Biggest fight of the year revealed

Ricky Burns: Promoter Frank Warren sues boxer for £2m

Frank Warren is suing former world boxing champion Ricky Burns for about £2m, saying the Scotsman was "tapped up" by rival promoter Eddie Hearn.
Burns, 31, told the High Court in London that he pulled out of an agreement with Warren's company because of unpaid fight purses.
But Warren said: "He got tapped up. That's the bottom line.
"Behind the scenes he got tapped up by another promoter. That's what this is all about and it's very disappointing."
Warren wants the money he says he lost when former WBO lightweight champion Burns signed with Hearn last year.

Burns, from Coatbridge, was under Warren's wing when he became WBO super featherweight champion in 2010.

He later moved up to lightweight and took the world champion's belt in that division too.

However, the relationship ended after a successful title defence in Glasgow was promoted by Hearn's Matchroom Sport Limited.

Burns subsequently signed an exclusive promotional deal with Hearn's company and signed up Alex Morrison as his sole manager.

In his High Court claim, Warren says 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, he said.

Warren also claims a joint management agreement made him co-manager with Morrison, entitling him to a cut of the fighter's payments from 2010 to last year.

He says he is due about £90,000 in unpaid manager's commission and that his company is owed £1.8m in lost income.

Warren's barrister, Ian Mill QC, told Mr Justice Knowles that, at around the time the agreements were torn up, Burns was already in talks with Hearn.

"Documents disclosed by Mr Burns suggest that, at the relevant time, he was engaged in 'conversations' with Eddie Hearn at Matchroom, which led to a 'five-fight deal' with that company," he said.

Warren said he had done what he could to help Burns' career, often to his detriment as a promoter, such as pushing for a fight to be held in Scotland when overseas venues would have paid better.

Describing the boxer as having a "massive heart", Warren added: "Up until this litigation, I quite liked him. Now I am very disappointed. Very, very disappointed."

Burns disputes that Warren provided any more than promotion after 2010 and says the agreement with WPL was cancelled by non-payment of full fight fees.

Mark Simpson QC said the joint management agreement was not valid or enforceable and so Burns could not be held to it.

Even if he was entitled to some cut, Warren had waived his right by not taking it at the time, he said.

The hearing, expected to last several days, continues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/29540108

Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

When you're under contract with somebody anybody looking to attain your services is supposed to go through them...

You're 'supposed to' make a donation to a museum when you visit in lieu of an admission fee. I'm asking about the legal obligation.

No no no..............You have to reach an agreement and be COMPENSATED..

Could this be the chickens coming home to roost?

The one thing this guarantees is that Ricky won't be retiring anytime soon. Despite however poor he looks.

The legal costs alone even if he wins the case will mean he will need at least one more decent pay day before getting out. Problem is I can't see him ever getting a good enough win to earn a big fight so we will probably see him plodding around getting beat by no bodys for a few years.

You have a loser pays system over here..

Better than the one we have back in the states.....Which is the main reason big Companies get away with murder over there..

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

Ah I get you, so Warren is suing Burns for breach of contract and he's alleging this came as a result of the tapping up. Could get messy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When you're under contract with somebody anybody looking to attain your services is supposed to go through them...

Bullsh!t.

Would fancy a lawyer to say that has zero legal basis whatsoever as a statment.

superflyweight wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

And it looks like the forum lawyer has indeed coroborated!

....but he's also the forum pseudo-intellectual, so we have to treat his opinion with the appropriate level of derision   . That said, he is right of course, he's suing over a breach of contract. Normally, you'd have thought it would be pretty clear cut, i.e. you'd expect a clause referring to payment schedules/timings and appropriate out clauses for breach of contract. Whatever clauses are or aren't there, obviously aren't watertight.

Lawyers love a grey area. Both parties spend vast volumes of money getting a QC opinion, who will generally give each of them slightly favourable odds on victory to encourage them to continue and spend more on the case. The closer it gets to court, the more their respective legal teams will talk down their prospects and get them to agree to settle out of court, having earned themselves large sums of cash and justified their existence.

Well that's my experience of the process, but I'm a cynic not a lawyer

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When you're under contract with somebody anybody looking to attain your services is supposed to go through them...

Bullsh!t.

Would fancy a lawyer to say that has zero legal basis whatsoever as a statment.

Always looking for trouble...........Where is CS when you need him.

"Supposed"........Never said it was illegal.....

"He moved up to lightweight and took the world champions belt there"

Oh yea?? Which world champion was that then?

milkyboy wrote:....but he's also the forum pseudo-intellectual, so we have to treat his opinion with the appropriate level of derision   . That said, he is right of course, he's suing over a breach of contract. Normally, you'd have thought it would be pretty clear cut, i.e. you'd expect a clause referring to payment schedules/timings and appropriate out clauses for breach of contract. Whatever clauses are or aren't there, obviously aren't watertight.

Lawyers love a grey area. Both parties spend vast volumes of money getting a QC opinion, who will generally give each of them slightly favourable odds on victory to encourage them to continue and spend more on the case. The closer it gets to court, the more their respective legal teams will talk down their prospects and get them to agree to settle out of court, having earned themselves large sums of cash and justified their existence.

Well that's my experience of the process, but I'm a cynic not a lawyer

Don't give away all of our secrets, Milky. Fear you may have to be litigated to death for this.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When you're under contract with somebody anybody looking to attain your services is supposed to go through them...

Bullsh!t.

Would fancy a lawyer to say that has zero legal basis whatsoever as a statment.

Always looking for trouble............Boring..

Supposed........Never said it was illegal.....

'supposed', says the guy gifted a job by daddy-in-law and not had to cut his teeth in a open grown-up labour market.

superflyweight wrote:

milkyboy wrote:....but he's also the forum pseudo-intellectual, so we have to treat his opinion with the appropriate level of derision   . That said, he is right of course, he's suing over a breach of contract. Normally, you'd have thought it would be pretty clear cut, i.e. you'd expect a clause referring to payment schedules/timings and appropriate out clauses for breach of contract. Whatever clauses are or aren't there, obviously aren't watertight.

Lawyers love a grey area. Both parties spend vast volumes of money getting a QC opinion, who will generally give each of them slightly favourable odds on victory to encourage them to continue and spend more on the case. The closer it gets to court, the more their respective legal teams will talk down their prospects and get them to agree to settle out of court, having earned themselves large sums of cash and justified their existence.

Well that's my experience of the process, but I'm a cynic not a lawyer

Don't give away all of our secrets, Milky.  Fear you may have to be litigated to death for this.  

I never signed an nda super. But its a grey area, I'll get my people to talk to your people.

superflyweight wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

Some rumours floating about saying Warren will go after Hearn next for loss of earning due to tapping up.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When you're under contract with somebody anybody looking to attain your services is supposed to go through them...

Bullsh!t.

Would fancy a lawyer to say that has zero legal basis whatsoever as a statment.

Always looking for trouble............Boring..

Supposed........Never said it was illegal.....

'supposed', says the guy gifted a job by daddy-in-law and not had to cut his teeth in a open grown-up labour market.

The least he could do..... For twenty five years of ear ache....

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

Some rumours floating about saying Warren will go after Hearn next for loss of earning due to tapping up.

Good luck with that one Frank, he'll end up losing and publicly at that.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

Some rumours floating about saying Warren will go after Hearn next for loss of earning due to tapping up.

Good luck with that one Frank, he'll end up losing and publicly at that.

Part of Warrens case is that Burns reneged on his contract because Hearn tapped him up.

Apparently the judgement is coming on Monday so we know more then, Frank had a big celebrity QC representing him.

I didn't think Tapping up was illegal as surely not allowing another prospective employer to even offer you an improved contract is a restriction of trade???

Frank must be in dire straits to have to stoop this low, he's almost done and dusted in British boxing, clinging on to any scrap he can find.

He will be done especially if the Fury Chisora rumours are true

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:Is 'tapping up' actually illegal? You'd be naive to think it doesn't happen and the morality of it is another issue but I wasn't aware that it was breaking any laws.

Going back to the Chelsea/Arsenal/Ashley Cole scenario, to my memory the league or FA fined Chelsea and gave them a suspended points penalty but it was dealt with in house, as it were. Don't recall any legal action.

No.  The article says that Warren is suing Burns, not Hearn.  If Hearn had done something which Warren could have sued him for, Warren would be doing so (that's where the value would be).  

"Tapping Up" in football is prohibited by FIFA/UEFA and that's why football clubs can't do it , but I'm not aware of any similar prohibition in boxing - unless it's a licensing condition.  If prohibited, Warren could report it to the BBoC, but he wouldn't have any contractual grounds to sue Hearn.

Some rumours floating about saying Warren will go after Hearn next for loss of earning due to tapping up.

Good luck with that one Frank, he'll end up losing and publicly at that.

Part of Warrens case is that Burns reneged on his contract because Hearn tapped him up.

Apparently the judgement is coming on Monday so we know more then, Frank had a big celebrity QC representing him.

Again, what's the legal basis for his claim against Hearn? Hearn can't be sued for breach of a contract he wasn't party to.  So if it's not contract, and obviously isn't land, that only leaves tort and equity.  Tort means needing to establish some sort of duty of care, doesn't it? Well obviously there isn't that either, so tort's out.

'Equity' has always confused me, but am guessing he can't make a case under that either.

As Truss says, where's CS when you need him, he used to boast about being one fo Britain's finest legal brains......

Any news on what the verdict was?