why dont somebody set up a new board or sports commision??
because despite the flaws the current board and system is one of the best in the world, if not THE best!
blimey O'reilly I agree with you there Slap,
While i agree i do have something on that which always bugs me , why do the BBBoC have the monopoly on running boxing in this country , for example if another organisation started , the BBBoC would just say its not licensed by them so any bouts happening between fighters licensed by the new board would be considered unlicensed , Why ? who made the BBBoC the sole powers in this country ? if for example a white collar boxing organisation introduced brain scans and granted licensed (many do this already ) had pro judges referees etc etc and basically declared themselves as a professional organisation who has the right to say this is still unlicensed and why , it may not have the same good rep as the BBBoc But imo would it not just be the same as the WBC being more thought of than the IBA ???? , i believe and have discussed this at length with another white collar promotor in the past that if all was done correctly and above board that the BBBoC could not legally challenge it as it would be a restriction of trade .
As I understand from those who were there, the board want to disband any area council that is run or influenced by anyone who is a licence holder and has as a financial interest in boxing as te Chairman stated "it is illegal in company law." When asked to define what exactly a financial interest was, the Chairman read out word-for-word the terminology of the boards own constitution and said "anyone who receives any payment whatsoever for their involvement in boxing should not have any place on the council or board.. The chairman was asked to confirm that if the councils were going to be 'cleansed' of such people then at the same time he was asked to confirm that no person who sits on the main board has any financial interest in boxing based on his own reading. He clearly stated that no one on the board receives any money, other than expenses, for their services and involvement in the sport of boxing and therefore none of them had any financial interest. Asked carefully to think again and seriously reconsider his answer as to whether that was a true statement and also include himself, asthe chairman and president, he once again said a categoric "NO". He was then confronted by various promoters about the thousands he has personally received in supervisors fees, from them, whilst working for the governing bodies and therefore by doing so and based on his statement it was a fact that he himself indeed had a financial interest in boxing. Therefore, if the boards plan was to become rubber stamped then he would have to immediately resign as chairman and the other stewards who have received similar type fees would have to step down to. As this is second hand information I apologise if it is inaccurate in places.
Edited by mod due to potentially defamatory content
Last edited by boxingchat on 17 Jun 2011, 04:42, edited 1 time in total.
Agree 100 percent The board on the whole do a very good job Yes there are flaws
Which hopefully now will get sorted out Its just a case of worming the bad ones out But if a pro boxer who can't get fights wants to
Fight on a unlicensed show Nobody should have the right to stop him Its is
Restriction of trade
But there are problems in every sport and yesterday we all stuck together
I learnt a lot yesterday and Big Promoters small promoters all have problems
Please don't think for one minute that the big promoters are coining it in Even
With TV money they are struggling and small promoters have it hard But now
People talking hopefully things will improve The board gets most of it's income
From the big promoters But small or big we all play apart I tell you one thing
I would be a big promoter for all the tea in China and I respect everyone of them
I've only promoted 21 small shows and that was hard enough But there are fighters
Out there that want to fight and there's just not enough work for them So if they can
Get work elsewhere as long as they are safe nobody had the right to stop them After all
Without fighters where would this sport be
Boxing chat that's what happened so secondhand info or not it
Was right shame matcho man never had this info before he started writing
Bollox In a nutshell u just nailed it Well done x
[quote="princess"]Yep he said at the meeting he does it all for free and for the good of boxing
Then it came out I like Charlie But his credabiltily dropped yesterday just because
Of that statement But at least the licence holders know now [/quot
Boxing chat that's what happened so secondhand info or not it
Was right shame matcho man never had this info before he started writing
Bollox In a nutshell u just nailed it Well done x
Guess what, boxingchat was actually at the meeting ! However, he was out of costume and just appeared as a mild mannered member of the public, a bit like Clark Kent.
princess wrote:Agree 100 percent The board on the whole do a very good job Yes there are flaws
Which hopefully now will get sorted out Its just a case of worming the bad ones out But if a pro boxer who can't get fights wants to
Fight on a unlicensed show Nobody should have the right to stop him Its is
Restriction of trade
But there are problems in every sport and yesterday we all stuck together
I learnt a lot yesterday and Big Promoters small promoters all have problems
Please don't think for one minute that the big promoters are coining it in Even
With TV money they are struggling and small promoters have it hard But now
People talking hopefully things will improve The board gets most of it's income
From the big promoters But small or big we all play apart I tell you one thing
I would be a big promoter for all the tea in China and I respect everyone of them
I've only promoted 21 small shows and that was hard enough But there are fighters
Out there that want to fight and there's just not enough work for them So if they can
Get work elsewhere as long as they are safe nobody had the right to stop them After all
Without fighters where would this sport be
I can understand the board not allowing their licensed fighters to take part in any unlicensed boxing. For one example, what if a boxer suffers an injury that lays dorment and and in his very next fight under a board license ends up seriously injured or even killed. Why should the board or their insurers be responsinle for that.
King Geedorah wrote:To be fair to Giles, it must be a right pain in the arse going to major fights on foreign soil.
A fair few people complain about him to be fair so he should be made to explain what he does if he is not representing people at foreign soil fights or fighting the British corner.
I'm of the belief that if he's working he should get paid and all reasonable expenses should be covered. When the chairman of a board is paid a wage, he instantly becomes a lot more accountable to members in terms of finances and performance. Voluntary gigs almost always turn into a disaster when you're dealing with anything larger than a women's institute group.
Aye, I am with you but the complain is that the guy does not work and sits there like a statue on foreign trips when BBBoC license holders implore him to represent them. Many have complained that he is mute at the rules meetings and goes AWOL when you actually need him. I know a good few license holders who pretty much see him as room meat during foreign jaunts and prefer to ask questions of the local board people rather than the BBBoC appointed delegate.
This is the problem. It is not a question of whether he should get expenses, he should to an extent, but whether he uses this trips for the right reasons, represents the BBBoC and does not go AWOL to attend events that put him in a comprimising position.
As things stand, there are a lot of lower level BBBoC reps who would do a much better job than this guy. He appears to be comprimised.
But then he wouldn't get his big head on tv and thats all it's about for him.
Have you ever seen him at weigh INS and press conferences ?
Watch how embarrassing he is.
How he got the position in the first place is beyond a joke in my opinion.
boxingchat wrote:Not quite sure why that needed editing and what was potentially defamatory but hey ho!
It's you boys that set the bar for things being defamatory
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.
So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!
Boxing chat that's what happened so secondhand info or not it
Was right shame matcho man never had this info before he started writing
Bollox In a nutshell u just nailed it Well done x
Guess what, boxingchat was actually at the meeting ! However, he was out of costume and just appeared as a mild mannered member of the public, a bit like Clark Kent.
boxingchat wrote:Not quite sure why that needed editing and what was potentially defamatory but hey ho!
It's you boys that set the bar for things being defamatory
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.
So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!
Defaming or libelling someone is when you make untrue statements. I didn't and posts elsewhereon this forum confirm this.
princess wrote:Thanks for making matcho understand So u get it now matcho ??
I think so. I still believe the Chairman should be on a salary, though. If that would mean some sort of constitutional change, perhaps an amendment is in order. You get what you pay for and if you want the best person possible running the sport in this country, they should be financially rewarded.
I agree, it's not a charity the people who run it should be paid.
princess wrote:Thanks for making matcho understand So u get it now matcho ??
I think so. I still believe the Chairman should be on a salary, though. If that would mean some sort of constitutional change, perhaps an amendment is in order. You get what you pay for and if you want the best person possible running the sport in this country, they should be financially rewarded.
I agree, it's not a charity the people who run it should be paid.
They are paid ??? By licence holders Robert smith on a very good wage the
Girls in the office ARE paid Charlie Giles is paid ??all out of licence holders money
Yet when you ring the office with a problem or query Your talked down to
Without licence holders paying for 1st class flight hotels expenses there is no board
MachoMan09 wrote:
I think so. I still believe the Chairman should be on a salary, though. If that would mean some sort of constitutional change, perhaps an amendment is in order. You get what you pay for and if you want the best person possible running the sport in this country, they should be financially rewarded.
I agree, it's not a charity the people who run it should be paid.
They are paid ??? By licence holders Robert smith on a very good wage the
Girls in the office ARE paid Charlie Giles is paid ??all out of licence holders money
Yet when you ring the office with a problem or query Your talked down to
Without licence holders paying for 1st class flight hotels expenses there is no board
I got the wrong idea, they 'are' paid for and therfore should deal with any issues with license holders which is fair.
It's good that everyone in the industry is getting together with the board who I know only want the best for the sport
Coco wrote:
It's you boys that set the bar for things being defamatory
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.
So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!
Defaming or libelling someone is when you make untrue statements.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Indeed. In response to boxingchat's no doubt entirely serious query, you would not believe what some people would attempt to sue you for. Free speech costs a lot of money when rich bullies are prepared to take legal action, regardless of merit.
So, in order to protect you, a friendly moderator obviously thought it best if you didn't leave yourself open to any such action. See, at BoxRec, we care about our posters. If only everyone was so nice!
It really is that simple in a nutshell.
Defaming or libelling someone is when you make untrue statements.
[/quot
D