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

Derbymanc wrote:I'm just wondering from an international businessmans point of view as to why it's Eddies fault ?(other than the Strongsters inherent dislike of someone being more successful of course)

No way is Eddie more successful.

Derbymanc wrote:I'm just wondering from an international businessmans point of view as to why it's Eddies fault ?(other than the Strongsters inherent dislike of someone being more successful of course)

Obviously i'm willing to wait until he manages to get a seat in that busy 1st class carriage of course

He can't because he cannot articulate a rational and/or balanced argument where Eddie Hearn is concerned.

Coxy001 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Eddie said Ricky had nothing to worry about. When things went bad Barry said "We are promoters not lawyers".  I could think of a couple of other adjectives to describe that weaselly runt.

Great, this tedious BS again.



Take legal advice off someone who is not a lawyer and you only have yourself to blame......

Its a pity for Ricky he was so naive he didn't realise the lanky perma-tanned quiffed mockney with his arm around him was actually a slime ball.


I don't screw over people I do work with, its bad for business.

Burns terminated the agreement with Warren as others had done so and not had it all come to this, not Hearn. Christ strongy, give it a rest sunshine.

What we don’t get to see is Eddie moaning to Barry about "that good looking, rich and successful, ladies mate on the 606v2 boxing forum". He's so strong, skilled and talented that Eddie once saw him play Aunt Sally late in 2007 and could just tell he would be able to turn that form into being a boxer superstar. Eddie offered a contract but was snubbed by Strongy who insisted that property would be his route to his fortune and happiness ( fame was too vain a goal for a modest man like Strongy ), despite those panicking around him at the time. Fast forward to 2015 and who’s got the smuggest grin now? Eddie only wears perma-tan to hide the ashen look of a man defeated by destiny.

Word is Kugan can't get an interview with Strongy. Nough said.

Much as i have no time for Frank Warren, Burns should have stayed with him, nice pay cheque's, easy defence's, no legal bills and very likely a job on Box Nation when he finished. His whole career fell apart when he joined matchroom will have to go back to .

Problem with that is Warren didn't pay him for the Mitchell fight so no idea why you think he'd have stayed after that. It's a flawed system that screwed him over as well as Warren.

i think burns just paid the price for being tapped up by matchroom and believing their flawed advice. The people that should be footing the bill are matchroom and their legal team.

Wouldn't you go and work elsewhere though if your current workplace stopped paying you?

How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Derbymanc wrote:Wouldn't you go and work elsewhere though if your current workplace stopped paying you?

Difference is, most of us aren't employed by someone who would frown upon us joining a rival. That only really happens in the pimpin' game and they start getting all protective 'n' sheet 'bout dey hoes

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

Why didn't Ricky go get a second opinion before jumping ship?

catchweight wrote:How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Burns has in turn, won his claim, amounting to more than £102,000, for unpaid purse fees from his successful World Title fight with Kevin Mitchell over two years ago.
http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So yeah, Warren didn't pay him.

Who would stay with anyone that wouldn't pay you, the money Burns owed was in the small print (I think) and Burns was unaware of it. 'Burns will have to pay Warren personally the sum of £73,000 in respect of management commission which he never knew about or thought would be claimed by Warren.'

Reading more into it, think Burns has just outWarrened Frank Warren so good on him if that's the case.

Think his management team should be held partly responsible too.

Hate to point it out too Catchy but it was found that he HADN'T breached his contract with Warren at all.

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

Derbymanc wrote:

catchweight wrote:How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Burns has in turn, won his claim, amounting to more than £102,000, for unpaid purse fees from his successful World Title fight with Kevin Mitchell over two years ago.
http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So yeah, Warren didn't pay him.

He was owed money at the time he opted to jump ship to Matchroom. The court agreed with this. Thats not neccessarily the same as not being paid or refusing to pay or the main reason he jumped ship.

Matchrooms legal advisors giving him bad advice is irrespective of that anyway. They told him he could sign with Matchroom and it would be fine when evidently it wasnt. They should be the ones accountable for the legal damages.

It states in the documents 'he wasn't paid for the Mitchell fight', therefore he wasn't paid, don't think it could be spelt out any simpler than that.

Wasn't it shown elsewhere that it wasn't matchroom that advised him, just the same law firm?

catchweight wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

catchweight wrote:How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Burns has in turn, won his claim, amounting to more than £102,000, for unpaid purse fees from his successful World Title fight with Kevin Mitchell over two years ago.
http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So yeah, Warren didn't pay him.

He was owed money at the time he opted to jump ship to Matchroom. The court agreed with this. Thats not neccessarily the same as not being paid or refusing to pay or the main reason he jumped ship.

Matchrooms legal advisors giving him bad advice is irrespective of that anyway. They told him he could sign with Matchroom and it would be fine when evidently it wasnt. They should be the ones accountable for the legal damages.

The fight was in September 2012, he signed with Matchroom in May 2013. So what excuse was there for not paying him during that time?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

Sorry no, you are wrong (as usual). Burns was found to have breached his contract.

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.

All Warren lost out on was the amount of damages he wanted.

catchweight wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

catchweight wrote:How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Burns has in turn, won his claim, amounting to more than £102,000, for unpaid purse fees from his successful World Title fight with Kevin Mitchell over two years ago.
http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So yeah, Warren didn't pay him.

He was owed money at the time he opted to jump ship to Matchroom. The court agreed with this. Thats not neccessarily the same as not being paid or refusing to pay or the main reason he jumped ship.

Matchrooms legal advisors giving him bad advice is irrespective of that anyway. They told him he could sign with Matchroom and it would be fine when evidently it wasnt. They should be the ones accountable for the legal damages.

Where does it say any of that? Nowhere that's where, it's just a half-arsed theory you've come up with out of thin air but instead of blaming the person who failed and refused to pay him his fight purse, go ahead and blame someone else.

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

Sorry no, you are wrong (as usual). Burns was found to have breached his contract.

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.

All Warren lost out on was the amount of damages he wanted.

Can you provide links for any of that?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

catchweight wrote:How do you know that was the case? I highly doubt the courts would find against him if he could show he wasnt being paid. I think he was owed money, was told he could join matchroom and when he breached his contract then warren refused to pay him the money owed

Burns has in turn, won his claim, amounting to more than £102,000, for unpaid purse fees from his successful World Title fight with Kevin Mitchell over two years ago.
http://www.matchroomboxing.com/news/statement-ricky-burns/
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So yeah, Warren didn't pay him.

He was owed money at the time he opted to jump ship to Matchroom. The court agreed with this. Thats not neccessarily the same as not being paid or refusing to pay or the main reason he jumped ship.

Matchrooms legal advisors giving him bad advice is irrespective of that anyway. They told him he could sign with Matchroom and it would be fine when evidently it wasnt. They should be the ones accountable for the legal damages.

Where does it say any of that? Nowhere that's where, it's just a half-arsed theory you've come up with out of thin air but instead of blaming the person who failed and refused to pay him his fight purse, go ahead and blame someone else.

I will take the courts legal opinion over yours. To be honest I would take anyones opinion over yours.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

Sorry no, you are wrong (as usual). Burns was found to have breached his contract.

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.

All Warren lost out on was the amount of damages he wanted.

Can you provide links for any of that?

Google it - its your specialty

Frank Warren was found to have lied in Court about an alleged oral agreement relating to Burns. His evidence was described as “untruthful”, “unrealistic” and “unreliable” by the Judge, Mr Justice Knowles. Warren had previously been found to have lied in his litigation with Joe Calzaghe.

The judge dismissed Mr Warren's claim that Burns had been "tapped up" by a rival promoter, saying the evidence "showed simply that Mr Burns had had enough" of Warren's company FWP.

Burns claimed he signed for Matchroom boss Hearn last year after claiming Mr Warren did not pay him. The boxer, 31, pulled out of an agreement with Warren's company due to unpaid fight purses.

In his High Court claim, Warren said the moves were in breach of a series of binding agreements he had signed with the boxer. A promotional agreement gave his company, W. Promotions Ltd (WPL), exclusive rights to promote Burns' next three fights, Warren said.

He claimed he was due around £90,000 in unpaid manager's commission and his company £1.8m in lost income from promoting fights which didn't go ahead.

However, in a written judgement published on Thursday, a High Court judge "completely rejected" the evidence of Warren, ruling in favour of the Coatbridge fighter.


Sorry Catchy, but Burns was never found in breach of contract, completely the opposite in fact, he was found to be right in leaving Warren and it was Warren who breached it by not paying his fighter. The money Burns owed was due to managerial fees.

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

Sorry no, you are wrong (as usual). Burns was found to have breached his contract.

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.

All Warren lost out on was the amount of damages he wanted.

Can you provide links for any of that?

Google it - its your specialty

I've read and linked the court ruling on here already, it doesn't collaborate with your fantasy story at all so maybe you could enlighten me with some hard evidence.

Warren won his case although in summing up the judge called Warren an unreliable dishonest witness or words to that effect. Burns was judged not to have honoured his contract with Warren.

Quite a few fighters felt they could walk away from Warren/ boxing contracts with impunity. The fighters under Warren contracts that left to join Matchroom were guinea pigs who got dubious legal advise.

The solicitor who oversaw Bellew's defection to Matchroom has written a lot about boxers freeing themselves from boxing contracts on Boxrec and ESB. Needless to say in the past he had plenty of reasons why Warren had failed to live up to his contract. All that was consigned to the dustbin once a judge threw his eyes on it.

Every time a fighter is considering changing promoter a picture of Ricky Burns should flash before their eyes.

Alex Morrison imo has always come across as a pr!ck and he must shoulder most of the blame in this instance.

I guess burns ending up bankrupt and being ordered to pay 400k of damages to warren was just an unlucky coincidence.

Probably because he was ordered to do no such thing, he was ordered to pay £72000 in management fees to Warren that is it.

This is what the judge decided:

"Mr Burns owes Mr Warren (and Mr Morrison, together) unpaid commission under the Manager Agreement. The amount of the unpaid commission I shall decide if it is not agreed."

This ended up being £170,000 and Burns was ordered to pay £200,000 to cover legal fees.

So we're all in agreement then that what Burns had to do was pay Warren unpaid management fees, he was never in breach of contract and Matchroom were cleared of tapping up.

Matchroom and Burns statement says it was 72K, the newspaper report says it was 170K both would have to be plus costs.

But whilst we're all getting our knickers in a twist over this, the BBoBC's response is deafening. Surely they should step in to get Warren to pay up the fees owed to Ricky or at least stop him managing or promoting boxers as it doesn't help them not to get paid?

catchweight wrote:i think burns just paid the price for being tapped up by matchroom and believing their flawed advice. The people that should be footing the bill are matchroom and their legal team.

Their legal team didn't advise him. If they had have done he could've sued them and got his costs back under their PI.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Warren dissolving yet another company was just a coincidence that meant Burns wouldn't get paid, Warren was above board with everyone he's done here obviously.

How do you know he was given bad advice by Matchroom, you don't but are quick to dismiss any opinion that doesn't fit with your chosen agenda.

Talking out your ass, but whats new?

He was given bad advice because he was found to have breached his contract in a court of law.

That's not actually true though is it, Burns was cleared of any wrongdoing and won his claim against Warren for unpaid fees of £102,000 but was told to pay Warren £72,000 in unpaid management commission. Warren having dissolved the company had no obligation to pay Burns who in turn had to pay Warren, the court effectively found Warren to be in the wrong and not Burns. The judge also threw out the accusations of tapping up but do carry on living in an alternate reality.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299501-frank-warren-loses-2m-legal-case-against-scots-boxer-ricky-burns/

So who's talking out there arse?

+1

In short, sorry Catchy, but you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Burns was under contract to Warren, Burns believed he terminated the contract and signed with Matchroom.

Under the BBBofC contract the promoter is entitled to 25% of the fighters (Burns) future earning until the contract runs out.

Warren was awarded money under the conditions of the BBBofC contract he had with Burns.

Any fighter can walk out of the standard form of the BBBofC contract they just need to compensate their promoter from their future earnings until their contract runs out.

Strongy, where you getting this info from? can you link it for me as everything i've read said Burns didn't break his contract and the money owed was from previous management fee's, nothing to do with what was going on at matchroom.

Cheers bud

Sorry Strongy bud, your spot on, (dunno how I missed that) (And Catchy)

Dunno how I missed it the first 17 times I read it
In his written judgement, the judge added that the Scot "had walked away from FWP believing he was entitled to do so and had then found a new promoter".
Warren had argued that, as a result, he had lost £1.8m in profits that would have been made from three further title defences by Burns.
Mr Justice Knowles said Burns had not been entitled to end the promotional agreement with Warren's company.
However, that did not mean FWP had lost anything, he stressed, since its promotional activities were mainly "unprofitable" anyway.

Am not sure how Frank would have felt being told his promotional activities were unprofitable though

Whilst I realise we all have our pathological needs to blame either Frank or Eddie as far as I am concerned Morrison deserves the lions share of the blame in this. Eddie has a responsibility to maintain and grow his stable, as does Frank, both will indulge in some nefarious practices to acheive this, all promoters do. Not saying that it right, but it is reality.

However, as manager Morrison has one role in all this, to protect Ricky's best interests and guide him through the legal and ethical minefield that is professional boxing. Quite clearly he has failed in this role very badly in this whole situation.

Too busy writing emails to mp's and probably forging Burn's signature on hate mail to concentrate on his job.

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.

http://www.matchroomboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Warren-v.-Burns-Approved-Judgment.pdf

You may or may not want to read all 18 pages of the judgement, I suspect not,  but the summary is in the last 3 paragraphs.

... In favour of warren re unpaid (although previously undemanded) management fees

.... In favour of burns re unpaid purse for Mitchell fight (although acknowledged that he'd never get the money from bankrupt fwp.)

... In favour of burns re warrens claims for losses from burns ending the promotional agreement. It was however stated that burns had no right to actually end the agreement when he did (though he was close to reaching the point where it was justifiable, and given fwp going bust it was inevitable regardless)... It was just laughed off that warren would have made more from burns than he still owed him from the Mitchell fight. So there was nothing to compensate.

Given that they didn't know fwp was going to be wound up, burns was poorly advised regarding whether he could walk away from frank a free man,  even though from a promotional point of view at least that's actually how it turned out.

I dont know how anyone could think Burns ending up owing 200k in legal fees, 170k in damages and ultimately bankrupt could be anything another than poor legal advice. He was the only real loser in this.

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.

I'm with Strongy on this one (re matchrooms lawyers) somebody somewhere should have insisted he get independent advice on it all as well.

His manager has to hold some responsibility for that but also the other people around him. (Too many pound signs I suppose).

If anything good is to come out of this though it'll surely be that from now on boxers will get independent advice and noone will go near his manager again.

The legal fees element is a bit of a victim of circumstance thing. Had he stayed with frank, he'd have likely been in court over lack of purse payment or taking advice re liquidators etc. You run up plenty of costs assessing the case, and lawyers will usually tell you you have a case if it's not cut and dried.

The advice you receive, good or bad, costs you. From the judgement it's clear that it wasn't cut and dried as to whether he had a right to cancel the promotional agreement... It was a timing matter. That would probably require a qc's opinion... They're not cheap.

He may well have been advised that frank would have to prove loss of earnings... Which he couldn't.

What cost Ricky here was that frank wanted to chance his arm re loss of earnings, flex some muscle with matchroom and more importantly make it clear to the fighters he has left that he'll bankrupt anyone who breaks his promotional agreements. Obviously, frank went in to this safe that his risk was negated by fwp going under.

Now good legal advice might have pointed out to Ricky that he was likely to end up out of pocket in any court case and reminded him of franks litigious past... But in reality he was out of pocket because frank wound up his company, not because he broke the promotional agreement. Frank would no doubt have come after him for management fees even if ricky left 'legitimately'... And they'd have ended up in court anyway.

I'm no lawyer, just my take from limited experience. Super might drop by with a professional opinion, though he will charge for it.

Warren won his claim for unpaid fees owed. Reports were this was settled at £170,000. It was Warrens claim for future earnings that was dismissed as Warren's FWP's was making losses on fights and based on its track record was not going to start making profits on Ricky Burns fights.

Certain people are failing to understand what the judge actually ruled, it should be noted that Burns was not made to pay a single penny in damages to Warren. The judge ruled in favour of both having unpaid fees due to them, in Warrens case management fees he had previously not been claiming. He also ruled that Burns had reason to terminate the promotional contract and it was inevitable that he would but he acted too swiftly.

The promotional aspect of this resulted in nothing happening, Burns acting too swiftly but Warren falsifying claims of lost profit. I had believed for a while that the BBBofC didn't allow a promoter to also manage a boxer or is that in America?

No you were wrong, as usual.

Says the one who clearly can't read, now bugger off stalking me you sad little man.

Another argument based on a hamfisted google interpretation down the drain. Next you will be saying the judge isnt a "respected opinion" and that your own googled legal opinion carries more weight. Comical stuff.

milkyboy wrote:The legal fees element is a bit of a victim of circumstance thing. Had he stayed with frank, he'd have likely been in court over lack of purse payment or taking advice re liquidators etc. You run up plenty of costs assessing the case, and lawyers will usually tell you you have a case if it's not cut and dried.

The advice you receive, good or bad, costs you. From the judgement it's clear that it wasn't cut and dried as to whether he had a right to cancel the promotional agreement... It was a timing matter. That would probably require a qc's opinion... They're not cheap.

He may well have been advised that frank would have to prove loss of earnings... Which he couldn't.

What cost Ricky here was that frank wanted to chance his arm re loss of earnings, flex some muscle with matchroom and more importantly make it clear to the fighters he has left that he'll bankrupt anyone who breaks his promotional agreements. Obviously, frank went in to this safe that his risk was negated by fwp going under.

Now good legal advice might have pointed out to Ricky that he was likely to end up out of pocket in any court case and reminded him of franks litigious past... But in reality he was out of pocket because frank wound up his company, not because he broke the promotional agreement. Frank would no doubt have come after him for management fees even if ricky left 'legitimately'... And they'd have ended up in court anyway.

I'm no lawyer, just my take from limited experience. Super might drop by with a professional opinion, though he will charge for it.

Insurers havent cleared him to practice, so he's second lawyer on his dads insurance. His liability is a little smaller so be wary of his advice.

Says the guy who has ignored the judges actual statement but has in fact taken the daily mail as gospel.