unlicensed group plan legal action against brit board

[palooka]

You seem more sarcastic than enlightened

[spudder56]

You seem more sarcastic than enlightened

Yes mate it's your opinion and I respect it but doesn't mean I have to agree but that's what the forum is all about

[palooka]

That's fair comment.

[renegadeboxing]

Funny thing is... The "unlicensed" are getting mor organised, and whereas in years gone by it was fringe gangsters involved, it is now well educated people, who have access to broader spectrums of advertising/promoting, and the modernisation of the sport has begun, at the loss of the amateurs and pro boxing

[Callowland]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

[expe]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.

[renegadeboxing]

Isn't the bboc a limited company? Therefor a business governed the exact same way as any other? Boxing, is a sport,

[Wales]

Enlighten me, which EBF or IBA shows did Danny Williams box on?
Which current pros have boxed on then since getting their license?
t.

I could name quite a few current pros who box on EBF or BBU shows. They just change their name very slightly, instead of (for example only!!) Richie Woodhall theyd call themselves Richard Woodhouse. Most who are doing this are gguys who are 2-1 or 4-2 etc...

[Callowland]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.

Ahhh, so the Board is not a business and is above the law.

Who are the crooks and how were boxers' safety put at risk as you seem well informed.

[Boxing Prospect]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.

Ahhh, so the Board is not a business and is above the law.

Who are the crooks and how were boxers' safety put at risk as you seem well informed.

Whoever the fornicate is licensing Danny Williams is IMO a crook and putting his life at risk.

[Callowland]

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.[/quote]
EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.[/quote]

Ahhh, so the Board is not a business and is above the law.

Who are the crooks and how were boxers' safety put at risk as you seem well informed.[/quote]

Whoever the eff is licensing Danny Williams is IMO a crook and putting his life at risk.[/quote]

That maybe, but the question is, is the Board a business, and is it above UK or EU competition law and can it enforce its monopoly.

[slapbangwhallop]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.

Pro boxing is a business. The Board are a limited company.

You must be unbelievably biased to say this has all come about "so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk"

That's a fookin ridiculous statement.

[Callowland]

Just seen the Board's response on their website to this affair.

Not one word on UK or EU competition law and their reasons why a monopoly should continue.

EU Law was never intended to apply to sport and shouldn't do, it's there for businesses to create jobs, not so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk.

Pro boxing is a business. The Board are a limited company.

You must be unbelievably biased to say this has all come about "so some crooks can put boxer's safety at risk"

That's a fookin ridiculous statement.

It is obviously a member of the Board.

[Wake up call]

The board is a limited company by guarantee, which is different to a regular limited company.

Limited company by guarantee status is used by charities and non-profit organisations in the main.

The board does not have shareholders, does not distribute dividends and its liabilities are guaranteed to a limited level by its members licence fees.

To suggest that competition should exist on the basis of it being a limited company fails to tell the true story of its status.

One thing the board continues to do is refer to itself as a "regulator" when it isn't. It has no statutory status.

[Callowland]

The board is a limited company by guarantee, which is different to a regular limited company.

Limited company by guarantee status is used by charities and non-profit organisations in the main.

The board does not have shareholders, does not distribute dividends and its liabilities are guaranteed to a limited level by its members licence fees.

To suggest that competition should exist on the basis of it being a limited company fails to tell the true story of its status.

One thing the board continues to do is refer to itself as a "regulator" when it isn't. It has no statutory status.

Exactly. Another question is what should happen to the hierarchy of the Board if it spends loads of money on legal fees in fighting ths forthcoming legal action and loses.

Will it be a case of Oh Dear never mind and carry on regardless with the same people at the helm

[spudder56]

The board is a limited company by guarantee, which is different to a regular limited company.

Limited company by guarantee status is used by charities and non-profit organisations in the main.

The board does not have shareholders, does not distribute dividends and its liabilities are guaranteed to a limited level by its members licence fees.

To suggest that competition should exist on the basis of it being a limited company fails to tell the true story of its status.

One thing the board continues to do is refer to itself as a "regulator" when it isn't. It has no statutory status.

Exactly. Another question is what should happen to the hierarchy of the Board if it spends loads of money on legal fees in fighting ths forthcoming legal action and loses.

Will it be a case of Oh Dear never mind and carry on regardless with the same people at the helm

Who should take over then if all the directors/stewards leave then and names please do not just say somebody else also remember must not gain anything financially by doing so

[Callowland]

Exactly. Another question is what should happen to the hierarchy of the Board if it spends loads of money on legal fees in fighting ths forthcoming legal action and loses.

Will it be a case of Oh Dear never mind and carry on regardless with the same people at the helm[/quote]


Who should take over then if all the directors/stewards leave then and names please do not just say somebody else also remember must not gain anything financially by doing so[/quote]

If the Board loses this case then after all that has happened, and the potential amount of money that might be involved, someone's head must roll, then otherwise it is a bit like keeping Fred Goodwin running Royal Bank of Scotland after he ruined it.

Spudder, you could run it, unless you are running it already.

[Coco]

I'm worried that if the unlicensed boys don't win that the likes of Suz Member will be lost to the sport

[spudder56]

Exactly. Another question is what should happen to the hierarchy of the Board if it spends loads of money on legal fees in fighting ths forthcoming legal action and loses.

Will it be a case of Oh Dear never mind and carry on regardless with the same people at the helm

Who should take over then if all the directors/stewards leave then and names please do not just say somebody else also remember must not gain anything financially by doing so[/quote]

If the Board loses this case then after all that has happened, and the potential amount of money that might be involved, someone's head must roll, then otherwise it is a bit like keeping Fred Goodwin running Royal Bank of Scotland after he ruined it.

Spudder, you could run it, unless you are running it already.[/quote]


Mate I asked a simple question who do you want to run the board then that's all coz at this moment in time the only name mentioned to run the board was proposed by bunny which was lord seb Coe which was ludicrous considering the fact that Coe is on about 1-5 million plus expenses a year with the Olympic legacy thing and the total turnover of the board is circa 750 k what I am trying to say is please put forward names that will do it for nothing so that licence fees can be reduced which also would please baker and co and on this I do agree fees should be reduced

[Callowland]

If the Board loses this case then after all that has happened, and the potential amount of money that might be involved, someone's head must roll, then otherwise it is a bit like keeping Fred Goodwin running Royal Bank of Scotland after he ruined it.

Spudder, you could run it, unless you are running it already.[/quote]


Mate I asked a simple question who do you want to run the board then that's all coz at this moment in time the only name mentioned to run the board was proposed by bunny which was lord seb Coe which was ludicrous considering the fact that Coe is on about 1-5 million plus expenses a year with the Olympic legacy thing and the total turnover of the board is circa 750 k what I am trying to say is please put forward names that will do it for nothing so that licence fees can be reduced which also would please baker and co and on this I do agree fees should be reduced[/quote]

You are working on the assumption that everyone on the Board would leave, which is different to what I suggested. What I said is that the hierarchy should go. For all I know, there may be succession planning in the Board already. Do you feel the top brass should stay if they lose this case after having withdrawing peoples' licenses and possibly used up licence holders' money fighting licence holders.

[jonp]

One thing im not quite understanding is this.People are saying that it will be cheaper and easier to run shows without the board hovering over if this is true .Why are the GBA and malta shows that have been promoted costing more than a normal show? surely if not being with the board if making life cheaper why would they be charging more wouldnt they be charging less?

[damianhucker1]

One thing im not quite understanding is this.People are saying that it will be cheaper and easier to run shows without the board hovering over if this is true .Why are the GBA and malta shows that have been promoted costing more than a normal show? surely if not being with the board if making life cheaper why would they be charging more wouldnt they be charging less?

I would assume that it would be that theres a lack of home ticket selling boxers available due to it not being a bbboc show and also that the opponents generally (and some of the boxers on left hand side) are coming in from overseas.

[spudder56]

One thing im not quite understanding is this.People are saying that it will be cheaper and easier to run shows without the board hovering over if this is true .Why are the GBA and malta shows that have been promoted costing more than a normal show? surely if not being with the board if making life cheaper why would they be charging more wouldnt they be charging less?

X2 you are talking sense Jon other licence holders who are listening to bruce and co haven't Sussed this out yet all they want is change but they don't know what change they want apart from lower fees and also being allowed to licence anybody whether medically fit or not and also to grant licences to anybody regardless of ability ok the board is far from perfect and does need modernising but not at the expense of safety the idea of Bruce spouting off about changing regulations etc is ludicrous when he breeches his own regulations about eligibility for his masters titles on a regular basis the only criteria he attaches as far as eligibility for his masters titles is have you got the sanctioning fee who has the sanctioning fees ? Are they distributed amongst the members of his promotors association ?

[dalcumly]

When you are part of the body that regulates/controls a sport, not all decisions are accepted by everybody because sometimes they effect the 'loser' financially. But somebody must have control. The Boards decisions are made for the benefit of the sport. Sometimes they get it wrong, but I think they make honest decisions and have done for over 80 years. You can't beat experience and continuity.

[palooka]

When you are part of the body that regulates/controls a sport, not all decisions are accepted by everybody because sometimes they effect the 'loser' financially. But somebody must have control. The Boards decisions are made for the benefit of the sport. Sometimes they get it wrong, but I think they make honest decisions and have done for over 80 years. You can't beat experience and continuity.

That's fair point and there ought to be an open debate where people can give an argument for and against a rule or a rule change; someone can say why things aren't working for them and a resolution be found. If it's seen as an insiders club and an old guard then some people will get their noses put out even if they have good ideas.