94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by dondada »

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.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.
Deserter
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6441
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 10:01

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by Deserter »

dondada wrote:
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.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.
:lol: I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of proceedings :wink:
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by dondada »

Deserter wrote:
dondada wrote:
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.
Erm, 'expensively guided' would be more accurate.
:lol: I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of proceedings :wink:
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).
Chambers2
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6499
Joined: 24 Feb 2004, 07:24

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by Chambers2 »

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
leforge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7790
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 12:44

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by leforge »

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?
Glyn Leach
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2135
Joined: 25 Dec 2007, 14:08

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by Glyn Leach »

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...
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by dondada »

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...
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.
Khaosai-Galaxy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2739
Joined: 29 Apr 2007, 12:15

Re: 94% of votes went against Luxembourg; LBF second thoughts?

Post by Khaosai-Galaxy »

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!!!
Post Reply