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

TopHat24/7 wrote: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?

My feeling is that Matchroom approached Burns when it was clear the relationship with Warren was breaking down.  From Eddie's comments he suggested that Burns had little to worry about by leaving Warren.

Once Warren sued Burns for terminating the contract Burns probably had no option but to counter sue.

There was a precedent set by Bellew that is discussed at length on forums by Bellew's lawyer.  In that instance Bellew said his career was stagnating with Warren and as a result he was terminating their contract.  From Hearn's comments I can imagine a scenario where he pointed to Bellew and possibly said 'Look at Tony, you can do the same'.

If there was poor legal advise it was when Burns walked from Warren.  There was a contract in place between the two parties.  Ultimately it is recorded that Burns terminated the contract.  He takes the blame, bad legal advise or not.  Matchroom and the lawyers sail off into the night.

PI never comes into it because the lawyers never put their backside on the line.  Their advise comes with limitations and ultimately it is client who takes the risk on his own.

Unless a lawyer is pretty blatantly negligent, as others have said, they will probably have their backsides well and truly covered.

I think what happened here is pretty clear, but you do have to draw conclusions. Is the fact the matchroom lawyer defending Burns at court a happy coincidence? Maybe, but I think their is more to it than that.

catchweight wrote: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.

So basically you're taking the factual element (the Court's judgement) and then speculating on everything else to form a story around the facts that sounds more interesting/suits your pre-formed opinion??

You can't disclaim against negligence, only liability cap. And the cap would've been higher than a couple of hundred £k (£250k is the lowest I've ever had in TofE's).

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: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?

My feeling is that Matchroom approached Burns when it was clear the relationship with Warren was breaking down.  From Eddie's comments he suggested that Burns had little to worry about by leaving Warren.

Once Warren sued Burns for terminating the contract Burns probably had no option but to counter sue.

There was a precedent set by Bellew that is discussed at length on forums by Bellew's lawyer.  In that instance Bellew said his career was stagnating with Warren and as a result he was terminating their contract.  From Hearn's comments I can imagine a scenario where he pointed to Bellew and possibly said 'Look at Tony, you can do the same'.

If there was poor legal advise it was when Burns walked from Warren.  There was a contract in place between the two parties.  Ultimately it is recorded that Burns terminated the contract.  He takes the blame, bad legal advise or not.  Matchroom and the lawyers sail off into the night.

PI never comes into it because the lawyers never put their backside on the line.  Their advise comes with limitations and ultimately it is client who takes the risk on his own.

You were going well until the last paragraph. Unless you accept that Burns never took actual legal advice??

I.e. he relied on a wink and a nod from a layperson (Eddie).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote: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.

So basically you're taking the factual element (the Court's judgement) and then speculating on everything else to form a story around the facts that sounds more interesting/suits your pre-formed opinion??

You can't disclaim against negligence, only liability cap.  And the cap would've been higher than a couple of hundred £k (£250k is the lowest I've ever had in TofE's).

Catchy doesn't want to speculate on the detail of what may or may not have happened. He just wants to speculate on the whole thing. And ignore the critical detail:
- that all the breach of the promoter's agreement actually cost ricky was a proportion of his legal fees. The latest idea propogated being that Frank needed a breach of FWP's promoter's agreement as grounds to sue for the his personal management fees?!
- all the other alternatives for ricky were grim. Catchy thinks he could come up with some that weren't, but doesn't speculate on detail. Especially detail that doesn't suit his argument. He does think a deal could be cut where matchroom cover any legal costs, but even if they were were willing (and I doubt they would be, as they'd see it as the boxer's responsibility to check he was clear to sign another contract) doing that would be an admission of tapping up.
- only Frank of the protagonists knew the real financial position of FWP.

In the real world, I would speculate it went something like this:

Ricky is unhappy at late payments and cancelled fights. He, or someone on his behalf, sounds out matchroom as to whether they'd take him. Matchroom say yes.

The question is when did they recommend their lawyers... before ricky's letter to FWP or after... when fwp took action? We know they looked at his letter to check their behinds were covered and eddie said he thought ricky was in the clear. But had they previously checked burns’ contractual obligations and suggested an exit strategy? It certainly sounds plausible that they might.

However, rather than suggest he writes a couple of letters demanding payment and threatening to leave if he doesn't receive it, they come up with the idea he leaves straight away via a fake letter, forging his signature. Hmmn, I dunno, it doesn't sound big time lawyerish advice to me. Feels more a small time managerish type action. So, I grant you, if it was matchroom's legal advice, I've seen better. Though they would argue i imagine that a breach with no penalty to it, is generally nothing to worry about.

Of course, they could have mentioned the option of ricky writing a few letters and he declined in case FWP paid him and held him to a contract he was desperate to leave.  

Or ricky could  have decided to use matchroom's lawyers only after he realised that his exit strategy (suggested by another party) hadn't avoided litigation.

all speculation.



-

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: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?

My feeling is that Matchroom approached Burns when it was clear the relationship with Warren was breaking down.  From Eddie's comments he suggested that Burns had little to worry about by leaving Warren.

Once Warren sued Burns for terminating the contract Burns probably had no option but to counter sue.

There was a precedent set by Bellew that is discussed at length on forums by Bellew's lawyer.  In that instance Bellew said his career was stagnating with Warren and as a result he was terminating their contract.  From Hearn's comments I can imagine a scenario where he pointed to Bellew and possibly said 'Look at Tony, you can do the same'.

If there was poor legal advise it was when Burns walked from Warren.  There was a contract in place between the two parties.  Ultimately it is recorded that Burns terminated the contract.  He takes the blame, bad legal advise or not.  Matchroom and the lawyers sail off into the night.

PI never comes into it because the lawyers never put their backside on the line.  Their advise comes with limitations and ultimately it is client who takes the risk on his own.

If this is correct, Bellew won the claim for warren not acting in his best interests, but had to pay him some previous management fees....
http://www.boxingscene.com/bellew-warren-dispute-over-bbboc-sets-tony-free--58372

May well have given the impression to boxers that they could walk, but it was a different set of circumstances to burns and warren.

milkyboy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote: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.

So basically you're taking the factual element (the Court's judgement) and then speculating on everything else to form a story around the facts that sounds more interesting/suits your pre-formed opinion??

You can't disclaim against negligence, only liability cap.  And the cap would've been higher than a couple of hundred £k (£250k is the lowest I've ever had in TofE's).

Catchy doesn't want to speculate on the detail of what may or may not have happened. He just wants to speculate on the whole thing. And ignore the critical detail:
- that all the breach of the promoter's agreement actually cost ricky was a proportion of his legal fees. The latest idea propogated being that Frank needed a breach of FWP's promoter's agreement as grounds to sue for the his personal management fees?!
- all the other alternatives for ricky were grim. Catchy thinks he could come up with some that weren't, but doesn't speculate on detail. Especially detail that doesn't suit his argument. He does think a deal could be cut where matchroom cover any legal costs, but even if they were were willing (and I doubt they would be, as they'd see it as the boxer's responsibility to check he was clear to sign another contract) doing that would be an admission of tapping up.
- only Frank of the protagonists knew the real financial position of FWP.

In the real world, I would speculate it went something like this:

Ricky is unhappy at late payments and cancelled fights. He, or someone on his behalf, sounds out matchroom as to whether they'd take him. Matchroom say yes.

The question is when did they recommend their lawyers... before ricky's letter to FWP or after... when fwp took action? We know they looked at his letter to check their behinds were covered and eddie said he thought ricky was in the clear. But had they previously checked burns’ contractual obligations and suggested an exit strategy? It certainly sounds plausible that they might.

However, rather than suggest he writes a couple of letters demanding payment and threatening to leave if he doesn't receive it, they come up with the idea he leaves straight away via a fake letter, forging his signature. Hmmn, I dunno, it doesn't sound big time lawyerish advice to me. Feels more a small time managerish type action. So, I grant you, if it was matchroom's legal advice, I've seen better. Though they would argue i imagine that a breach with no penalty to it, is generally nothing to worry about.

Of course, they could have mentioned the option of ricky writing a few letters and he declined in case FWP paid him and held him to a contract he was desperate to leave.  

Or ricky could  have decided to use matchroom's lawyers only after he realised that his exit strategy (suggested by another party) hadn't avoided litigation.

all speculation.



-

Mliky thinks thats that the best case scenario for Burns was ending up bankrupt and doesnt want to speculate that it may have been the result of poor legal advice. Milky doesnt think legal costs of 200k could have been avoided with better legal advice. Milky thinks that Warren liquidating his company to avoid payments to Burns was unforseeable to legal experts despite it happening before. Milky only wants to speculate on on scenarios that discount Burns receiving poor legal advice and a statement from Matchroom saying their legal team had looked at the agreement and Burns should feel "very comfortable" was really a translation that Burns would had no liability to Warren as long as he was happy to bankrupt himself defending the claims.

All specualtion, of course.

Everything you all say is speculation though Catchy.

I'd like to see more insight into this forged signature of Ricky's

Ive never argued it was anything but.

I said I have drawn an opinion based on the outcome of the case.

In essence I think he was advised he could join Matchroom with little to fear and was totally unaware that he could wind up bankrupt if he did. When the sh1t hit the fan Matchroom had no liability and had already made their money off promoting Burns while Burns was hung out to dry.

catchweight wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote: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.

So basically you're taking the factual element (the Court's judgement) and then speculating on everything else to form a story around the facts that sounds more interesting/suits your pre-formed opinion??

You can't disclaim against negligence, only liability cap.  And the cap would've been higher than a couple of hundred £k (£250k is the lowest I've ever had in TofE's).

Catchy doesn't want to speculate on the detail of what may or may not have happened. He just wants to speculate on the whole thing. And ignore the critical detail:
- that all the breach of the promoter's agreement actually cost ricky was a proportion of his legal fees. The latest idea propogated being that Frank needed a breach of FWP's promoter's agreement as grounds to sue for the his personal management fees?!
- all the other alternatives for ricky were grim. Catchy thinks he could come up with some that weren't, but doesn't speculate on detail. Especially detail that doesn't suit his argument. He does think a deal could be cut where matchroom cover any legal costs, but even if they were were willing (and I doubt they would be, as they'd see it as the boxer's responsibility to check he was clear to sign another contract) doing that would be an admission of tapping up.
- only Frank of the protagonists knew the real financial position of FWP.

In the real world, I would speculate it went something like this:

Ricky is unhappy at late payments and cancelled fights. He, or someone on his behalf, sounds out matchroom as to whether they'd take him. Matchroom say yes.

The question is when did they recommend their lawyers... before ricky's letter to FWP or after... when fwp took action? We know they looked at his letter to check their behinds were covered and eddie said he thought ricky was in the clear. But had they previously checked burns’ contractual obligations and suggested an exit strategy? It certainly sounds plausible that they might.

However, rather than suggest he writes a couple of letters demanding payment and threatening to leave if he doesn't receive it, they come up with the idea he leaves straight away via a fake letter, forging his signature. Hmmn, I dunno, it doesn't sound big time lawyerish advice to me. Feels more a small time managerish type action. So, I grant you, if it was matchroom's legal advice, I've seen better. Though they would argue i imagine that a breach with no penalty to it, is generally nothing to worry about.

Of course, they could have mentioned the option of ricky writing a few letters and he declined in case FWP paid him and held him to a contract he was desperate to leave.  

Or ricky could  have decided to use matchroom's lawyers only after he realised that his exit strategy (suggested by another party) hadn't avoided litigation.

all speculation.



-

Mliky thinks thats that the best case scenario for Burns was ending up bankrupt and doesnt want to speculate that it may have been the result of poor legal advice. Milky doesnt think legal costs of 200k could have been avoided with better legal advice. Milky thinks that Warren liquidating his company to avoid payments to Burns was unforseeable to legal experts despite it happening before. Milky only wants to speculate on on scenarios that discount Burns receiving poor legal advice and a statement from Matchroom saying their legal team had looked at the agreement and Burns should feel "very comfortable" was really a translation that Burns would had no liability to Warren as long as he was happy to bankrupt himself defending the claims.

All specualtion, of course.

I'm not backing any side or any argument catchy. I'm interested in how it came to pass. It is possible he was poorly advised by matchroom and/or their lawyers. It is possible they did this deliberately to get him to sign straightaway... as you believe. There are other possibilities though, and even with perfect legal advice with 20:20 hindsight vision he still gets stuffed for the management fees and cost of assessing/defending it... as a minimum.

You on the other hand drew your conclusion, laying it all at matchroom's door. Defending your opinion is fine, but you refuse to acknowledge any other possibility, or the patently obvious fact that he was going to be heavily out of pocket whatever he did. Even now, you're bouncing back like a government minister, without addressing any points raised. We both know why that is.

Derbymanc wrote:Everything you all say is speculation though Catchy.

I'd like to see more insight into this forged signature of Ricky's

It's a strange one Derby, the judgement just seem to just let it pass... opining that a forgery rendered the letter invalid, but that it didn't matter in this instance as ricky went ahead and left anyhow. Do we believe Ricky really doesn't know who sent it?

It would be interesting to hear Ricky's take on the whole thing, maybe he can get a few quid back on sales of his autobiography 'cash and burns'

milkyboy wrote:

catchweight wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

catchweight wrote: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.

So basically you're taking the factual element (the Court's judgement) and then speculating on everything else to form a story around the facts that sounds more interesting/suits your pre-formed opinion??

You can't disclaim against negligence, only liability cap.  And the cap would've been higher than a couple of hundred £k (£250k is the lowest I've ever had in TofE's).

Catchy doesn't want to speculate on the detail of what may or may not have happened. He just wants to speculate on the whole thing. And ignore the critical detail:
- that all the breach of the promoter's agreement actually cost ricky was a proportion of his legal fees. The latest idea propogated being that Frank needed a breach of FWP's promoter's agreement as grounds to sue for the his personal management fees?!
- all the other alternatives for ricky were grim. Catchy thinks he could come up with some that weren't, but doesn't speculate on detail. Especially detail that doesn't suit his argument. He does think a deal could be cut where matchroom cover any legal costs, but even if they were were willing (and I doubt they would be, as they'd see it as the boxer's responsibility to check he was clear to sign another contract) doing that would be an admission of tapping up.
- only Frank of the protagonists knew the real financial position of FWP.

In the real world, I would speculate it went something like this:

Ricky is unhappy at late payments and cancelled fights. He, or someone on his behalf, sounds out matchroom as to whether they'd take him. Matchroom say yes.

The question is when did they recommend their lawyers... before ricky's letter to FWP or after... when fwp took action? We know they looked at his letter to check their behinds were covered and eddie said he thought ricky was in the clear. But had they previously checked burns’ contractual obligations and suggested an exit strategy? It certainly sounds plausible that they might.

However, rather than suggest he writes a couple of letters demanding payment and threatening to leave if he doesn't receive it, they come up with the idea he leaves straight away via a fake letter, forging his signature. Hmmn, I dunno, it doesn't sound big time lawyerish advice to me. Feels more a small time managerish type action. So, I grant you, if it was matchroom's legal advice, I've seen better. Though they would argue i imagine that a breach with no penalty to it, is generally nothing to worry about.

Of course, they could have mentioned the option of ricky writing a few letters and he declined in case FWP paid him and held him to a contract he was desperate to leave.  

Or ricky could  have decided to use matchroom's lawyers only after he realised that his exit strategy (suggested by another party) hadn't avoided litigation.

all speculation.



-

Mliky thinks thats that the best case scenario for Burns was ending up bankrupt and doesnt want to speculate that it may have been the result of poor legal advice. Milky doesnt think legal costs of 200k could have been avoided with better legal advice. Milky thinks that Warren liquidating his company to avoid payments to Burns was unforseeable to legal experts despite it happening before. Milky only wants to speculate on on scenarios that discount Burns receiving poor legal advice and a statement from Matchroom saying their legal team had looked at the agreement and Burns should feel "very comfortable" was really a translation that Burns would had no liability to Warren as long as he was happy to bankrupt himself defending the claims.

All specualtion, of course.

I'm not backing any side or any argument catchy. I'm interested in how it came to pass. It is possible he was poorly advised by matchroom and/or their lawyers. It is possible they did this deliberately to get him to sign straightaway... as you believe. There are other possibilities though, and even with perfect legal advice with 20:20 hindsight vision he still gets stuffed for the management fees and cost of assessing/defending it... as a minimum.

You on the other hand drew your conclusion, laying it all at matchroom's door. Defending your opinion is fine, but you refuse to acknowledge any other possibility, or the patently obvious fact that he was going to be heavily out of pocket whatever he did. Even now, you're bouncing back like a government minister, without addressing any points raised. We both know why that is.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

I never claimed Matchroom and their lawyers deliberately gave Burns bad advice, but I do think they gave him bad advice and ensured their interests were looked after and Burns absorbed all the risk. I think the outcome of the case is testament to this.

I havent refused to acknowledge any other possibility. I just think that Burns ending up bankrupt due to bad legal advice is the most plausible outcome. I guess refusing to agree with another opinion is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge it for you.

I havent refused to acknowledge that Burns was going to end up out of pocket in some shape or form. I merely think ending up bankrupt was far from the best case scenario. He was owed 100k and didnt get a penny of it. He racked up 200k in costs chasing the 100k and defending himself from a claim that the judge found completely unrealistic. The management fees may or may not have been unavoidable. All things considered a pretty wretched return which leads me to believe the advice he was given was pretty shoddy and there were better ways of going about freeing himself from Warren. There is an interview where Hearn claims that Matchroom and their legal team had reviewed the situation and concluded there was no contract and that Burns should feel "very comfortable". I think its highly plausible this was, in fact, the message relayed to Burns and that he acted on this to his ultimate detriment.

My opinion that he received poor legal advice is based on the outcome of the case, considering the possibilities and finding that he received bad advice as the most plausible outcome.

Burns coming to the conclusion he could walk out of his Warren contract with impunity was a bad decision.

I think Burns had people advising him who gave him the impression he could walk away from his contract as Warren was perceived not to be living up to his end of the contract. There was a poor interpretation by Burns' advisors of how binding the contract between Burns and Warren actually was. Eddie's comments that Burns had little to worry about support the view that there was flawed thinking at play.

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: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?

My feeling is that Matchroom approached Burns when it was clear the relationship with Warren was breaking down.  From Eddie's comments he suggested that Burns had little to worry about by leaving Warren.

Once Warren sued Burns for terminating the contract Burns probably had no option but to counter sue.

There was a precedent set by Bellew that is discussed at length on forums by Bellew's lawyer.  In that instance Bellew said his career was stagnating with Warren and as a result he was terminating their contract.  From Hearn's comments I can imagine a scenario where he pointed to Bellew and possibly said 'Look at Tony, you can do the same'.

If there was poor legal advise it was when Burns walked from Warren.  There was a contract in place between the two parties.  Ultimately it is recorded that Burns terminated the contract.  He takes the blame, bad legal advise or not.  Matchroom and the lawyers sail off into the night.

PI never comes into it because the lawyers never put their backside on the line.  Their advise comes with limitations and ultimately it is client who takes the risk on his own.

If this is correct, Bellew won the claim for warren not acting in his best interests, but had to pay him some previous management fees....
http://www.boxingscene.com/bellew-warren-dispute-over-bbboc-sets-tony-free--58372

May well have given the impression to boxers that they could walk, but it was a different set of circumstances to burns and warren.

I see it Milky that a notion was formed after Bellew walked from Warren that the BBBofC contracts were not particularly strong and binding. It gave solicitors, promoters and fighters an impression that there was room to maneuver. This seems to evidenced by the number of fighters who followed Bellew in walking away from Warren.

catchweight wrote:

I never claimed Matchroom and their lawyers deliberately gave Burns bad advice, but I do think they gave him bad advice and ensured their interests were looked after and Burns absorbed all the risk. I think the outcome of the case is testament to this.

IF they advised him about how to leave FWP, with respect, how is having a team of lawyers giving advice to two parties, specifically protecting the interests of one whilst ensuring the risk was absorbed by the other , not  deliberately bad advice to the other?

catchweight wrote:
I havent refused to acknowledge any other possibility. I just think that Burns ending up bankrupt due to bad legal advice is the most plausible outcome. I guess refusing to agree with another opinion is tantamount to refusing to acknowledge it for you.

happy for you to disagree with an opinion, I don't give a hoot,  maybe though you could just accept that the position you originally held isn't a completely accurate representation of the outcome. You'll note i genuinely don't have a fixed opinion on this. I've merely pointed that there out the matter of the advice isn't necessarily as straight forward as you paint it, when we don't have all the facts. and that your whole premise was based on the breaking of the promotional agreement causing bankruptcy when the facts are he paid no damages for the breach you say bankrupted him.

catchweight wrote:
I havent refused to acknowledge that Burns was going to end up out of pocket in some shape or form.

The best you managed  was:

catchweight wrote:
If Burns wanted to release himself from Warrens contract it probably wouldn't have been too difficult and he could have done so if legally advised correctly. He might have lost out on any money owed but wouldn't have had to rack up 200k in costs and that again in damages fighting legal claims.

The fact that there was no way of ending the contract legally at that time without fwp ripping it up is a bit of an issue. Which seems unlikely. The idea that he 'might' just have to write off the mitchell money implied as a worst case, is hugely optimisitic when you look at the respective situations of the protagonists.

catchweight wrote:
The management fees may or may not have been unavoidable.

clearly they were unavoidable... look at the judgement. That one you based your opinion on. Some (not all) of the costs might have been avoidable had they chucked the towel in before court proceedings

catchweight wrote:
All things considered a pretty wretched return which leads me to believe the advice he was given was pretty shoddy and there were better ways of going about freeing himself from Warren. There is an interview where Hearn claims that Matchroom and their legal team had reviewed the situation and concluded there was no contract and that Burns should feel "very comfortable". I think its highly plausible this was, in fact, the message relayed to Burns and that he acted on this to his ultimate detriment.

My opinion that he received poor legal advice is based on the outcome of the case, considering the possibilities and finding that he received bad advice as the most plausible outcome.

They're two separate things. There is no contract because burns had ended it. So from matchroom's perspective burns was now a free agent and could be signed. FWP didn't sue matchroom. Hearn, makes it clear in the same piece, that whether it was ended correctly was down to FWP and Burns to sort out. He then does say the 'very comfortable'  bit... naively in my view, but he's hardly likely to say 'ricky messed up the termination and it's going to get messy' is he? And it doesn't mean burns actually left under that advice from matchroom or their lawyers, as this all played out after the fact.

Does a promoter have a duty of care to check that his fighter has no outstanding issues with his previous promoter? How does he do that exactly? Surely that's the fighter's managers job.

As others have said the role of alex morrison, the man paid to look after burns interests in all this require some scrutiny.

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote: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?

My feeling is that Matchroom approached Burns when it was clear the relationship with Warren was breaking down.  From Eddie's comments he suggested that Burns had little to worry about by leaving Warren.

Once Warren sued Burns for terminating the contract Burns probably had no option but to counter sue.

There was a precedent set by Bellew that is discussed at length on forums by Bellew's lawyer.  In that instance Bellew said his career was stagnating with Warren and as a result he was terminating their contract.  From Hearn's comments I can imagine a scenario where he pointed to Bellew and possibly said 'Look at Tony, you can do the same'.

If there was poor legal advise it was when Burns walked from Warren.  There was a contract in place between the two parties.  Ultimately it is recorded that Burns terminated the contract.  He takes the blame, bad legal advise or not.  Matchroom and the lawyers sail off into the night.

PI never comes into it because the lawyers never put their backside on the line.  Their advise comes with limitations and ultimately it is client who takes the risk on his own.

If this is correct, Bellew won the claim for warren not acting in his best interests, but had to pay him some previous management fees....
http://www.boxingscene.com/bellew-warren-dispute-over-bbboc-sets-tony-free--58372

May well have given the impression to boxers that they could walk, but it was a different set of circumstances to burns and warren.

I see it Milky that a notion was formed after Bellew walked from Warren that the BBBofC contracts were not particularly strong and binding.  It gave solicitors, promoters and fighters an impression that there was room to maneuver. This seems to evidenced by the number of fighters who followed Bellew in walking away from Warren.

I think that may well be the case from fighters and promoter's perspectives Strongy. No lawyer i've ever dealt with, actually acting  for someone,  wouldn't want to look at the contracts in question and draw his/her own conclusion's. They could conceivably point out to clients that FWP hadn't gone after others as part of their risk assessment, but Burns situation was different to groves and bellew.

In terms of the battle grounds drawn, maybe this piece form our friends at the daily mail, that sets the tone when the split was announced. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-2291220/Ricky-Burns-Frank-Warren-Matchroom-Eddie-Hearn.html

I bet Ricky is really pleased that pedantic nuggets on here are finding his bankruptcy so interesting..

Fair point truss. But while you're here, u Not going to liken the case to a random 80's fight between too forgotten yank fighters?

milkyboy wrote:Fair point truss. But while you're here, u Not going to liken the case to a random 80's fight between too forgotten yank fighters?

Now you mention there was a similar case before the Arroyo - Blake fight back in 84....

Ricky wants to make a few quid he can always move up to WW as it appears Kell Brook is going to have another 12 gimmes on his record before the end of the year

Gotta be a top 10 bankruptcy thread

DAVE667 wrote:Ricky wants to make a few quid he can always move up to WW as it appears Kell Brook is going to have another 12 gimmes on his record before the end of the year

The interview after the Gavin fight...... "Yeah I thought i did well toni-ooooh me leg is twinging !!"

Anybody else heard that despite all the poor career choices and bad performances the past two years Ricky has a very unhealthy gambling addiction?

... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

Last time I tried to go all in.....I lost too..

... But you only lost your dignity truss

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

Last time I tried to go all in.....I lost too..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZU-owLWV3Q

Thought Ricky was just squandering his money on tattoos

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

Only tossers use #

C'mon Strongy, thought you'd be happy with people using hashtags, i'm sure you had some hand in coming up with them

Derbymanc wrote:C'mon Strongy, thought you'd be happy with people using hashtags, i'm sure you had some hand in coming up with them

# jokes are for wan.kers and minor celebrities.

But surely you advise some of them minor celebrities so part of that is your fault grrrrr (fist shake), tell them to be more serious.

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

Only tossers use #

Nice retort for once again being caught out as a delusional muppet.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

Only tossers use #

Nice retort for once again being caught out as a delusional muppet.

You'll be the last guy to stop loving Eddie.

You should try having some thoughts of your own some day.

Nothing to say but what a day how's your wife been.

What has Eddie got to do with it?

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

Only tossers use #

Nice retort for once again being caught out as a delusional muppet.

You'll be the last guy to stop loving Eddie.  

You should try having some thoughts of your own some day.  

Nothing to say but what a day how's your wife been.

Thought that was gonna be me Strongy????
Gutted now

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What has Eddie got to do with it?

Tap......tap......tap........tap............

By the way Ricky Burns has gone bankrupt !!

Derbymanc wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... so after all the bickering on this thread, it now transpires that:

eddie tells ricky to get legal advice... matchroom's lawyers tell ricky his hand isn't strong... Frank raises the stakes and ricky says 'f*ck it, I'm going all in'

What about Eddie's statements to the press to the contrary.

Bellew's lawyer argued lack of career progression as Bellews reason for ditching Warren.  

#sarcasmfail

Only tossers use #

Nice retort for once again being caught out as a delusional muppet.

You'll be the last guy to stop loving Eddie.  

You should try having some thoughts of your own some day.  

Nothing to say but what a day how's your wife been.

Thought that was gonna be me Strongy????
Gutted now

Nah....if Eddie stop paying you you'd move on to another john.....you're cheap that way....

Yet you still couldn't afford me

Derby's tips at the Oyster used to come to £1.000 a night..........

That's why Eddie's shows are PPV.........

A similar case in South Africa has led the IBO to suspend the promoter of the recent Loreto v Joyi fight for unpaid purses/fees encouraging Boxing South Africa to take appropriate steps pending legal action.