BBBoc boss on contract disputes and non-payment rumours

[dondada]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/exclus ... nt-rumours

[gasman]

Good read. So, there are no outstanding complaints with the board, but are there any with the area councils? Smith said that was the protocol, before it comes across his desk.

[danfoster]

Hhhhmmm, i can't understand why a boxer should have to put his complaint in writing. Why is an oral complaint made to Mr Smith not sufficient? Many boxers are uncomfortable with and intimidated by paperwork which is why they rely so much on their 'managers' in the first place. It is also why boxers are so vulnerable to getting ripped off.

I expect that the idea of entering into a paper dispute with the man or men they trust to take care of their affairs must be a very intimidating prospect for many fighters and so i expect many are just taking the other option and trusting that one day their 'managers' will honour their promises.

I also find that many people within the game take quite a fatalistic view of their chances of success when it comes to entering into litigation with certain people who have ready access to lawyers, experience of the legal process and deep pockets.

Who was it that said that boxing is world where the lions are frightened of the rats?

If it is the case that Smith is hearing oral complaints from fighters that they are being ripped but is refusing to act then i think that this is an absolute disgrace on his part. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Wake up call]

If it is the case that Smith is hearing oral complaints from fighters that they are being ripped but is refusing to act then i think that this is an absolute disgrace on his part. He should be ashamed of himself.

Agreed.

Also I think it shows a serious weakness in the board that they do not seem to know what is going on. Many of us on here are privy to insider information because we speak regularly to managers, promoters, fighters etc and we know of a myriad of issues which the board have failed to tackle.

I spoke to a well known manager the other night who told me that one of his fighter's had three cheques bounced on him by ***** ****** (we all know who that is), I know at least three fighters who have had to wait ages for payment or are still waiting. If I know this, then the board should too.

The problem is that many of these boxers will not complain because a) consensus is that the promoter in question gets special treatment from the board and b) doing so would likely mean they never see their money anyway. Most are unhappy but wil ride it out for months to least get something.

The board needs to be proactive, rather than just sitting there doing nothing until someone contacts them.

The promoter/manager in question should have been banned from the sport in 2008/09 anyway when he sunk his company to get out of paying one of his fighters.

[GlobalBox]

The most interesting part of the interview is where he says the following.

“I’ve had numerous telephone conversations with licence holders and I always make it clear to them that, should they wish the Board to look into any matter, they must make an official complaint in writing.

That clearly indicates to me he is fielding fairly regular calls about the problem but as yet apart from one person, no one has put the case in writing. I guess if you were a decent boxer with a big promoter that would be the very last resort for you as you could be sure that suddenly the fights would dry up with that guy for the remainder of your contract or certainly not be as frequent if the issue of payment was forced by the said, one fighter.

Again not having the greatest faith in Mr Smith after some of the shenanigans we have all witnessed in British rings with very little comeback, I am going to go out on a limb and say I reckon there is no smoke without fire and this is a pre emptive strike to try and put the rumours to bed with the assumption that the highlighted statement above will make us think there is no problem, however, you don't field "numerous telephone calls"" from people enquiring about the weather, because they would always get the same answer, "it will be fine"

This ain't over by a long chalk

[danfoster]

If it is the case that Smith is hearing oral complaints from fighters that they are being ripped but is refusing to act then i think that this is an absolute disgrace on his part. He should be ashamed of himself.

Agreed.

Also I think it shows a serious weakness in the board that they do not seem to know what is going on. Many of us on here are privy to insider information because we speak regularly to managers, promoters, fighters etc and we know of a myriad of issues which the board have failed to tackle.

I spoke to a well known manager the other night who told me that one of his fighter's had three cheques bounced on him by ***** ****** (we all know who that is), I know at least three fighters who have had to wait ages for payment or are still waiting. If I know this, then the board should too.

The problem is that many of these boxers will not complain because a) consensus is that the promoter in question gets special treatment from the board and b) doing so would likely mean they never see their money anyway. Most are unhappy but wil ride it out for months to least get something.

The board needs to be proactive, rather than just sitting there doing nothing until someone contacts them.

The promoter/manager in question should have been banned from the sport in 2008/09 anyway when he sunk his company to get out of paying one of his fighters.

I agree with every word of that.

[dondada]

I have to disagree to some extent, Dan. This isn't about litigation - well, in the first sense. If a boxer is completely illiterate and has no one else to compose a letter for him, then the BBBoC might have an equal access issue.

Other than that, what Smith is saying is that if they get a letter of complaint, they'll investigate it. We're not necessarily talking about a 'paper dispute' - surely an initial, brief letter to trigger some action from the Board isn't too much to ask?

Here's a template, free of charge:

Dear Mr Smith

I believe I'm owed x by y. As you know, I am a licence holder and so is y.

I've tried to get what I'm owed but have had no success.

Could you look into this as a matter of urgency, please?

I await a reply at your earliest convenience.

[Wake up call]

Smith talks about contracts, but if the promoter does not pay the amounts agreed on the contract or abide to its conditions then the contract has been breached anyway.

Any half decent lawyer could pick holes in a board contract, trust me.

[dondada]

Also I think it shows a serious weakness in the board that they do not seem to know what is going on.

I'm in the somewhat unusual and no doubt cold place that is supporting the Board here.

I don't believe they don't know 'what's going on'. There's an assurance been given that they are duty bound to investigate any complaints that they receive in writing.

Whilst there might be a case for acceptance of an oral complaint, if their current system states that they need a letter - and you can write - work within it, IMO. If you can't be arsed to write a letter, so be it.

If you write one and are ignored, that's different.

[twenty six]

Remember as well, that the Board rules state specifically that either party to a Contract cannot resort to Civil Litigation until the matter has been heard and adjudicated upon by the Board in the first instance.
The whole system is a nightmare.
This is why I was so surprised by DeGale going public in the manner that he did.
Surely the time to go public was after the Board hearing when he would have known the Board's stance precisely in relation to this matter.
A Contract is a Contract.
You cannot just walk away from it unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there has been a breach(es) to that Contract.
It is also a fact that in Contract disputes that go to Civil Litigation there is a significant issue with Costs - win or lose.
This is where sadly the system is slanted in favour of the party to the Contract who has the financial resources to push on - regardless of outcome.

[Wake up call]

Ian, that's like saying if the police have suspicions that someone is a drug dealer but nobody rings up and says "xxxxx is a drug dealer" then they should just sit back and do nothing.

And what about the very public issue of said promoter not paying a Welsh former world champion? What incentive does a fighter have to go to board when one of our best and well known fighters was ripped off and the board did nothing about it?

[twenty six]

Wake up,
What you say is correct.
I would say failure to make payments is a serious breach.
However either side can still say "I don't agree with that" to the Board and then it resorts to Civil Litigation.
Once the Board has made a decision then they have the power to impose penalties.
That can be anything from a rap across the knuckles to suspension.
You might say that anyone can pick holes in the Contract.
At what cost ?
These type of Lawyers do not come cheap - even on a simple straight forward matter - and costs cannot be recovered if you win.
It's all well having a £2500 dispute if it costs you £3500 to win.

[twenty six]

Wake up,
On the Welsh matter to be fair the Board did all they could within their means.
The matter then reverted to Civil Litigation.

[Wake up call]

Wake up,
On the Welsh matter to be fair the Board did all they could within their means.
The matter then reverted to Civil Litigation.

If the board did all it could then said promoter would not still be promoting.

Let's have fit and proper testing for boxing promoters I say.

[dondada]

Ian, that's like saying if the police have suspicions that someone is a drug dealer but nobody rings up and says "xxxxx is a drug dealer" then they should just sit back and do nothing.

And what about the very public issue of said promoter not paying a Welsh former world champion? What incentive does a fighter have to go to board when one of our best and well known fighters was ripped off and the board did nothing about it?

I know what you mean mate re the first point. All I'm saying is, in the time spent whinging about the rights and wrongs of the system, those with a grievance could have complied and banged in a letter. Pragmatism.

Completely agree re a fit and proper person test.

[twenty six]

Within the rules they did all they did.
The Board could not do anything about the Company owing the debt going bust.
Distasteful maybe, but a fact.
You do have a point however with the sentiments you've expressed.

[Wake up call]

Within the rules they did all they did.
The Board could not do anything about the Company owing the debt going bust.
Distasteful maybe, but a fact.
You do have a point however with the sentiments you've expressed.

The board should have suspended the promoter's licence until the debt to the fighter has been repaid, like they did with Rick Manners when he owed Carl Johanneson money.

The simple fact remains that if it had have been any other promoter then their license would have been suspended. This one get's away with things and has done for too long.

[leforge]

Wake up,
On the Welsh matter to be fair the Board did all they could within their means.
The matter then reverted to Civil Litigation.

If the board did all it could then said promoter would not still be promoting.

Let's have fit and proper testing for boxing promoters I say.

Like football fit and proper test . Peter Risdale springs to mind he still allowed to run a club!

[Adamj1987]

Wake up,
On the Welsh matter to be fair the Board did all they could within their means.
The matter then reverted to Civil Litigation.

If the board did all it could then said promoter would not still be promoting.

Let's have fit and proper testing for boxing promoters I say.

Like football fit and proper test . Peter Risdale springs to mind he still allowed to run a club!

dont mention risdale, he will destroy my team given half a chance i want him out

[Glyn Leach]

I don't doubt that the Board acts accordingly, within the confines of the system it has set up - and personally I think it's only correct and responsible to ask for things in writing, hearsay and muck spreading in boxing is so commonplace that they become virtually meaningless, particularly in the legal context (barring slander and libel). You don't have to look hard to find someone with a complaint about anyone in this game, yet the complainants seem very rarely to substantiate their grievances and allegations in a manner that would make legal action worthwhile. Essentially, the Board is asking members to put up or shut up, commit or quit bitching. And I agree with that.

But is the current system adequate to protect all licence holders and answer their complaints? And is the Board that instituted this system ever likely to revue it? The system is stodgy and cumbersome, and not given to quick decisions - much like the Board itself.

Once again I go back to the 'undemocratic Board' argument. If there is a problem with either the Board or its legislation, then surely the members should not be powerless to change those situations. Members should be allowed to vote and register feelings on issues. When a Board is allowed to exist in a situation that is not performance related it can only be suspect as a ruling body. The apparent fear of transparency and democracy only underlines such suspicions.

[twenty six]

Wake up,
Pleaase don't misunderstand me mate, I'm not fighting anyone's corner in particular just explaining the situation as I see it.
When said Company went bust then the licence disappeared with it.
The fact that said Company then re appeared in another guise and obtained another licence is a fact.
The rights and wrongs of that matter are there to be debated.
It does beg the question whether Rick would have been granted a licence had he busted his Company and re applied.
I guess we'll never know.
The whole process with the Board is cumbersome.
The situation with the Appeal Stewards is even more bizarre.
Basically - flame proof, whatever decision they come to.

[Wake up call]

I've long thought that boxers need some kind of union representation. I know Barry McGuigan and Micky Cantwell tried to get something going a few years back but that doesn't seem to be going any more.

I'm told that boxers can join the GMB, but I only know of one which has and that boxer successfully had a manager and promoter suspended for ripping him off.

[twenty six]

That's interesting mate.
I would love to know if the Board adjudicated on it first, before the GMB Lawyers got involved and whether the Board decision was overruled.

[Glyn Leach]

Very good question. That Smith claim to the effect that complainants must present their cases to the Board before going legal sticks out a bit, doesn't it. The Board are above the law of the land?

[dondada]

If it's a Board contract, why wouldn't you go to the Board first? If they can't sort it, then go elsewhere. If they can, job's a good un and you've saved a load of legal fees.