Bellew v Wazza

[twenty six]

Interesting to see on the home page that the Board has found in favour of Bellew in his Management Contract dispute with Wazza.
How long before the Appeal ?
On a serious note regardless of the merits of the case it is difficult to see how the Board could not be influenced by other issues with Wazza.

[Chambers2]

Interesting to see on the home page that the Board has found in favour of Bellew in his Management Contract dispute with Wazza.
How long before the Appeal ?
On a serious note regardless of the merits of the case it is difficult to see how the Board could not be influenced by other issues with Wazza .

Exactly what I was thinking, Wazza would've no doubt been thinking the same

[leforge]

It got nothing to do with the board and other issues with warren!

[twenty six]

Sorry Leforge don't get it.
What do you mean ?

[leforge]

Sorry Leforge don't get it.
What do you mean ?

The bellew case has been based solely on his dispute other factors eg upton park show have had no influence on result. We probably need Rumpole to explain it better!

[danfoster]

Interesting case, indeed. I support the principle of a boxer having the freedom to choose his representation appropriately and i am sure that this decision underlines that basic principle.

[Rumpole]

Sorry Leforge don't get it.
What do you mean ?

Leforge is correct. The issues before the Stewards of the Board were entirely related to whether or not the Bunny was in repudiatory breach of various clauses in the management contract with Tony and further, whether or not he was in breach of various of the Board's Rules and Regulations such that Tony had legitmate contractual grounds for determining the contract without penalty. Although a Boxer can walk away from a contract and cannot by law be compelled to carry out the contract, as I have explained in an earlier post, that is not the end of the matter. In the event that a Boxer determines a contract without good contractual reasons, he can be ordered to recompense his manager or Promoter for any losses that the Promoter or Manager may sustain as a result of the Boxer ending the contract and rightly so.

I am satisfied that the Stewards behaved with absolute propriety and that no other external issues influenced their decision.

Both Tony and the Bunny have 28 days in which to appeal the decision of the Stewards in the event that either party is not satisfied with the Steward's decision, so things may not be finally determined yet.

Before anyone asks, the answer is no. Other than stating what is a matter of record, the detail of what happened is something that I will not discuss. You will have to ask others for any further information.

[twenty six]

It does, Dan and well done team Bellew.
I'm just guarded because this is exactly where we were with Rhodes - only for an Appeal to be lodged and the Board to bottle it.
I'm sure the decision was based entirely on the facts but no one is going to tell me that certain Board members haven't spotted an oppertunity to have a pop at the Worthy One.

[Rumpole]

It does, Dan and well done team Bellew.
I'm just guarded because this is exactly where we were with Rhodes - only for an Appeal to be lodged and the Board to bottle it.
I'm sure the decision was based entirely on the facts but no one is going to tell me that certain Board members haven't spotted an oppertunity to have a pop at the Worthy One.

You are a cynic 26, much as I enjoy your posts.

Anyone appealing a decision of the Stewards, who are lay people, mainly business men, will be appealing to a pretty formidable forum.

The Stewards of Appeal are totally independant of the BBBoC, they have no financial interest whatsoever in the BBBoC and are mainly lawyers. No fewer than 5 are Q.C's. most of whom will be expected to sit as judges in a Court of law part time. I can assure you from long experience that, when it comes to issues of law neither personalities or controversial issues like Upton Park can sway their judgement.

As we never met up at Kell's last fight I am not fully conversant with the issues in Ryan's case but maybe you will look me up in October at Kell's next fight, or at Ali Palli if you are going to London on the 8th. September and I can then give you an informed opinion when I am aware of the facts.

[twenty six]

I am a cynic, Rumpole, guilty as charged !
I think you are mis interpreting my views and that I'm stating that the decision went Tony's way because of the other issues.
Far from it. I know from what you've said before that the case was robust.
However this is the Board we are talking about, and knowing how some of them operate they will have enjoyed this.
As for the Appeal Stewards I will keep my comments to myself.
What will always remain a mystery to me is why there are no rights of audience will the Appeal Stewards and if the evidence available at an Appeal remains the same as the evidence in the initial case, a reversal of Judgement can happen.
Allegedly they have to lodge a written copy of their decision with the Board but getting to see it is like viewing the proverbial rocking horse shit.
Cynic ? - that's me.

[Rumpole]

I am a cynic, Rumpole, guilty as charged !
I think you are mis interpreting my views and that I'm stating that the decision went Tony's way because of the other issues.
Far from it. I know from what you've said before that the case was robust.
However this is the Board we are talking about, and knowing how some of them operate they will have enjoyed this.
As for the Appeal Stewards I will keep my comments to myself.
What will always remain a mystery to me is why there are no rights of audience will the Appeal Stewards and if the evidence available at an Appeal remains the same as the evidence in the initial case, a reversal of Judgement can happen.
Allegedly they have to lodge a written copy of their decision with the Board but getting to see it is like viewing the proverbial rocking horse shit.
Cynic ? - that's me.

I think that you are confusing rights of audience with freedom of information?

Rights of audience is something which I have to request when I go to Court on someone's behalf now that I am retired and no longer have a practicing certificate. It has always been granted and usually is even to someone who is not an ex lawyer or a retired barrister. Someone who is usually refered to as a "McKenzie Friend". I no longer have automatic rights of audience in the higher Courts but a simple telephone call to the Bar can rectify that instantaneously but I will have to pay for my practice certificate and renew my indemnity insurance.

The parties to the hearing are entitled to a copy of any written judgement as of right. The arbitration clause in the management contract states that the arbitration procedure must be followed before a party can approach the Courts. Under the 1996 Arbitration Act, this is true unless one can persuade a Court that the Board are likely to be biased as was the situation in the case of Watson v Prager (Prager is Mickey Duffs correct name).

Common sense tells you that it is impossible to appeal a decision of any tribunal if the person wishing to appeal has no idea why a particular tribunal came to the decision that it did. So if there was a written judgement Ryan simply has to request that the Board provide him with a copy and if they don't or they refuse, which is highly unlikely then a simple application to the Court will result in an Order of the Court compelling the Board to release a copy of the judgement to him.

[dondada]

On a serious note regardless of the merits of the case it is difficult to see how the Board could not be influenced by other issues with Wazza.

I doubt this very much. Didn't they find in the bloke's favour in a similar case re DeGale just before Bomber's one?

[Rumpole]

On a serious note regardless of the merits of the case it is difficult to see how the Board could not be influenced by other issues with Wazza.

I doubt this very much. Didn't they find in the bloke's favour in a similar case re DeGale just before Bomber's one?

On the face of it you appear to be correct dondada. The issues in Chunky's case were never made public so it is difficult to assess with any degree of certainty. We don't know who lodged a complaint with the Board or whether both parties lodged complaints to be determined.

From the information which has emerged concerning the outcome, if it is accurate, one can conclude that the Stewards had to decide whether or not Chunky had sufficient grounds for legitimately determining (ending) his contract with Bunny. As I have posted previously, the Stewards had no power to order Chunky to continue with the contract and no power to stop him appointing another manager or becoming self managed as they are bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Warren v Mendy.

However, the Stewards were free, subject to appeal to the Stewards of Appeal and then the Courts, to determine whether or not Chunky had adequate contractual grounds for determining the contract and in the event that they decided that he did not, although they could not order that he continued to remain under contract to the Bunny, they could order that Chunky compensate Bunny for any losses, i.e. management fees.

From the decision which was made, one can assume that Chunky lost his case. The Stewards were bound by the Court of Appeal and had to order that he be released from his contract but decided that he did not have sufficient grounds to end the contract legitimately and therefore ordered that he pay the Bunny compensation.

Had the Stewards not been absolutely impartial in their deliberations and been biased against Bunny, one would expect that they would have decided that Chunky had good contractual grounds to end the contract without penalty.

In the circumstances, and given that I was not present to hear full argument, prima faci, no criticism whatsoever can be made of the Stewards ruling.