A surplus is similar to a profit, but it can't be taken out of the company like a profit can. The surplus can then be reinvested or used to make up for shortages in cash flow.bripez wrote:A regular commercial company is in business in order to make profits - surely this reasonable?expe wrote: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.bripez wrote:
Then surely by the same logic the BBBofC are also only in it for the money?
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 ?
A governing body should be there to run the sport, making it as safe as possible for the fighters, without costing too much and keeping the sport accessible to all. If they were to be run as a commercial organisation, they would need to bring more money in, by increasing license fees, sanctioning fees and the board tax. To start with that would hit promoters and fighters in the pocket, eventually that increased cost would filter down to the fans, ticket prices would have to go up, TV companies would have to pay more to show fights, so they either show less, pull out, or increase subscription fees on fans to make up the difference.
It should be down to the license holders, I agree with you that some at the top of the board see fit to run boxing how they think is best, whether or not the license holders agree with it. That's one of the things that needs to change within the board. Seen in other sports too, most notably the FA, which seems to be run by rich old men who have never played football in their lives.
A lot of fights are poorly matched, I'd put that down to the promoters more than the board, if it's a safe match up then there's little reason for them to step in, even if it's a mismatch. Some are allowed to go on when they clearly shouldn't, Satchell's fight on Friday being a case in point, a 12lb weight difference at that weight, not to mention the gulf in ability between the two fighters, is dangerous.
It will push the general public and casual fan further away from boxing, there's far too many titles already, the British title is one that's held out against that, the last thing I want to see is the devaluation of the Lonsdale belt. We could end up with a situation where there's two sanctioning bodies, half the fighters with one and half with the other, what will the chances be of making fights between the two? There's already a lot of barriers to great fights being made, promoters, TV, egos, etc, adding another one in will just make it worse.
I don't mind the seller making a profit, but the promoter is the seller, not the governing body, they're the regulator, to make sure that things are conducted fairly and no one is ripped off. If they were to try and make a profit, on top of the promoters and TV companies making a profit, either fighters would have to be paid less, or the cost of attending shows/watching on TV would have to go up.
