frankwarren.tv

[stujones]

Anyone noticed allegedly's list of partners on his website.... need updating? or is something still not quite known?

http://www.allegedly.tv/drill/News/Articles/

Top of the page.

[funso banjo baby]

syu ur get us in sooo much trouble

id hide out for a few weeks...cover ur tracks

[stujones]

I'm aware threads are being monitored and I'll be on hand (as much as possible) to delete/lock any potentially libelous or damaging comments - especially if a warning of a comment is given via PM to me (and of course if its myself who has made the comment then I will still delete the thread/post). However, I don't see what is wrong with simply noting something on a website.

It could be down to the simple fact that the website might need updating, similarly you can still link to Setanta's site claiming that there is a deal with the said promoter.

[WildWaylon]

Its very easy, we are all entitled to an opinion. Making libelous, personal or speculative comments can lead to problems. My view of allegedly is that as a businessman he is often a bit over careful in the matchups he makes. Having said that the fighter also benefits. Thats my opinion, and I think generally he is a good promoter and probably the UKs best. He certainly carries the best clout. As for his web address I couldnt care less what it is. I do care however when we are offered mismatches on bills rather than competetive fights and the Khan fight looks like a stinker.

[stujones]

I agree with what you say WildWaylon - however, I do think the TV situation should be classed as important to the fight fan. I, like several others, are now paying a subscription for Setanta and Sky Sports - and I have to say, the primary reason for my setanta sports is because I thought we would get REGULAR domestic action - based on a Press release announced this year that SN bouts will be on Setanta.

If we are folking out, based on misleading information - and I am not stating the blame is with SN here. It could just as easily be Setanta's who gave the misleading info - then I think we should have a right to know.

And nobody has really cared to guess if it is only Khan bills that will be PPV? To see the Best of British boxing we now have to folk out alot of money and times are tough in the country at the moment.

[The_Don1]

I agree with what you say WildWaylon - however, I do think the TV situation should be classed as important to the fight fan. I, like several others, are now paying a subscription for Setanta and Sky Sports - and I have to say, the primary reason for my setanta sports is because I thought we would get REGULAR domestic action - based on a Press release announced this year that SN bouts will be on Setanta.

If we are folking out, based on misleading information - and I am not stating the blame is with SN here. It could just as easily be Setanta's who gave the misleading info - then I think we should have a right to know.

.

True, Setanta need more regular domestic action, if they don't I'm cancelling. Ok they have Hayemaker and Fight Academy (but how often do they have promotions?) Its all very well having good US fights, but personally I cannot be bothered staying up from 3-6am to watch them, the re-runs are ok but there's no ring entrances, limited post-fight analysis so I may as well just watch them on you tube.

[frankwarren.tv]

Anyone noticed allegedly allegedly's list of partners on his website.... need updating? or is something still not quite known?

http://www.allegedly.tv/drill/News/Articles/

Top of the page.

Please refresh your page by typing www.allegedly.tv?

This will remove existing cookies on your system that have been saved by your computer

[twenty six]

I think it's a suck it and see situation.
The Haymaker contract isn't even in force yet, so domestically you need to take a look first.
The first show is 20-09-08 and the bill's shaping up nicely.
I can't begin to get my head around what's happened contractually between Wazza / Setanta / Sky.
Setanta's deal was with SN.
However, SN don't have a licence to promote, Frank does.
Perhaps the deal that Sky have struck is with Wazza, not SN ?
Perhaps all the fighters have left SN and joined Wazza ?
I haven't a clue, and doubt there will ever be a clarification.
Too many conspiracy theories if you ask me !

[stujones]

Hello,

I've done that - but click the "read more" section of the Frankly Speaking column (latest edition) and Setanta are still down as a partner.

[leforge]

On Virgin you get Setanata for free with large package. I think its good they being show more US fights.

[frankwarren.tv]

Hello,

I've done that - but click the "read more" section of the Frankly Speaking column (latest edition) and Setanta are still down as a partner.

Hi,

Certain servers will save page to page, others website (as a whole) to website. Your cookies should automatically be updated by your server, but if not, you will need to check your system settings.

However, we are looking into this to ensure our partners are regularly updated, to keep in line with all news and features on the site.

[doctorboxing]

Can I ask allegedly.tv what he thinks about sports network ripping off boxing fans by making Arthur and Khan on box office?

[oliverfennell]

Can I ask allegedly.tv what he thinks about sports network ripping off boxing fans by making Arthur and Khan on box office?

By all means, you can ask. I can also ask for a date with Jessica Alba - and that is more likely to get a response.

[stujones]

Oliver,

Hang on - I'll ask her for you! I am easy going guy and don't mind sharing.

[dondada]

Its very easy, we are all entitled to an opinion. Making libelous, personal or speculative comments can lead to problems.

Of course.

But there are plenty of cases (and I've had a couple of these type of letters myself) where you get a 'cease and desist' letter from someone when you haven't libelled them whatsoever. They'll ask for retraction, damages, etc.

Even if you haven't libelled someone, it costs time and sometimes money to defend it. It will almost always fizzle out...but if you don't know what you're doing and get one of these letters, it's understandable that you might panic and agree to all sorts.

Libel laws in this country are all in favour of the complainant - I understand why and agree with most of it but it is open to abuse by people with lots of money.

I understand Jonathon Ross has allegedly sent a few letters out via his solicitors recently as he's very sensitive about his enormous pay packet paid for by licence fee payers. Saying 'I think Jonathon Ross is overpaid' isn't libel, of course.

[jomothepure]

To say that of Woss is fair comment.

But what's the situation regarding a forum or discussion board? I'm sure cases must have come up by now. I'm presuming it is not possible to bring a case of defamation against a forum poster (Warren v klit_hater1965 seems unlikely unless the latter had divulged details of his 'real' life.)

But I'm presuming John is under threat (in general terms) of some sort?

[dondada]

To say that of Woss is fair comment.

But what's the situation regarding a forum or discussion board? I'm sure cases must have come up by now. I'm presuming it is not possible to bring a case of defamation against a forum poster (Warren v klit_hater1965 seems unlikely unless the latter had divulged details of his 'real' life.)

But I'm presuming John is under threat (in general terms) of some sort?

Someone prominent in boxing told me they had tracked down someone from Boxrec who had made libellous comments, was able to prove it was them and was suing them. I'm not sure I believe this though. See my above post and scare tactics.

If you could prove it was them (surely the hard part...unless you go on in your real name - D'oh!) then you would indeed be able to sue them.

You can also sue the 'publisher'.

[Poncey]

If you could prove it was them (surely the hard part...unless you go on in your real name - D'oh!) then you would indeed be able to sue them.

You can also sue the 'publisher'.

Not necessarily, provided the IP address is stored (and the impression I've gotten from a mod is that this is stored) they can prove it came from your computer. However, if you have a Proxy I presume you could get around this.

However, and I checked this with a solicitor, legally they cannot prove it was you that typed the remark unless they have footage of you doing it or they can prove you were at your work desk.

[chesh]

If you could prove it was them (surely the hard part...unless you go on in your real name - D'oh!) then you would indeed be able to sue them.

You can also sue the 'publisher'.

Not necessarily, provided the IP address is stored (and the impression I've gotten from a mod is that this is stored) they can prove it came from your computer. However, if you have a Proxy I presume you could get around this.

However, and I checked this with a solicitor, legally they cannot prove it was you that typed the remark unless they have footage of you doing it or they can prove you were at your work desk.

It's a similar situation to speeding in your car: "The defendant's car might have been travelling at 110 mph, but the defendant was not driving at the time, M'Lud."

[Poncey]

Exactly chesh, which caused the cameras to take a picture of the front of the car to prove you were driving, however I've learnt a trick around it if you get caught from said solicitor (and he tried it himself and it worked).

Don't sign the form. Just pay the fine.

[chesh]

Exactly chesh, which caused the cameras to take a picture of the front of the car to prove you were driving, however I've learnt a trick around it if you get caught from said solicitor (and he tried it himself and it worked).

Don't sign the form. Just pay the fine.

Thanks, Emerson. I'll remember that next time!

[dondada]

However, and I checked this with a solicitor, legally they cannot prove it was you that typed the remark unless they have footage of you doing it or they can prove you were at your work desk.

Right, then...let's f*cking go for it!

(Only joking mods!)

[WildWaylon]

Ok it isnt really relevant but a married man accused of bonking his secretatary used as his defense "the impossibiliy of bonking in a mini (maybe not a mini but a small car anyway). The judge ruled and it went on the statute book "where theres a willy theres a way". I would be terrified if I was threatened with a lawsuit. I am careful what I write.

[Coco]

" Where there is a willy, there is a way "

There is a lot to be said for that

[HughJohnson]

Can I ask allegedly.tv what he thinks about sports network ripping off boxing fans by making Arthur and Khan on box office?

I dont think that the average british sports fan is stupid enough to fork out for that load of old trout.

If they had any sense they would already have bought one of those dodgy digi`s(not that i have i`m a good boy)..so they can stop being ripped off by the powers that be.