Read with interest all this licence non-licenced stuff at the weekend. Surely the BBBC can confirm once and for all whether Fight Academy are licensed or not.
Surely the answer is yes or no, quite simple, or has Board supremo Block been up to no good?
Is all this masonic?
One wonders if allegedly would make such a statement without hard facts in the NOTW.
Are the Board secretly backing Hatton's corner?
Block accused of cover up?
Re: Block accused of cover up?
Robert Waterman, Dennis Hobson, and Jim Evans are ALL licenced by the BBB of Cboxingchat wrote:Read with interest all this licence non-licenced stuff at the weekend. Surely the BBBC can confirm once and for all whether Fight Academy are licensed or not.
Surely the answer is yes or no, quite simple, or has Board supremo Block been up to no good?
Is all this masonic?
One wonders if allegedly allegedly would make such a statement without hard facts in the NOTW.
Are the Board secretly backing Hatton's corner?
They trade as Fight Academy. Its only a name.
Warren really is clutching at straws. He saying nothing but showing everything. He has got no chance whatsoever.
BoxingChat - if it is a breach, it is at most a purely technical breach. If the three shareoholders/directors of Fight Academy (And incidentally I haven't checked whether it is a registered company or not, and/or its corporate offices are those three) are all registered, hard to see a substantive issue.
I noticed Sports Network for advertising for in-house legal position a few months ago, if the money had been a bit better, I might have been tempted
I noticed Sports Network for advertising for in-house legal position a few months ago, if the money had been a bit better, I might have been tempted
Re: Block accused of cover up?
You have got to be fornicating kidding.boxingchat wrote:Read with interest all this licence non-licenced stuff at the weekend. Surely the BBBC can confirm once and for all whether Fight Academy are licensed or not.
Surely the answer is yes or no, quite simple, or has Board supremo Block been up to no good?
Is all this masonic?
One wonders if allegedly allegedly would make such a statement without hard facts in the NOTW.
Are the Board secretly backing Hatton's corner?
If Tony Connolly has got his facts right in this week's BN - and he invariably does - the most disgraceful Board action I've seen in ages is their refusal to hear Brian Magee's claim for compo against Sports Network after Calzaghe had to pull out...and under a new rule don't have to give a reason!
Now, boxingchat, who does that ruling favour?
-
celticwarrior
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 30 Oct 2003, 09:57
Re: Block accused of cover up?
Extract from a fight report on Magee's win at the weekend where his manager talk about that case:Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:You have got to be fornicating kidding.boxingchat wrote:Read with interest all this licence non-licenced stuff at the weekend. Surely the BBBC can confirm once and for all whether Fight Academy are licensed or not.
Surely the answer is yes or no, quite simple, or has Board supremo Block been up to no good?
Is all this masonic?
One wonders if allegedly allegedly allegedly would make such a statement without hard facts in the NOTW.
Are the Board secretly backing Hatton's corner?
If Tony Connolly has got his facts right in this week's BN - and he invariably does - the most disgraceful Board action I've seen in ages is their refusal to hear Brian Magee's claim for compo against Sports Network after Calzaghe had to pull out...and under a new rule don't have to give a reason!
Now, boxingchat, who does that ruling favour?
Speaking after Magee's win over Davtyan Pat Magee told Irish-Boxing.com, "The board refused to hear the case and they gave no reason why. All allegedly had to do was settle the case and we would have fought Joe Calzaghe. We have no interest in any fight with Calzaghe until we get paid damages for what happened in March."
"As you can imagine we're not happy with the BBBC's decision. We're taking an action against Warren for damages and we've hired the solicitor who's currently acting for Ricky Hatton."
http://www.irish-boxing.com/october05/1 ... _Magee.htm
-
split_decision
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 255
- Joined: 26 Apr 2005, 16:11
allegedly's column is just a complete pile of self indulgent garbage, week after week that serves no purpose other than to give Frank a vehicle to make cheap jibes at other british promoters, fighters who are not promoted by him and to make the most ludicrous analogies imaginable to compare his fighters to the world's best. What makes it even worse is the fact that he is the only promoter in the country who has such a vehicle and can pretty much say what he likes (within legal reason) and any retort is usually on a website which is far more hardline.
-
Twinkle Toes
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 08:38
-
boxingchat
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 05:26
Why you are at it ask them to read the contract then you, as a lawyer, will be able to give an balanced opinion as to why the Board took this action. It was all reposrted by David Kelly in Belfast so go to his website and read the FACTS.Loynesy wrote:Ian
Good post, I had forgotten about that. If Magee's people read this I will happily act for them pro bono in sending a letter to the board, it is against all concepts of natural justice - if they want some free legal advice, please PM me.
Loynesy