have ended up costing him. What were they?

1. He signs for queensbury with frank, so frank can wind up FWP without losing ricky. Given ricky was apparently skint and still owed money for the burns fight, how realistic for him was signing a new promotional agreement with one of Franks other companies?

2. He refuses to sign for Queensbury, sends threatening letters about none-payment to FWP, until every lawyer in the country is satisfied that FWP are in breach and he can leave... or until FWP go under. How long does he wait? How long does that take? He wouldn't fight, presumably, and has no income in the meantime. Regardless as soon as he goes, he still gets Frank's legitimate demands for unpaid management fees which he would dispute and ends up in court, loses and is bankrupt.

3. He sits down with Frank says he wants to leave, and asks what its going to cost him. That would be an interesting conversation to be a fly on the wall for.  I'm sure frank would want to pat ricky on the back and send him off to matchroom with a gold watch. If Frank knows FWP are going under, he has a stronger hand in court than he does trying to settle out of it, as the Mitchell money then becomes irrelevant in a negotiation. Maybe they could have reached an agreement but it would have cost ricky.

I may have missed something but there was no option for Ricky i can see that leaves him rolling in cash. Ironically, the likelihood is that option 1, staying with Warren is the one that keeps him in the black in the short term, assuming queensbury pay him... and until such point Frank wants the management money... who knows when that would be, but i would hazard a guess that it's likely a case of when not if.

Option 2, and then agreeing to pay the management fees without involving lawyers would probably have been the least expensive out route in hindsight. But Ricky couldn't work that out for himself... you need the lawyers to tell you if you have a case or not... and as has been discussed both sides can't be right.

So I guess what you are saying is that you believe Burns was going to go bankrupt irrespective and that none of the possible options include even the possibility of poor legal advice causing or contributing to this inneviteabilty.

I take the more cynical outlook whereby he was given poor legal advice by the legal represetatives of a promotional company whos main interests were signing him up as soon as possible at no risk to themselves.

I also dont think it it takes a genius, legal or otherwise, to actually check if you are legally entitled to walk away from an agreement. Id warrant that Burns was advised (incorrectly) that he was free to walk away from Warren. I certainly dont think he would do so if he was told there was a real chance of bankruptcy if he did. Or that not being paid money owed was perfectly good grounds to have the agreement legally set aside and freeing him up.

This was Hearns interpretation:

"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."

Looks like Matchroom were well covered. Burns on the other hand.....

I was saying two things.

Firstly a reminder that you keep saying its the breach that caused the bankruptcy when the compensation payments were for something different and that secondly,  consequently most of those costs to ricky were probably inevitable.

Good or bad advice is usually a retrospective judgement based on hindsight. I would certainly agree that if ricky did rack up £200k in legal fees then that's pretty grim reading. However, my guess (just a guess) is he was told with respect to the promoter's agreement... 'you might be in breach but no compensation will be due and FWP will be ordered to pay you for the burns fight'. Which looks like a winning hand if you don't know FWP are going top be liquidated and won;t have to pay you.

Disputing the management fees definitely doesn't look like good advice however you view it. They may have taken the view that they were ending up in court regardless so might as well try it.

whichever, you're making an assumption that matchroom were behind the whole thing, and planned ricky's exit without giving a thought for him. You might be right, I genuinely don't know.  

We don't actually know who said what to whom and when, we don't know whether ricky was made aware of all the potential repercussions or not. He wasn't in a good financial position at the time apparently. We also don't know if Ricky had disclosed everything to whoever advised him before he quit FWP. According to Ricky his signature was forged on the termination letter and he didn't know it was being sent! Who sent it? Matchroom, his manager? someone else? Who knows. Ricky appointed the same lawyers as matchroom to defend him, ( i guess they have experience of warren's contracts so in some respects it would make sense) but were they acting and advising him when he broke the agreement that he says he didn't even know he was ending? As I said, they might have been, I have no idea. What role did his manager play?

I had read the hearn quote. Distancing himself? Looks that way, but we know that breaching the promotional agreement in question led to no damages, so maybe hearn was actually right on that part.

In short, better advice throughout the process, or even cheaper advice may well have helped reduce ricky's overall costs, but as i said, none of the options looked great for him. Do you dispute that?

As for whether it takes a genius to check if you are legally entitled to walk away from an agreement? I guess that's why there is a huge industry of commercial lawyers arguing over contract breaches every day. The Contract apparently didn't have payment time scale terms... so it was a judgement call from the judge as to whether the late payments made for a reasonable breach... he felt it wasn't at that time but that it would have been soon. It wasn't black or white. Again, ricky's lawyers may well have considered that ricky was possibly in breach but that no compensation would be due, so what did it matter?

Obviously, as it turned out, what mattered was the fees that were building up on both sides. I don't dispute that some lawyers tell their clients they have a good case and rack up the time. Ricky may have received terrible advice from unscrupulous lawyers not acting in his best interests... or they may have tried everything for him and come up short. I don't have a horse in this race or an axe to grind. I'm merely pointing out that while your theory is entirely plausible there are alternative explanations and ricky was in an unfortunate situation likely to leave him financially struggling whatever he did.

I keep saying the breach is what caused the bankruptcy because it gave Warren the grounds go after Burns in court for various claims and Burns racked up 200k in legal costs having to defend. I dont for a second believe what actully played out was the most cost effective result for Burns. Im not too fussed about speculating on what options were available to Burns. I could equally conjure up in my own non legal expertise a number of options I believe would have been far better alternatives to pursue with sounder legal advice.

I said it doesnt it take a genius to check if they are legally enititled to walk away from an agreement. Check. Not figure it out for themselves. I would have expected the hot shot Matchroom lawyers to have been able spot that actually Burns wasnt free to walk away and advise accordingly rather than "we are very comfortable". I would have expected in the event they werent sure if he was free to leave Warren they would have looked to have it legally set aside to make sure. I would have expected that in the event Burns did end up in a costly legal battle they might have been able to secure some sort of guarantee from Matchroom. 200k is lot to spend on legal fees when you are only owed 100k.

I think the whole case smacks of a boxer being caught between two promotional agencies who know how to cover themselves and look out for their own interests while he ended up taking on all of the risk based on the advice he got and was ultimately hung out to dry. I think Matchroom had a look at the case, told Burns he had little to fear from joining them and leaving Warren, and made sure if there was any legal pain that they werent going to feel any of it.

I would also add, that I think if he gone with some competent idependent legal advice rather than the lawyers who look afte rMatchrooms interest he might have had a better run at things.

I remember at the time that Burns was very frustrated as two fights Warren lined up fell through and I remember Billy Nelson saying the lack of a fight was bad organisation on Warrens part.

There was also talk of Ricky being owed money.

Eddie was lurking and when Warren messed up Hearn was there there to swoop in.

Bellew had gotten away from Warren by arguing his career wasn't progressing quickly enough under Warren. He also had to pay Warren a settlement figure.  That stated the rot with the likes of Paul Smith jumping to Matchroom sighting a lack of career progress.

Frank needed to stop the rot and he got his day in court through Ricky Burns.  That day he sent a message to all fighters that a contract is a contract.  

I think some acknowledgement has to be given to the sense that Matchroom set up the impression that it was fairly straight forward walking out of a boxing contract.  

Having a firm of solicitors talking out of two sides of their mouth was a bit silly of Burns.

So your saying Strongy that the rot was the boxers walking away from a promoter and not the fact that said promoter hadn't paid them???

As a British World Champion at the time who would you have expected Ricky to go to??? whether you like it or not Big Ed is the big cheese in Britain so he doesn't need to lurk, he just has to chill out in his massive mansion with his bags of money like Scrooge Mcduck and wait for the call.

Burns should have got his own independent lawyer to look over the contract and give him advice but then again, (I'm assuming) he was using the same people/company that got other boxers out of their contracts so he probably thought it was alright.

Don't understand why his manager isn't getting more stick and why the forged signature isn't being looked at more.

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

My clue comes from the actual legal decision made in the court.

Which you don't have the acumen to fully understand. And the judgement also says nothing about your claim that Matchroom advised Ricky and should be accountable.

I dont think you have the acumen to even know the point you or I are arguing. All you did was add a thumbs up on on an article that lacked the actual court judgement of the point I was arguing.

I never argued the judgement said Matchroom should be held accountable. I said the judgement found that Burns had breached his contract - which people disputed. I said it was my opinion that Burns was poorly advised by Matchroom and their legal team an that they are the ones who should be paying the legal fees as a result.

If Burns had of been properly legally advised, he could have had his contract with Warren legally set aside and moved on with his career. He didnt and as a result he would up in a legal wrangle that cost hundred of thousands and ultimately bankrupted him.

What is the actual point you are arguing? That its a coincidence Burns uses the same legal team as Matchroom? That he recevied sound legal advice and wound up bankrupt nonetheless?

You, with no basis or ability to judge, have said Ricky received bad advice from Matchroom's lawyers.  You have zero knowledge about this and are just tabloid-esque speculating. See my response to Strongy below on the same point;

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms of Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs.  That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

Like I say, my opinion is based on the legal outcomes of the case. Fact 1. Burns was found to have terminated his agreement with Warren prematurely. Fact 2. He ended up bankrupt defending a legal action because of it.

You are the guy waffling on with cowpat amateur legal interpretations that count for absolutley nothing.

Burns was defended was by the same legal firm that represent Matchroom. That is yet another fact. You must be having a laugh if you cant make the connection on that one. Hearn is even on record saying Matchroom and their legal team looked at Burns contract and were confident there was no binding agreement with Warren for petes sake. Which the judge ruled against.

You have so little clue what you're talking about it's embarassing.

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms They Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs.  That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

You do know lawyers are often refereed to as "liars".  A solicitor will argue anything you want one he's getting paid.  They ain't whiter than white.

And if they lie, and are properly engaged, you can get them struck off and get your costs covered by their PI. Not difficult. The fact that Ricky didn't shows you n Catchy are talking out your backsides on this point.

catchweight wrote:

I take the more cynical outlook am totally speculating because I'm not actually privvy to the facts of what happened, whereby he was given poor legal advice by the legal represetatives of a promotional company whos main interests were signing him up as soon as possible at no risk to themselves.

I also dont think it it takes a genius, legal or otherwise, to actually check if you are legally entitled to walk away from an agreement. Id warrant that Burns was advised (incorrectly) that he was free to walk away from Warren. I certainly dont think he would do so if he was told there was a real chance of bankruptcy if he did. Or that not being paid money owed was perfectly good grounds to have the agreement legally set aside and freeing him up.

Corrected for you.

PS: Love the "don't think it takes a genius line", totally undermines your entire argument about him getting a shred of legal advice. Your basically saying you can do what you're accusing Hearn of doing.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Burns used the same solicitors as Matchroom do.

Ricky was a bit naive not to get independent legal advise but as Rowley said Alex Morrison should have been looking out for Ricky.

1. People use the same firm all the time, doesn't need to be a seperate firm to be 'independent' he just needs to be seperately advised. That lawyer will then owe him a duty of care under his own seperate Terms They Engagement, even with the same firm, and that lawyer (and the firm) will have their conduct monitored by the Law Society for professionalism to ensure no misconduct.

2. Given 1. above, if he was advised and acted on that advice which turned out to be bad, he could sue and recover his costs.  That he hasn't suggests he wasn't. Ergo you must be wrong about him 'using the same solicitors Matchroom do'.

You do know lawyers are often refereed to as "liars".  A solicitor will argue anything you want one he's getting paid.  They ain't whiter than white.

And if they lie, and are properly engaged, you can get them struck off and get your costs covered by their PI. Not difficult. The fact that Ricky didn't shows you n Catchy are talking out your backsides on this point.

A solicitor argues a clients point whatever that may be. If a client walks in and says he wants to terminate a boxing contract a solicitor will do everything he can to justify that. Tony Bellew had already been successful in walking away from Warren mid contract, albeit with a small compensation to Frank. That set a precedent that others have followed but it is only in the Warren v Burns case that this has been tested in front of a judge.

Frank sued Burns so Burns counter sued. Burns was never going to pay Warren management fees when he was owed a fight purse.

Warren did his best to introduce the concept of tapping up into the trial which I believe was his real motivation when it came to pursuing Burns. Contract commitments are contract commitments no matter what Matchroom might have been implying.

You and Catchy continually state that Burns was poorly/incorrectly advised by Matchroom's lawyers.

If Burns had correctly engaged lawyers, and you/Catchy are correct regarding your (totally blind) assessment of the advice provided, Burns would be able to make a claim against the firms PI.

Do you disagree?

No I stated that it was opinion that Burns received poor legal advice.

I doubt Burns would be able to take a case against his own lawyers because they tend to be well able to cover themselves an their liabilities. The advice may have been poor but not sufficiently negligent to warrant a case, they may have had Burns sign disclaimers, Burns may not even realise the advice he got was poor. The legal team are presenting this case as a successful defence. That Burns went bankrupt to make it happen may not be sufficient to take a case. There a whole host of reasons.

Im not overly fussed with speculating on every single detail of what may or may not have been said or advised in any event. My opinion is drawn from the judges findings, the costs Burns incurred, his bankrupcy and the the interests Matchroom had.

Essentially I think Burns wanted out of his deal with Warren and was advised by Matchrooms lawyers that it would be ok to join Matchroom, while ensuring Burns absorbed all of the risk and Matchroom didnt stand to lose out. Probably futile to discuss any further with someone who finds this scenario so outrageous it doesnt even bear contemplation but Im not going to change my opinion or lose any sleep over that.