Any body know if these individuals appealed the decision of the Board to withdraw their licences.
Having looked at the Board's website and the rules quoted, it looks like they had their licences taken away for being part of boxing shows outside the Board's control. The Board's notice also shows a lot of other promoters punished for the same thing, but only fined.
This takes me to the Haye v Chisora event, this being outside of the Board's control.
Did the promoter of that event get similarly punished and the Board member who apparently provided the scaffolding that night also get punished?
Callowland wrote:Any body know if these individuals appealed the decision of the Board to withdraw their licences.
Having looked at the Board's website and the rules quoted, it looks like they had their licences taken away for being part of boxing shows outside the Board's control. The Board's notice also shows a lot of other promoters punished for the same thing, but only fined.
This takes me to the Haye v Chisora event, this being outside of the Board's control.
Did the promoter of that event get similarly punished and the Board member who apparently provided the scaffolding that night also get punished?
I would say not, double standards, one rule for the wealthy and another for the others.
Callowland wrote:Any body know if these individuals appealed the decision of the Board to withdraw their licences.
Having looked at the Board's website and the rules quoted, it looks like they had their licences taken away for being part of boxing shows outside the Board's control. The Board's notice also shows a lot of other promoters punished for the same thing, but only fined.
This takes me to the Haye v Chisora event, this being outside of the Board's control.
Did the promoter of that event get similarly punished and the Board member who apparently provided the scaffolding that night also get punished?
Officially, allegedly wasn't the promoter on that night, allegedly were, he just provided Dereck Chisora with a fight as his manager, we all know he was really the promoter, but on paper he wasn't. The board are well within their rights to strip them of their licenses, I believe the rules say that permission must be granted if they are to be involved with a show not sanctioned by the BBBofC, there was no permission, so the board can strip them of their licenses if that's the decision they come to.
I really don't think you can punish someone for providing scaffolding, bit ridiculous to do that.
None the fighters on the Upton park bill were punished, nor were their managers or trainers, in fact some of Warrens fighters were rewarded with eliminators by the board, some board members acted as scoring judges on the show as well, you could not make it up, yet a small show's partisipents are all punished, double standards.
Callowland wrote:Any body Officially, allegedly wasn't the promoter on that night, allegedly were, he just provided Dereck Chisora with a fight as his manager, we all know he was really the promoter, but on paper he wasn't. The board are well within their rights to strip them of their licenses, I believe the rules say that permission must be granted if they are to be involved with a show not sanctioned by the BBBofC, there was no permission, so the board can strip them of their licenses if that's the decision they come to.
I really don't think you can punish someone for providing scaffolding, bit ridiculous to do that.
Yes, what about the boxers and seconds licensed by the Board for the Haye v Chisora show.No action against them as far as I know.
renegadeboxing wrote:What I'd like to know is.... Why was everyone else only fined? And baker and Murphy were the only ones to have their licences withdrawn?
I would guess it was because they were the ringleaders of the whole thing, the fighter's have to earn a living to feed their families, but there's no excuses for running the shows when they could run them under BBBofC jurisdiction.
I think they will appeal because it seems that they have a decent case based in the following contravention of the following E.U directives by the Board.
They appear to have taken disciplinary action (without it's members consent) against licence holders to uphold or bolster their position and monopoly in the UK market place for professional Boxing.
I keep hearing its a members club, etc etc. True as that may be but the members actually own this club and have absolutely No say in how it's run. It's the only business I know where the secretary runs the show.
If you join a club or any other society or governing body that have a list of rules then you are agreeing to adhere to said rules. If you break them then you should expect to suffer the consequences. Simple really.
taffytoon wrote:If you join a club or any other society or governing body that have a list of rules then you are agreeing to adhere to said rules. If you break them then you should expect to suffer the consequences. Simple really.
It falls flat though when the clubs "rules" fall foul of actual Laws/directives doesnt it?
taffytoon wrote:If you join a club or any other society or governing body that have a list of rules then you are agreeing to adhere to said rules. If you break them then you should expect to suffer the consequences. Simple really.
It falls flat though when the clubs "rules" fall foul of actual Laws/directives doesnt it?
I'm sure time will tell, all I know is that people were moaning that the Board did nothing and now people are moaning because the Board did something. Can't please all of the people all of the time springs to mind. Bruce could always start his own organisation if he so wishes.
taffytoon wrote:If you join a club or any other society or governing body that have a list of rules then you are agreeing to adhere to said rules. If you break them then you should expect to suffer the consequences. Simple really.
It falls flat though when the clubs "rules" fall foul of actual Laws/directives doesnt it?
I'm sure time will tell, all I know is that people were moaning that the Board did nothing and now people are moaning because the Board did something. Can't please all of the people all of the time springs to mind. Bruce could always start his own organisation if he so wishes.
How about reforming the Board and dragging it into the 21st Century and making it open, honest and accountable to it's members.
The Board has a brand identity and knows it, and seems to use it's powers inconsistently.
taffytoon wrote:
I'm sure time will tell, all I know is that people were moaning that the Board did nothing and now people are moaning because the Board did something. Can't please all of the people all of the time springs to mind. Bruce could always start his own organisation if he so wishes.
I'm sure it will. I for one and pleased the Board have actually found some back bone and been pro active. Makes a change from the deafening silence they usually give us.
The Insider wrote:I think they will appeal because it seems that they have a decent case based in the following contravention of the following E.U directives by the Board.
They appear to have taken disciplinary action (without it's members consent) against licence holders to uphold or bolster their position and monopoly in the UK market place for professional Boxing.
I keep hearing its a members club, etc etc. True as that may be but the members actually own this club and have absolutely No say in how it's run. It's the only business I know where the secretary runs the show.
The Insider wrote:I think they will appeal because it seems that they have a decent case based in the following contravention of the following E.U directives by the Board.
They appear to have taken disciplinary action (without it's members consent) against licence holders to uphold or bolster their position and monopoly in the UK market place for professional Boxing.
I keep hearing its a members club, etc etc. True as that may be but the members actually own this club and have absolutely No say in how it's run. It's the only business I know where the secretary runs the show.
As a matter of interest who will they appeal to ? You are right it is ridiculous that the owners have no say in how the club that they are funding is run also I must agree I don't know of any other business where the secretary runs the show
