Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.
94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
dondada wrote:Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
You're right though, it would no doubt have little material effect but it was done to show that the forum was addressing concerns (identification and all that).Deserter wrote:dondada wrote:Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.Deserter wrote: don't think the omitting of a certain promoter's name is motivated by childishness, rather it's just a misguided response to legal threats.I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of proceedings
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
How long was it between the Chisora-Vitali fight and the BBBC's hearing? Why couldn't the BBBC come up with a definite length for the Chisora/Haye ban in that time? This act of incompetence/indecisiveness is what has left British Boxing in the state it is, which looks to become inevitably fractioned as neither side will back down
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
I not going to comment on all whats going on behind the scenes and the reason this fight happening. I am going to for my sins a mate got me a ticket must be mad!
My question is why did the board not act when a promotor company went under owing a high profile boxer?
My question is why did the board not act when a promotor company went under owing a high profile boxer?
-
Glyn Leach
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2135
- Joined: 25 Dec 2007, 14:08
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
Fair enough Ian, I do see where you're coming from. As I wrote, hopefully all this can result in something positive, but for that to happen both sides will need to be prepared to give ground. I hope they're big enough and sensible enough to do that, but y'know...
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
Yes, for sure. Show will go ahead whatever, Board realises they need really significant change. If the latter doesn't happen after this, they've only got themselves to blame.Glyn Leach wrote:Fair enough Ian, I do see where you're coming from. As I wrote, hopefully all this can result in something positive, but for that to happen both sides will need to be prepared to give ground. I hope they're big enough and sensible enough to do that, but y'know...
-
Khaosai-Galaxy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2739
- Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 12:15
Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?
Adamj1987 wrote:effing brillient, kicking said promoter into touch i belive
Yeah! Great!
A potentially great fight cant go ahead because of a technicality!!!
This is why i started watching boxing in the 1st place!!!