LBF to sue the BBBC

[JDC]

No the EBF and IBA are bodies which sanction, commission and control their own version of boxing. They also issue licenses. How they operate is in no way different to what the LBF are doing.

This might give you a bit of understanding - http://www.secondsout.com/columns/andre ... its-future

These organisations are offering Mickey Mouse semi-pro licences, which aren't recognised by the EBU, WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO & IBO. That's why they are unsanctioned. They aren't deemed professional.

The LBF is recognised by the EBU (although, they have currently been suspended... pending an investigation of said fight). They are also a recognised by the major sanctioning bodies... WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO & IBO. (WBC has denounced the fight). Two of these sanctioning organisations have backed the fight by attaching one of their belts to it.

It has been licensed by a recognised board and sanctioned by two sanctioning bodies.

Only the WBA and WBO recognise this bill and if you think they add credibility then sorry you're as daft as you sound. They would recognise a cheese sandwich fighting a waffle for the Disney Club heavyweight title if they thought they could make money out of it.

Also Bruce Baker wants to use the LBF to stage "semi pro" and "white collar" shows in the future - he's on record as saying as much so what does that tell you about the LBF?

The usual. A mildly reasonable debate turns into this. You are not comparing like for like. You know it, and show it.

Two world title challengers, backed by a RECOGNISED board and RECOGNISED sanctioning bodies... is being compared to the unlicensed circuit. This cannot be seriously be considered as remotely similar.

[Wake up call]

The usual. A mildly reasonable debate turns into this. You are not comparing like for like. You know it, and show it.

Two world title challengers, backed by a RECOGNISED board and RECOGNISED sanctioning bodies... is being compared to the unlicensed circuit. This cannot be seriously be considered as remotely similar.

You won't be thinking that in six months. You'll be cursing your own naivety.

[JDC]

I understand the possibilities, and believe that major changes are afoot. If anything, the organisations will be forced to get their houses in order to avoid this impending doom.

[Wales]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I wondered same thing - official fight isnt it.

[Wales]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I wondered same thing - official fight isnt it.

[Wales]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

Couldnt figure why it wasnt listed before either!!

[Datsue]

I understand the possibilities, and believe that major changes are afoot. If anything, the organisations will be forced to get their houses in order to avoid this impending doom.

Impending doom? It's only the BBBC's doom, the WBA/WBO/Whoever are sanctioning it, as you've already pointed out.

It's not 1934, mate. Look at how many top Brits still meet for the British title. Because of the plethora of bullshit world/international/intercontinental/whatever titles available, promoters now don't need to court the Board, & rather see it as an obstruction to business. That's what this is about, really.

[mickey1975]

The Board are in a bit of trouble. They are in a fight they cant win because they basically have no power. FW will just get stronger, due to the success of this show and especially if BN sign up Maloney or Hatton. Thats more powerful allies right there.

[Glyn Leach]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I struggle with this. This site's whole reason-to-be is its excellent statistical information, for which it is justifiably regarded as a highly trusted source, but opinion of the fight and those involved seems to be clouding the issue. At the end of the day this is just another licenced fight, just like any that takes place outside BBB of C jurisdiction. Just another statistic. A great deal of faith is put in the statistical information Boxrec provides, so for the site to ignore a perfectly legitimate fight because it doesn't like it, for whatever reason, just doesn't sit right. It reflects badly on every statistic on Boxrec if the fight is ignored, casts a doubt over the veracity of the figures. We're all very familiar with the background to this fight, but how many licenced fights taking place around the world every year might have political backgrounds we know nothing about? Does Boxrec take a moral stance against them too? Or is it treating this fight differently becaue of the people involved and the fact it is taking place in Britain? These are very real questions that affect the standing of the site as a record-keeping entity.

[danconnollyeire]

I understand the possibilities, and believe that major changes are afoot. If anything, the organisations will be forced to get their houses in order to avoid this impending doom.

Impending doom? It's only the BBBC's doom, the WBA/WBO/Whoever are sanctioning it, as you've already pointed out.

It's not 1934, mate. Look at how many top Brits still meet for the British title. Because of the plethora of bullshit world/international/intercontinental/whatever titles available, promoters now don't need to court the Board, & rather see it as an obstruction to business. That's what this is about, really.

There is no doom. This will most probably be one off. Alleged will probably go legit route from now on (apart from when Del Boy fights and if he fights aboard for title etc he doesn't need a British licence anyways)

The thing is, it's just a licence. To 99% of casual fans, if it wasn't televised on the news that they had Luxembourg licences, noone would've cared. Have you ever heard anyone say 'oh I'm watching a fight between two BBBofC licence holders? No, the fight is more important. I could care if they were licenced by Del Boy and Borat to be honest. At least people are watching!'.

[twenty six]

Very naive opening to your post.
Define legit in your terminology.
If you think this is a one off then you are so very wide of the mark.

[danconnollyeire]

Very naive opening to your post.
Define legit in your terminology.
If you think this is a one off then you are so very wide of the mark.

All of FW's other fighters are licenced by the British Board. They will fight at licenced shows after this fight. It's only Chisora that will fight will a foregn licence.

[danconnollyeire]

And I'ld just like to say Smith is an idiot. When we withdraw a fighter they are to 'assume' they are banned. Like FW has ever assumed anything. He said 'you can apply elsewhere' and he did... so Smith should have no problem whatsoever. If he said 'you are banned do not apply elsewhere' then he would have a leg to stand on. He fucked everything up here.

[The Insider]

Very naive opening to your post.
Define legit in your terminology.
If you think this is a one off then you are so very wide of the mark.

All of FW's other fighters are licenced by the British Board. They will fight at licenced shows after this fight. It's only Chisora that will fight will a foregn licence.

How will his other fighters carry on if FW is stripped of his BBBOC licences. Boxers are required to have a licenced manager.

[danconnollyeire]

Very naive opening to your post.
Define legit in your terminology.
If you think this is a one off then you are so very wide of the mark.

All of FW's other fighters are licenced by the British Board. They will fight at licenced shows after this fight. It's only Chisora that will fight will a foregn licence.

How will his other fighters carry on if FW is stripped of his BBBOC licences. Boxers are required to have a licenced manager.

He won't be. BBBofC will be sued then order to give him his licence back. By law, FW has done nothing wrong...

[earsjohn]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I struggle with this. This site's whole reason-to-be is its excellent statistical information, for which it is justifiably regarded as a highly trusted source, but opinion of the fight and those involved seems to be clouding the issue. At the end of the day this is just another licenced fight, just like any that takes place outside BBB of C jurisdiction. Just another statistic. A great deal of faith is put in the statistical information Boxrec provides, so for the site to ignore a perfectly legitimate fight because it doesn't like it, for whatever reason, just doesn't sit right. It reflects badly on every statistic on Boxrec if the fight is ignored, casts a doubt over the veracity of the figures. We're all very familiar with the background to this fight, but how many licenced fights taking place around the world every year might have political backgrounds we know nothing about? Does Boxrec take a moral stance against them too? Or is it treating this fight differently becaue of the people involved and the fact it is taking place in Britain? These are very real questions that affect the standing of the site as a record-keeping entity.

Should the credibility of the Boxrec database be questioned because it doesn't include other bouts that have taken place in the UK, but not under a licence provided by the BBBC, the EBA for example?

I thought i'd read that the result of the fight will be included in the database, but not until after the fight, in line with other examples provided at the time.

[twenty six]

That's the point that our friend seems to be missing Insider.
If you were a boxer danconnelly, with aspirations to British title level, not beyond, and you were offfered the chance to fight on the undercard of Haye v Chisora, would you accept ?
You seem to be vey confident on the legal remifications.
If it is so simple, why isn't the undercard stacked with quality fights ?

[dondada]

On another note, why isn't the fight, and the card, listed on the BoxRec schedule? Does that mean that BoxRec are taking a dim view on the fight a la Sky?

I struggle with this. This site's whole reason-to-be is its excellent statistical information, for which it is justifiably regarded as a highly trusted source, but opinion of the fight and those involved seems to be clouding the issue. At the end of the day this is just another licenced fight, just like any that takes place outside BBB of C jurisdiction. Just another statistic. A great deal of faith is put in the statistical information Boxrec provides, so for the site to ignore a perfectly legitimate fight because it doesn't like it, for whatever reason, just doesn't sit right. It reflects badly on every statistic on Boxrec if the fight is ignored, casts a doubt over the veracity of the figures. We're all very familiar with the background to this fight, but how many licenced fights taking place around the world every year might have political backgrounds we know nothing about? Does Boxrec take a moral stance against them too? Or is it treating this fight differently becaue of the people involved and the fact it is taking place in Britain? These are very real questions that affect the standing of the site as a record-keeping entity.

As a starter for clarification - this won't affect BoxRec's record keeping (in terms of fighters' records) one little bit. The results will be listed on the fighters' records, as far as I know. It might go down as unsanctioned, mind.

Again, it's only my take and not 'BoxRec' policy but perhaps they don't share the view that the fight is legit. The whole point of the LBF taking over was that they are recognised by the EBU. Although the latter has not technically kicked out the former yet due to a governance point, they have already voted to do so. Those involved in the promotion now no longer mention the EBU link as it's gone. Just because the WBA and WBO are offering their shitty straps to the match doesn't make it legitimate either. So, there's still a question over the legitimacy of the fight and those in charge of scheduling have chosen one side rather than the other.

As Wake Up Call has been most helpful in outlining on various threads, just because this load of venal bollocks is legal does not necessarily make it legitimate.

[earsjohn]

All of FW's other fighters are licenced by the British Board. They will fight at licenced shows after this fight. It's only Chisora that will fight will a foregn licence.

How will his other fighters carry on if FW is stripped of his BBBOC licences. Boxers are required to have a licenced manager.

He won't be. BBBofC will be sued then order to give him his licence back. By law, FW has done nothing wrong...

Sued for what exactly? It surely can't be restraint of trade, as by staging this fight, Warren is proving that he doesn't need a Uk licence to promote a fight. The BBBC revoking his licence is them effectively saying he can't be involved in a fight licenced by the Board. But with Haye v Chisora not being licensed but it still going ahead, being entirely legal and set to make a stack of cash, I don't see how his ability to trade can be said to be impaired.

[danconnollyeire]

That's the point that our friend seems to be missing Insider.
If you were a boxer danconnelly, with aspirations to British title level, not beyond, and you were offfered the chance to fight on the undercard of Haye v Chisora, would you accept ?
You seem to be vey confident on the legal remifications.
If it is so simple, why isn't the undercard stacked with quality fights ?

I don't even know what the undercard is...
The rules are that any EBU governing body can hold a fight anywhere in the EBU jurisdiction. These are just facts. The BBBofC can't just withdraw everyone licence because they think it's morally wrong... it's not legally wrong. For example, when Haye fought Valeuv in Germany, it was sanctioned by the Austrian board, Valuev held an Austian licence. No difference. The only problem we have is that Chisora get himself in to trouble. But the board made the error of not banning him (which they could've done ie when he bit an opponant, he got a ban for however long it was - he couldn't fight in that time). They just withdrew it, leaving him free to apply wherever.

[danconnollyeire]

He won't be. BBBofC will be sued then order to give him his licence back. By law, FW has done nothing wrong...

Sued for what exactly? It surely can't be restraint of trade, as by staging this fight, Warren is proving that he doesn't need a Uk licence to promote a fight. The BBBC revoking his licence is them effectively saying he can't be involved in a fight licenced by the Board. But with Haye v Chisora not being licensed but it still going ahead, being entirely legal and set to make a stack of cash, I don't see how his ability to trade can be said to be impaired.

Because they simply don't have grounds to withdraw his licence as he has not broken any rules. And it is resistricting his trade, as he wouldn't be able to put on British title fights etc...

[dondada]

That's the point that our friend seems to be missing Insider.
If you were a boxer danconnelly, with aspirations to British title level, not beyond, and you were offfered the chance to fight on the undercard of Haye v Chisora, would you accept ?
You seem to be vey confident on the legal remifications.
If it is so simple, why isn't the undercard stacked with quality fights ?

I don't even know what the undercard is...
The rules are that any EBU governing body can hold a fight anywhere in the EBU jurisdiction. These are just facts. The BBBofC can't just withdraw everyone licence because they think it's morally wrong... it's not legally wrong. For example, when Haye fought Valeuv in Germany, it was sanctioned by the Austrian board, Valuev held an Austian licence. No difference. The only problem we have is that Chisora get himself in to trouble. But the board made the error of not banning him (which they could've done ie when he bit an opponant, he got a ban for however long it was - he couldn't fight in that time). They just withdrew it, leaving him free to apply wherever.

Point being that the Germans weren't objecting to the Austrians looking after it. Can anyone tell me when a European governing body sanctioned a promotion in a foreign country where the home nation's dominant authority objected to it? I honestly don't know.

[dondada]

Because they simply don't have grounds to withdraw his licence as he has not broken any rules. And it is resistricting his trade, as he wouldn't be able to put on British title fights etc...

The British title is the BBBoC's title. If you want to belong to the BBBoC, follow its rules.

Thing is, the mechanism for making and changing these rules needs changing...

[danconnollyeire]

Because they simply don't have grounds to withdraw his licence as he has not broken any rules. And it is resistricting his trade, as he wouldn't be able to put on British title fights etc...

The British title is the BBBoC's title. If you want to belong to the BBBoC, follow its rules.

Thing is, the mechanism for making and changing these rules needs changing...

FW has followed there rules. What rule exactly has he broke?

[danconnollyeire]

That's the point that our friend seems to be missing Insider.
If you were a boxer danconnelly, with aspirations to British title level, not beyond, and you were offfered the chance to fight on the undercard of Haye v Chisora, would you accept ?
You seem to be vey confident on the legal remifications.
If it is so simple, why isn't the undercard stacked with quality fights ?

I don't even know what the undercard is...
The rules are that any EBU governing body can hold a fight anywhere in the EBU jurisdiction. These are just facts. The BBBofC can't just withdraw everyone licence because they think it's morally wrong... it's not legally wrong. For example, when Haye fought Valeuv in Germany, it was sanctioned by the Austrian board, Valuev held an Austian licence. No difference. The only problem we have is that Chisora get himself in to trouble. But the board made the error of not banning him (which they could've done ie when he bit an opponant, he got a ban for however long it was - he couldn't fight in that time). They just withdrew it, leaving him free to apply wherever.

Point being that the Germans weren't objecting to the Austrians looking after it. Can anyone tell me when a European governing body sanctioned a promotion in a foreign country where the home nation's dominant authority objected to it? I honestly don't know.

At the end of the day I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying you can't punish FW has he's done nout wrong. It's a lesson learnt and BBBofC need to adapt their rules and work with EBU etc to reflect this. They has no provison for this... rather than just threatening everyone which won't work cos we all know that FW tends to win in court, they should focus on how to stop this in the future