G0mez wrote:I think all this FIFA similarity is a reasonable point.
Imagine if a player spat in another players face, then slapped him in the tunnel - before another player then got involved with a bottle in one hand and a tripod in the other - before the original player started telling everyone he was gonna shoot him. Then played in his own country (despite being banned) because the Faroe Islands said so !
That's the essence of the point which people are overlooking.
With regards warren suing the BBBoC - that's a laugh.
He did numerous video and print interviews calling the brawl a 'total disgrace' and that he would 'never promote a fight between them'.
A court would see what the truth is in the blink of an eye: Ignoring the BBBoC's suspension to line his pockets from staging the fight.
The crux is this, if your suspended you take your lumps - you don't get some paper organization without a single fighter on its books to license it, to sidestep the board.
Chisora's behavior was inexcusable and participation in this event cements that.
Said player would probably get a ban and serve it. I doubt they would be banned indefinately.
The board should have banned Chisora for a fixed time. Yes Chisora's a twat, acted a twat and will no doubt always be a twat but the Board have been piss poor too
kingfinn wrote:If you note, it was you being smarmy about people making comments regarding the legality of issues on the thread which prompted my response. Also i dont need to further explain anything you posted an article yourself on another thread stating the BBBofC and EBU changed their stance on the issue due to the legality of their threats.
If you were smart you would have posted the EBU's rules regarding licensing a previously licensed fighter or official as somebody else did. Instead you tired to make clever remarks without actually posting anything clever.
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
kingfinn wrote:If you note, it was you being smarmy about people making comments regarding the legality of issues on the thread which prompted my response. Also i dont need to further explain anything you posted an article yourself on another thread stating the BBBofC and EBU changed their stance on the issue due to the legality of their threats.
If you were smart you would have posted the EBU's rules regarding licensing a previously licensed fighter or official as somebody else did. Instead you tired to make clever remarks without actually posting anything clever.
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
kingfinn wrote:If you note, it was you being smarmy about people making comments regarding the legality of issues on the thread which prompted my response. Also i dont need to further explain anything you posted an article yourself on another thread stating the BBBofC and EBU changed their stance on the issue due to the legality of their threats.
If you were smart you would have posted the EBU's rules regarding licensing a previously licensed fighter or official as somebody else did. Instead you tired to make clever remarks without actually posting anything clever.
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
Why can't you just debate normally instead of getting your knickers in a twist and behaving like a patronising TWATT?
dondada wrote:
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
Why can't you just debate normally instead of getting your knickers in a twist and behaving like a patronising TWATT?
I would agree with you if the reason i became patronising and got my knickers in a twist werent theses comments from dondada
"I love how everyone suddenly knows the law and can say what's going to happen." - dondada
"The whole point of the forum is to give your opinion, i love how you've been giving your opinion on here then wrote the above." - me
"Come again? You're far too sharp for me. You're giving your opinion on the law. I don't know much about it. Please explain about why he'll win and this conflict of interest thing." - dondada
"You raised a point and I asked for further explanation because I think you're talking shite." - dondada
"I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info." - dondada
at the end of the day patronising people sometimes deserve patronising responses. I tried leaving the debate he was like a dog with a bone.
kingfinn wrote:
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
Why can't you just debate normally instead of getting your knickers in a twist and behaving like a patronising TWATT?
I would agree with you if the reason i became patronising and got my knickers in a twist werent theses comments from dondada
"I love how everyone suddenly knows the law and can say what's going to happen." - dondada
"The whole point of the forum is to give your opinion, i love how you've been giving your opinion on here then wrote the above." - me
"Come again? You're far too sharp for me. You're giving your opinion on the law. I don't know much about it. Please explain about why he'll win and this conflict of interest thing." - dondada
"You raised a point and I asked for further explanation because I think you're talking shite." - dondada
"I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info." - dondada
at the end of the day patronising people sometimes deserve patronising responses. I tried leaving the debate he was like a dog with a bone.
I think he was questioning you because he was generally interested in what you had to say, he probably disagreed at face value, and just wanted further clarification behind the rationale of your points - as probably did others. Just because people press you to go into greater details, particularly relating to the complexity of a case like this, doesn't mean they are deliberately being awkward or disrespectful. You've made some insightful posts, so take it as a compliment that some wish for you to amplify your points a little more.
kingfinn wrote:If you note, it was you being smarmy about people making comments regarding the legality of issues on the thread which prompted my response. Also i dont need to further explain anything you posted an article yourself on another thread stating the BBBofC and EBU changed their stance on the issue due to the legality of their threats.
If you were smart you would have posted the EBU's rules regarding licensing a previously licensed fighter or official as somebody else did. Instead you tired to make clever remarks without actually posting anything clever.
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
I think you're a c*nt. Touche.
Thought you were talking shite. Thanks for confirming it.
(Sorry, Ben - you were originally right but the lad's just a pr*ck.)
dondada wrote:
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
I think you're a c*nt. Touche.
Thought you were talking shite. Thanks for confirming it.
aka you tried being smug, have now realised i was right so spat out your dummy.
dondada wrote:
Hmmm, I don't see it that way. You made a point mentioning 'conflict of interest' and that FW would win any court case. The change of stance from both the BBBoC and the EBU has nothing to do with 'conflict of interest' as I understand it. But I'm a mere layman whereas you seemed very confident in your assertion...so I asked for more info.
Should you not with to give me it, fine.
You made a point elsewhere about other parties not giving ground in discussions on here; I don't agree with that normally but on this occasion I think you're 100% correct so let's just leave it at that.
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
I think you're a c*nt. Touche.
Thought you were talking shite. Thanks for confirming it.
(Sorry, Ben - you were originally right but the lad's just a pr*ck.)
You've just completely undermined my post, you c**t
kingfinn wrote:
I find you annoying so im going to keep it brief and will not be replying to anything else regarding the topic especially since someone has posted the EBU bylaws and this debte is now completely irrelivant.
I previously stated the BBBofC and EBU were breaching their own bylaws if they carried out their threats expell members in the way they had stated - your article proved that right because they amended their stances after seeking legal council.
I mentioned conflict of interest as a passing comment but my understanding of the situation is -
FW was basing his argument on EU trade laws
A member of the board from the BBBofC is a member of the EBU board that is, i would have thought, an interlocking directorate, which isnt illegal but due to trade laws it is illegal for them to create an unfair advantage within the market place.
Please see quote below: laws do not prevent the creation of an interlocking directorate, there are situations in which a board member of one business cannot simultaneously serve on the board of another company. This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards. In order to prevent this type of conflict of interest, many governments implement antitrust laws that address these types of issues, along with other business practices that may result in undermining free trade.
I think you're a c*nt. Touche.
Thought you were talking shite. Thanks for confirming it.
aka you tried being smug, have now realised i was right so spat out your dummy.
OK, answer me this. How has this: "This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards" happened?
I presume you mean Charlie Giles? Firstly, the proposal to kick out Luxembourg came from the Swiss and the BDB. Secondly, there are more than 200 voters and 94% of them voted for it. Charlie Giles would have to be some kind of eloquent, Machiavellian genius to orchestrate this. Do you know him?
Thought you were talking shite. Thanks for confirming it.
aka you tried being smug, have now realised i was right so spat out your dummy.
OK, answer me this. How has this: "This is especially true in situations where there is some potential for that relationship to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace for either of the two companies, or allow the board director to influence board decisions in a manner that provides him or her an unfair advantage in terms of personal financial rewards" happened?
I presume you mean Charlie Giles? Firstly, the proposal to kick out Luxembourg came from the Swiss and the BDB. Secondly, there are more than 200 voters and 94% of them voted for it. Charlie Giles would have to be some kind of eloquent, Machiavellian genius to orchestrate this. Do you know him?
Look mate im not getting in a massive debate im not a lawyer im not pretending to know the whole law i only know certain aspects relating to business - You jumped down my throat over a passing comment. You took something i wrote off the top of my head and then ran with it for the sole purpose of tring to make me look stupid.
As ive already said the EBU bylaws state that the LBF cant license a fighter previously licensed by another board without their permission. So it rendered the previous debate mute.
My previous thinking was regarding trade law, that FW would be able to put a very strong case forward that the BBBofC would lose out financially or gain financially by another EBU licensing agency being in use / or not in the UK. Therefore if they have someone on both the EBU board and the BBBofC board it would be a conflict of interest.
You did your usual of trying to belittle a comment you didnt agree with. I dont mind being disagreed with i just dont like being patronised; i reacted by being patronising which isnt a nice trait.
