MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[LucaDiCaro]

To be honest the debate has become tiresome now.

What started out as interesting to hear the views and opinions of Mr Di Caro and his opponents has now become a slanging match that benefits nobody other than those who wish to oppose.

If you dont like it dont support it, dont go to the events etc.

Otherwise hes got the right to run a business just like anyone else has on here.

It's not a business, it's a boxing commission, if he's set it up to make money, even more reason for him to be banned from boxing, governing bodies shouldn't be trying to make a profit from sport. Obviously we don't support it, but that really isn't going to be enough to stop it, there needs to be serious punishments for anyone involved in any of this.

Dear Expe - The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money, we don't, but that's not the point.

The point is, are you seriously saying that the BBBofC isn't about making money? Their most recent accounts show £729,704 in assets, £491,931 in cash, £447,227 in liabilities and a net worth of £721,874 net worth.

Their staff all receive wages (I don't), in addition certain people get 'expenses' when they supervise events (I don't). By the way the reason I put brackets around expenses is because I find it hard to see how the BBBofC can justify the level of 'expenses' certain people receive.

I doubt that you will believe me when I say that I haven't made a single cent out of boxing and in all honesty I don't expect to ever receive a return on my investment, as in our case it's not about the money, it's really is about boxers and boxing.

[LucaDiCaro]

I stand corrected, nothing like what i suggested.

20k against death and 12k for permanent disability/ loss of limb

No idea where i plucked that from originally

That sounds more like it mate but I assume there would be strict medical conditions attatched to the cover like there is with the board when a licence is not granted or is withdrawn because of scan irregularities etc it is usually because insurance cover would not be granted or is pulled by the insurance company you would probably find that in reality anybody who fails a board brain scan would be uninsurable for the purposes of boxing that's my opinion anyway

Dear Spudder56 - yes we have to meet the same requirements with the insurers as the BBBofC and yes if someone does not meet those requirements they would not be licensed.

I hope this may assist those that have mentioned about people we have licensed that the BBBofC refused or revoked licenses from on medical grounds.

There are very strict rules and we follow them to the letter, we couldn't risk licensing someone if there was a genuine medical reason not to.

I'm not saying the BBBofC are wrong to refuse someone, its their company they can choose to do so if they want, but in doing so they do not have the right to slate us for licensing that person as they have passed every medical test.

Your last point is spot on, if they had indeed 'failed' the brain scan then they would be un-insurable for boxing, so hopefully then you'll realise that those licensed by the MBC didn't fail their scans as the general misconception on here has been.

Personally I think it's just the BBBofC have taken some big knocks over the years - the Michael Watson case comes to mind here - as such they err on the cautious side, which is their prerogative.

[Mimmy]

Im reading all this with interest as I love boxing, sure its a lot different these days, however its a sport at the end of the day and there are always going to be governing bodies and commissions breaking away and forming their own league.

Soon as I read DiCaro's replies I see him talking sense and putting in replies that seem genuine to the argumments given, then I read 'expe's' replies and think no he has a point, its back and forth like a tennis match. I cannot come to a conclusion that sides for either argument.

So , my opinion is that I think Mr DiCaro deserves a crack at what he is projecting as we are a democratic country. If things go tits up aka Michael Watson injury etc then he has to stand up and take the on coming punches himself, even if thats in a court of law.

Im not sure if Mr DiCaro has an hidden agenda I would hope not as there are peoples lives to be considered, the general public and the families all involved and any disaster that could occur. Maybe some points that have been brought up for example insurace can be looked at and adjusted im not sure if the MBC are upto looking at their rules and changing them.

The BBBoC have had their fair share of money and they have not always been squeeky clean, I mean, how the hell can a body give Freddie Flintoff a licence to professionally box just for a reality tv programme knowing it was just a one fight deal. That does not make sense.

Mr DiCaro, would you give a licence to Louie Spence if he decided to do a reality programme?

Joking aside, What Luca is saying gives a good argument (expe also) and debate however he seems to know what he is talking about. I just hope he understand that people can be killed in a boxing ring and he is fully aware of the implications of fly by night buisness men and bullshitters.

I'm sure expe is going to give another good account why im talking shite and once again sway my opinion over to him.

[LucaDiCaro]

Im reading all this with interest as I love boxing, sure its a lot different these days, however its a sport at the end of the day and there are always going to be governing bodies and commissions breaking away and forming their own league.

Soon as I read DiCaro's replies I see him talking sense and putting in replies that seem genuine to the argumments given, then I read 'expe's' replies and think no he has a point, its back and forth like a tennis match. I cannot come to a conclusion that sides for either argument.

So , my opinion is that I think Mr DiCaro deserves a crack at what he is projecting as we are a democratic country. If things go tits up aka Michael Watson injury etc then he has to stand up and take the on coming punches himself, even if thats in a court of law.

Im not sure if Mr DiCaro has an hidden agenda I would hope not as there are peoples lives to be considered, the general public and the families all involved and any disaster that could occur. Maybe some points that have been brought up for example insurace can be looked at and adjusted im not sure if the MBC are upto looking at their rules and changing them.

The BBBoC have had their fair share of money and they have not always been squeeky clean, I mean, how the hell can a body give Freddie Flintoff a licence to professionally box just for a reality tv programme knowing it was just a one fight deal. That does not make sense.

Mr DiCaro, would you give a licence to Louie Spence if he decided to do a reality programme?

Joking aside, What Luca is saying gives a good argument (expe also) and debate however he seems to know what he is talking about. I just hope he understand that people can be killed in a boxing ring and he is fully aware of the implications of fly by night buisness men and bullshitters.

I'm sure expe is going to give another good account why im talking shite and once again sway my opinion over to him.

Dear Mimmy123 - I had deliberately not bought this up previously, as it is a personal matter to my mind - BUT feel that I should as this will probably explain why I genuinely believe it is imperative that I and the MBC take the health and safety of each and every MBC licensed boxers extremely seriously.

My fianceé is a professional boxer, I care for her more than anything in the world, I wouldn't dream of having anything but the most stringent medical standards for licensing or the very best medical coverage etc for the events we sanction, this is to ensure that she is as safe as possible when she competes, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Those standards are the foundations on which the MBC is built and always will be.

[Mimmy]

Im reading all this with interest as I love boxing, sure its a lot different these days, however its a sport at the end of the day and there are always going to be governing bodies and commissions breaking away and forming their own league.

Soon as I read DiCaro's replies I see him talking sense and putting in replies that seem genuine to the argumments given, then I read 'expe's' replies and think no he has a point, its back and forth like a tennis match. I cannot come to a conclusion that sides for either argument.

So , my opinion is that I think Mr DiCaro deserves a crack at what he is projecting as we are a democratic country. If things go tits up aka Michael Watson injury etc then he has to stand up and take the on coming punches himself, even if thats in a court of law.

Im not sure if Mr DiCaro has an hidden agenda I would hope not as there are peoples lives to be considered, the general public and the families all involved and any disaster that could occur. Maybe some points that have been brought up for example insurace can be looked at and adjusted im not sure if the MBC are upto looking at their rules and changing them.

The BBBoC have had their fair share of money and they have not always been squeeky clean, I mean, how the hell can a body give Freddie Flintoff a licence to professionally box just for a reality tv programme knowing it was just a one fight deal. That does not make sense.

Mr DiCaro, would you give a licence to Louie Spence if he decided to do a reality programme?

Joking aside, What Luca is saying gives a good argument (expe also) and debate however he seems to know what he is talking about. I just hope he understand that people can be killed in a boxing ring and he is fully aware of the implications of fly by night buisness men and bullshitters.

I'm sure expe is going to give another good account why im talking shite and once again sway my opinion over to him.

Dear Mimmy123 - I had deliberately not bought this up previously, as it is a personal matter to my mind - BUT feel that I should as this will probably explain why I genuinely believe it is imperative that I and the MBC take the health and safety of each and every MBC licensed boxers extremely seriously.

My fianceé is a professional boxer, I care for her more than anything in the world, I wouldn't dream of having anything but the most stringent medical standards for licensing or the very best medical coverage etc for the events we sanction, this is to ensure that she is as safe as possible when she competes, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Those standards are the foundations on which the MBC is built and always will be.

[Wake up call]

To be honest the debate has become tiresome now.

What started out as interesting to hear the views and opinions of Mr Di Caro and his opponents has now become a slanging match that benefits nobody other than those who wish to oppose.

If you dont like it dont support it, dont go to the events etc.

Otherwise hes got the right to run a business just like anyone else has on here.

It's not a business, it's a boxing commission, if he's set it up to make money, even more reason for him to be banned from boxing, governing bodies shouldn't be trying to make a profit from sport. Obviously we don't support it, but that really isn't going to be enough to stop it, there needs to be serious punishments for anyone involved in any of this.

Dear Expe - The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money, we don't, but that's not the point.

The point is, are you seriously saying that the BBBofC isn't about making money? Their most recent accounts show £729,704 in assets, £491,931 in cash, £447,227 in liabilities and a net worth of £721,874 net worth.

Their staff all receive wages (I don't), in addition certain people get 'expenses' when they supervise events (I don't). By the way the reason I put brackets around expenses is because I find it hard to see how the BBBofC can justify the level of 'expenses' certain people receive.

I doubt that you will believe me when I say that I haven't made a single cent out of boxing and in all honesty I don't expect to ever receive a return on my investment, as in our case it's not about the money, it's really is about boxers and boxing.

Misleading people again Luca.

The BBBofC is a limited company BY GUARANTEE, that is greatly different to a limited company with shares.

Most charities are limited companies by guarantee as the set up enables them to operate as a non-profit organisation without shareholders and dividend payments, but gives them a legal presence so they can be party to court procedures and own property.

The guarantee element means their license holders' fees guarantee its liabilities. This gives them money in accounts that can used to the benefit of the sport, but it isn't pure profit. Effectively, the BBBofC is a members club and the money it holds belongs to its members.

Your company does not have the same set-up (although it could have), so you saying "The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money" is untrue and again an attempt to mislead people.

Of course their staff receive wages. Guess what? Staff in many non-profit organisations are paid for their duties, including in pretty much every charity you can think of.

However, you are correct about their expenses. Some board big wigs have used their position to justify jollies when a British boxer has been involved in a world title fight overseas.

[Boxerbeetle]

Dear Expe - The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money, we don't, but that's not the point.

The point is, are you seriously saying that the BBBofC isn't about making money? Their most recent accounts show £729,704 in assets, £491,931 in cash, £447,227 in liabilities and a net worth of £721,874 net worth.

Their staff all receive wages (I don't), in addition certain people get 'expenses' when they supervise events (I don't). By the way the reason I put brackets around expenses is because I find it hard to see how the BBBofC can justify the level of 'expenses' certain people receive.

I doubt that you will believe me when I say that I haven't made a single cent out of boxing and in all honesty I don't expect to ever receive a return on my investment, as in our case it's not about the money, it's really is about boxers and boxing.

Misleading people again Luca.

The BBBofC is a limited company BY GUARANTEE, that is greatly different to a limited company with shares.

Most charities are limited companies by guarantee as the set up enables them to operate as a non-profit organisation without shareholders and dividend payments, but gives them a legal presence so they can be party to court procedures and own property.

The guarantee element means their license holders' fees guarantee its liabilities. This gives them money in accounts that can used to the benefit of the sport, but it isn't pure profit. Effectively, the BBBofC is a members club and the money it holds belongs to its members.

Your company does not have the same set-up (although it could have), so you saying "The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money" is untrue and again an attempt to mislead people.

Of course their staff receive wages. Guess what? Staff in many non-profit organisations are paid for their duties, including in pretty much every charity you can think of.

However, you are correct about their expenses. Some board big wigs have used their position to justify jollies when a British boxer has been involved in a world title fight overseas.

100% correct. Disingenuous in the extreme to compare your limited company with a company limited by guarantee with no share capital. For shame.

[spudder56]

Dear Expe - The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money, we don't, but that's not the point.

The point is, are you seriously saying that the BBBofC isn't about making money? Their most recent accounts show £729,704 in assets, £491,931 in cash, £447,227 in liabilities and a net worth of £721,874 net worth.

Their staff all receive wages (I don't), in addition certain people get 'expenses' when they supervise events (I don't). By the way the reason I put brackets around expenses is because I find it hard to see how the BBBofC can justify the level of 'expenses' certain people receive.

I doubt that you will believe me when I say that I haven't made a single cent out of boxing and in all honesty I don't expect to ever receive a return on my investment, as in our case it's not about the money, it's really is about boxers and boxing.

Misleading people again Luca.

The BBBofC is a limited company BY GUARANTEE, that is greatly different to a limited company with shares.

Most charities are limited companies by guarantee as the set up enables them to operate as a non-profit organisation without shareholders and dividend payments, but gives them a legal presence so they can be party to court procedures and own property.

The guarantee element means their license holders' fees guarantee its liabilities. This gives them money in accounts that can used to the benefit of the sport, but it isn't pure profit. Effectively, the BBBofC is a members club and the money it holds belongs to its members.

Your company does not have the same set-up (although it could have), so you saying "The MBC like the BBBofC is a limited company and like any company you would normally expect it to make money" is untrue and again an attempt to mislead people.

Of course their staff receive wages. Guess what? Staff in many non-profit organisations are paid for their duties, including in pretty much every charity you can think of.

However, you are correct about their expenses. Some board big wigs have used their position to justify jollies when a British boxer has been involved in a world title fight overseas.

100% correct. Disingenuous in the extreme to compare your limited company with a company limited by guarantee with no share capital. For shame.

I was waiting for someone to pick up the difference between the two types of limited companies

[kamicazze]

Mr Di Caro, what is the MBC position on if a licensed fighter is a participant on a white collar/unlicensed show? Be that as cornermen or fighter?

[spudder56]

Mr Di Caro, what is the MBC position on if a licensed fighter is a participant on a white collar/unlicensed show? Be that as cornermen or fighter?

I would imagine it's the same as the boards because of the insurance implications of a boxer fighting on a sanctioning bodies shows that are not recognised by the body who is paying the insurance basically the insurance would be null and void the boards insurance as I see it is only applicable if all the regulations have been implemented fully I would have thought when annual renewal premiums come to be paid I bet the insurance company would put extra stipulations etc every year. I would presume MBC have the same issues to address each year if there insurance is the same as the boards cover

[mickey1975]

Explain to us how Suz Member was fit to box professionally? I'm not talking medically, I'm talking about skill. No bullshit about the Tanzanian license, there's more than enough footage of his unlicensed fights on youtube to show you that he has no place in a boxing ring.

When Luca is stumped by logical questions.

I've just looked up Member on Google and he turned down a six figure sponsorship deal because of his religious beliefs. He's a very good publicist.

[kamicazze]

Explain to us how Suz Member was fit to box professionally? I'm not talking medically, I'm talking about skill. No bullshit about the Tanzanian license, there's more than enough footage of his unlicensed fights on youtube to show you that he has no place in a boxing ring.

When Luca is stumped by logical questions.

I've just looked up Member on Google and he turned down a six figure sponsorship deal because of his religious beliefs. He's a very good publicist.

I looked up member earlier too. Seems to get his name out in the media. Bits of footage of him on YouTube. He is by no means a good boxer, but I have seen far worse with pro licenses on these shores.

[spudder56]

does anybody have any results from last nights nottingham show ?

[Wake up call]

Explain to us how Suz Member was fit to box professionally? I'm not talking medically, I'm talking about skill. No bullshit about the Tanzanian license, there's more than enough footage of his unlicensed fights on youtube to show you that he has no place in a boxing ring.

When Luca is stumped by logical questions.

I've just looked up Member on Google and he turned down a six figure sponsorship deal because of his religious beliefs. He's a very good publicist.

He made that story up. There was no six figure sponsorship offer. Him and a lad called Jack Preston made it up as a publicity stunt.

[josco]

They are certainly keen on their boxing in Malta! The following outfits are all up and running:

Malta Boxing Association
Malta Boxing Commission
Malta Boxing Council
Malta Boxing Federation (for the amateurs I think)

Mr Di Caro is also running the Universal Boxing Union and WBF Europe - WBF presumably standing for World Boxing Federation.

None of these can hold a candle to the British Boxing Board of Control and (possibly excepting Malta Boxing Federation) will, I guess, soon be consigned to Del Boy's suitcase where they belong.

[JimJim2009]

This chap has by accident answered my question about what's in it for him. Looking at the figures he has quoted for the board, it is obvious. We'd all like that sort of money......

[bripez]

This chap has by accident answered my question about what's in it for him. Looking at the figures he has quoted for the board, it is obvious. We'd all like that sort of money......

Then surely by the same logic the BBBofC are also only in it for the money?

[expe]

This chap has by accident answered my question about what's in it for him. Looking at the figures he has quoted for the board, it is obvious. We'd all like that sort of money......

Then surely by the same logic the BBBofC are also only in it for the money?

They're non profit and have no shareholders, none of them can actually touch any of that money. The only way they seem to have found to get any money out of it is expenses and there's only so much they can claim. The way I understand it, if MBC had that kind of money, as the only shareholder, Mr Di Caro would be able to pay it to himself in dividends and take all the money.

[Mimmy]

This chap has by accident answered my question about what's in it for him. Looking at the figures he has quoted for the board, it is obvious. We'd all like that sort of money......

Then surely by the same logic the BBBofC are also only in it for the money?

They're non profit and have no shareholders, none of them can actually touch any of that money. The only way they seem to have found to get any money out of it is expenses and there's only so much they can claim. The way I understand it, if MBC had that kind of money, as the only shareholder, Mr Di Caro would be able to pay it to himself in dividends and take all the money.

im on the expe side of the fence again. Im going to have to stop reading this topic as there seems to be some good stuff from expe. And it all involves money to be made. Im more interested in the safety aspect and only the top boxers get a title shot, not someone who has a terrible record.

[JimJim2009]

I'll support this organisation if they let expe run it. Can't say fairer than that.

[Mimmy]

I'll support this organisation if they let expe run it. Can't say fairer than that.

Thats a bloody good point! Mr Luca?

[bripez]

This chap has by accident answered my question about what's in it for him. Looking at the figures he has quoted for the board, it is obvious. We'd all like that sort of money......

Then surely by the same logic the BBBofC are also only in it for the money?

They're non profit and have no shareholders, none of them can actually touch any of that money. The only way they seem to have found to get any money out of it is expenses and there's only so much they can claim. The way I understand it, if MBC had that kind of money, as the only shareholder, Mr Di Caro would be able to pay it to himself in dividends and take all the money.

A regular commercial company is in business in order to make profits - surely this reasonable?

A non-profit making organisation needs to make a "surplus" in order to survive as without such a surplus they would run out of cash and not survive. As you can see, this is purely semantics as "surplus" means the same as "profits".

The current structure of the BBBofC seems to facilitate an almost gentle men's club type of approach - surely the sport would benefit if sanctioning bodies were run on a similar basis as commercial organisations.

At the moment, without shareholders who decides on what rules and regulations should be followed (answer - they make it up themselves) and who decides if and when there should be a change in leadership ? (And please don't say the "members" as it is clear that individual members (ie. Boxers) have very little influence).

Of course the people at the BBBofC benefit financially - they are paid salaries (not sure what they are or if they are at commercial rates) and also claim expenses (again, I am not sure how thus compares to the private sector).

That is a big point - at the moment under the current structure we just don't know. At least if the Board were a company in the traditional sense there would be more openness and therefore accountability.

Just looking at the recent Matchroom and FW bills - how many winners did you predict?

The promoters make the fights and they are sanctioned by the Board (please don't say that matchmakers make the bouts as they work for the promoter and toe the party line).

The sport at the moment is nit that great, but nothing is going to change unless the sport starts to do something different - and it is clear that the Board will continue to do what they have also done.

I don't know anything about other sanctioning organisations, however as long as boxer safety is paramount and maintained at least to current levels then this can only be a benefit to the sport?

If they deliver then they will make money - so what, you don't not buy a product or service because the seller is making a profit do you ?

If they don't deliver then they will go out of business.

Surely the average boxing fan could only win ?

[leejonesjnr]

I suppose time will tell. I personally think that boxers and promoters will stick with the BBBoC unless they can't get a license.

[bripez]

I suppose time will tell. I personally think that boxers and promoters will stick with the BBBoC unless they can't get a license.

I am sure that the big promoters and big name boxers will - because it benefits their own self interests.

What about the smaller promoters or 95% of boxers who are the pawns in the middle of this game ?

These promoters want put on competitive bouts (yes, so that they can earn money) and the boxers just want to box (yes, they will also earn money) but they are being threatened by the hoard that if they box on another sanctioning body show that they will effectively be black balled from boxing on BBBofC shows.

Of course, this does not apply if you are FW, David Haye or Derek Chisora etc.

As long as new sanctioning bodies adhere to the current medical levels as a minimum then I don't see a problem.

[JimJim2009]

I suppose time will tell. I personally think that boxers and promoters will stick with the BBBoC unless they can't get a license.

Me too. And there does come a point when you have to stop pxxxxxg away money. It's happened with other outfits, this chap may reach his own decision in due course. If anyone could come along and eclipse the board, it isn't going to be this organisation.