MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[expe]

I am not sure if he is running a Governing body - the MBC is a Sanctioning body?

It seems that most of your argument centres around semantics and that you feel that this persons main motive is personal financial gain.

Again, I would say that most people involved in boxing - in whatever capacity - are paid for their involvement.

Governing body/sanctioning body, same principle applies, neither should be out to make a profit.

It's pretty obvious that his motive is financial gain, unless you choose to believe his lies.

I never said he shouldn't be paid, if he's going to run sanctioning bodies or whatever you want to call them, I have no issue with him being paid a fair wage for the work undertaken, but that has to be a realistic wage, not just as much money as he can possibly make.

I do not understand your argument.

We live in a democracy, surely people are allowed to earn a living as long as what they are doing is legal?

frank, Eddie and the rest are out to earn as much as possible and I don't think it unreasonable that others are allowed the same.

Out of interest, what exactly is a "fair" wage or a "realistic" wage for a role in a sanctioning body?

Again, where have I said that he isn't allowed to earn a living?

Same point again, they are promoters.

A similar wage to what that person would get performing a similar role in another company, enough to live comfortably off, but not thousands and thousands.

[leejonesjnr]

I suppose I am in the minority in that I don't care in the slightest if Di Caro is in it for the money, or if he makes a fortune out of it as long as he/MBC does what he/it is supposed to do.
I personally wouldn't hand in my BBBoC license for an MBC one currently and if I am honest I don't envisage a time when that will change but who knows?

[bripez]

Out of interest, what exactly is a "fair" wage or a "realistic" wage for a role in a sanctioning body?

Again, where have I said that he isn't allowed to earn a living?

Same point again, they are promoters.

A similar wage to what that person would get performing a similar role in another company, enough to live comfortably off, but not thousands and thousands.[/quote]





You have argued for 10 pages and asked Luca detailed questions and demanded specific answers - yet you appear unwilling or unable to do the same when questioned.

Why should anyone be able to dictate what another person can earn? - particularly when everybody else is able to earn whatever they can.

How much do you think that he should earn?

I think that you would struggle to find a comparison from somebody "performing a similar role in another company" - what role and what company would you use?

What is your specific definition of "comfortable", "fair" and "realistic" ? All words you have used to support your argument yet have no foundation or meaning.

To be honest you are starting to sound like a Green Party politician - they can say all the crowd pleasing stuff about building houses, creating jobs and saving the environment, yet are very sketchy on the details on how this would be achieved in reality as they will not be in the position to actually have to carry out what they say.

Rather than sit behind his internet making comments and being critical like you and I, at least this guy is actually trying to do something (and dare I say, putting his money where his mouth is).

It is easy for us to criticise from the comfort of our armchairs, it is much more difficult to have the power of your convictions to turn ideas into actions.

[expe]

You have argued for 10 pages and asked Luca detailed questions and demanded specific answers - yet you appear unwilling or unable to do the same when questioned.

Why should anyone be able to dictate what another person can earn? - particularly when everybody else is able to earn whatever they can.

How much do you think that he should earn?

I think that you would struggle to find a comparison from somebody "performing a similar role in another company" - what role and what company would you use?

What is your specific definition of "comfortable", "fair" and "realistic" ? All words you have used to support your argument yet have no foundation or meaning.

To be honest you are starting to sound like a Green Party politician - they can say all the crowd pleasing stuff about building houses, creating jobs and saving the environment, yet are very sketchy on the details on how this would be achieved in reality as they will not be in the position to actually have to carry out what they say.

Rather than sit behind his internet making comments and being critical like you and I, at least this guy is actually trying to do something (and dare I say, putting his money where his mouth is).

It is easy for us to criticise from the comfort of our armchairs, it is much more difficult to have the power of your convictions to turn ideas into actions.

If I don't know what sort of wage is standard for a job like that how I am supposed to answer? Better to be honest than try and lie.

Someone running a regulatory company either in a sport or elsewhere, it would need to be of a similar size to what he is trying to run, you can't compare the salary the chief executive of the FA is paid to what someone in a similar in role in boxing is paid.

Comfortable would be roof over the head, food on the table, car on the drive, couple of weeks holiday a year. Fair and realistic I have already explained.

No clue what point you're trying to make with that one.

What is he actually trying to do? Leech off boxing to make a few quid?

[leejonesjnr]

You have argued for 10 pages and asked Luca detailed questions and demanded specific answers - yet you appear unwilling or unable to do the same when questioned.

Why should anyone be able to dictate what another person can earn? - particularly when everybody else is able to earn whatever they can.

How much do you think that he should earn?

I think that you would struggle to find a comparison from somebody "performing a similar role in another company" - what role and what company would you use?

What is your specific definition of "comfortable", "fair" and "realistic" ? All words you have used to support your argument yet have no foundation or meaning.

To be honest you are starting to sound like a Green Party politician - they can say all the crowd pleasing stuff about building houses, creating jobs and saving the environment, yet are very sketchy on the details on how this would be achieved in reality as they will not be in the position to actually have to carry out what they say.

Rather than sit behind his internet making comments and being critical like you and I, at least this guy is actually trying to do something (and dare I say, putting his money where his mouth is).

It is easy for us to criticise from the comfort of our armchairs, it is much more difficult to have the power of your convictions to turn ideas into actions.

If I don't know what sort of wage is standard for a job like that how I am supposed to answer? Better to be honest than try and lie.

Someone running a regulatory company either in a sport or elsewhere, it would need to be of a similar size to what he is trying to run, you can't compare the salary the chief executive of the FA is paid to what someone in a similar in role in boxing is paid.

Comfortable would be roof over the head, food on the table, car on the drive, couple of weeks holiday a year. Fair and realistic I have already explained.

No clue what point you're trying to make with that one.

What is he actually trying to do? Leech off boxing to make a few quid?

Why SHOULDN'T he make money IF MBC RUNS THINGS SAFELY?

[spudder56]

You have argued for 10 pages and asked Luca detailed questions and demanded specific answers - yet you appear unwilling or unable to do the same when questioned.

Why should anyone be able to dictate what another person can earn? - particularly when everybody else is able to earn whatever they can.

How much do you think that he should earn?

I think that you would struggle to find a comparison from somebody "performing a similar role in another company" - what role and what company would you use?

What is your specific definition of "comfortable", "fair" and "realistic" ? All words you have used to support your argument yet have no foundation or meaning.

To be honest you are starting to sound like a Green Party politician - they can say all the crowd pleasing stuff about building houses, creating jobs and saving the environment, yet are very sketchy on the details on how this would be achieved in reality as they will not be in the position to actually have to carry out what they say.

Rather than sit behind his internet making comments and being critical like you and I, at least this guy is actually trying to do something (and dare I say, putting his money where his mouth is).

It is easy for us to criticise from the comfort of our armchairs, it is much more difficult to have the power of your convictions to turn ideas into actions.

If I don't know what sort of wage is standard for a job like that how I am supposed to answer? Better to be honest than try and lie.

Someone running a regulatory company either in a sport or elsewhere, it would need to be of a similar size to what he is trying to run, you can't compare the salary the chief executive of the FA is paid to what someone in a similar in role in boxing is paid.

Comfortable would be roof over the head, food on the table, car on the drive, couple of weeks holiday a year. Fair and realistic I have already explained.

No clue what point you're trying to make with that one.

What is he actually trying to do? Leech off boxing to make a few quid?

Why SHOULDN'T he make money IF MBC RUNS THINGS SAFELY?

Exactly if MBC runs things safely as to which I have my doubts being is a lot of their licence holders are people who have either had their board licence withdrawn or are unable to get a board licence either on medical grounds or on ability grounds personally I wish Luca the best of luck with his venture but people who hold board licences know the board regulations as regards appearing on other sanctioning bodies shows without first applying for and obtaining permission from the board anybody who applies for a board licence is made fully aware of these regulations at the time of application if they are not happy with board regulations why join in the first place

[bripez]

Easy fellas, we might get some balance to this debate.

I have said all along, if the MBC (or whoever) operate with at least the same medical provision as we have at the moment then if they offer an alternative and additional opportunities to boxers, trainers and promoters then this can only be a good thing.

The current BBBofC monopoly works, but could be better.

The only way that they will change is if they are forced to change - the emergence bodies such as the MBC may force them to evolve, adapt and change which could ultimately benefit everybody.

It seems that Expes argument is that for some reason he doesn't belive that Luca should make money from the venture even though boxers, trainers, promoters and others all make money out of their involvement in sport.

And to state that he should only be allowed to take a wage sufficient to cover a roof over his head and a holiday once a year is ridiculous.

Boxer safety is number one - if this is covered then increased competition can benefit the sport, especially for the fans.

[Wake up call]

Easy fellas, we might get some balance to this debate.

I have said all along, if the MBC (or whoever) operate with at least the same medical provision as we have at the moment then if they offer an alternative and additional opportunities to boxers, trainers and promoters then this can only be a good thing.

The current BBBofC monopoly works, but could be better.

The only way that they will change is if they are forced to change - the emergence bodies such as the MBC may force them to evolve, adapt and change which could ultimately benefit everybody.

It seems that Expes argument is that for some reason he doesn't belive that Luca should make money from the venture even though boxers, trainers, promoters and others all make money out of their involvement in sport.

And to state that he should only be allowed to take a wage sufficient to cover a roof over his head and a holiday once a year is ridiculous.

Boxer safety is number one - if this is covered then increased competition can benefit the sport, especially for the fans.

Oh dear. Where to begin?

Firstly, you need to learn the difference between a promoter and sanctioning body.

"Increased competition can benefit the sport". Ha ha. You don't really get the issue do you.

Ok, lets by your logic, have LOADS of competition.

Lets have 97 British champions sanctioned by 45 different bodies. Lets have 2,000 world champions and 1000 sanctioning bodies. Lets have a Monday in every third week in Lancashire title followed by a MBC Friday morning interncontinental title.

Let's have an MBC international leap year championship.

Let's have a XYGT British international interim title, because, of course, A BIT OF COMPETITION CAN'T HURT.

You simply do not understand that the proliferation of bogus bodies, with questionable medial procedures using unsuitable venues and sanctioning ridiculous titles DOES HURT. It makes an already confusing sport more complicated, devalues genuine titles and serves to turn fans away. Boxing is already a minority sport without people like you advocating it becoming even more marginalised.

Sorry for having to use capitals so much, but it seems this Bripez is a bit dim.

[spudder56]

For gods sake wake up call don't give Luca ideas or else the world will run out of plastic to make his belts don't forget the environmental implications of manafacturing all these belts mate lol

[JimJim2009]

Easy fellas, we might get some balance to this debate.

I have said all along, if the MBC (or whoever) operate with at least the same medical provision as we have at the moment then if they offer an alternative and additional opportunities to boxers, trainers and promoters then this can only be a good thing.

The current BBBofC monopoly works, but could be better.

The only way that they will change is if they are forced to change - the emergence bodies such as the MBC may force them to evolve, adapt and change which could ultimately benefit everybody.

It seems that Expes argument is that for some reason he doesn't belive that Luca should make money from the venture even though boxers, trainers, promoters and others all make money out of their involvement in sport.

And to state that he should only be allowed to take a wage sufficient to cover a roof over his head and a holiday once a year is ridiculous.

Boxer safety is number one - if this is covered then increased competition can benefit the sport, especially for the fans.

Oh dear. Where to begin?

Firstly, you need to learn the difference between a promoter and sanctioning body.

"Increased competition can benefit the sport". Ha ha. You don't really get the issue do you.

Ok, lets by you logic, have LOADS of competition.

Lets have 97 British champions sanctioned by 45 different bodies. Lets have 2,000 world champions and 1000 sanctioning bodies. Lets have a Monday in every third week in Lancashire title followed by a MBC Friday morning interncontinental title.

Let's have an MBC international leap year championship.

Let's have a XYGT British international interim title, because, of course, A BIT OF COMPETITION CAN'T HURT.

You simply do not understand that the proliferation of bogus bodies, with questionable medial procedures using unsuitable venues and sanctioning ridiculous titles DOES HURT. It makes an already confusing sport more complicated, devalues genuine titles and serves to turn fans away. Boxing is already a minority sport without people like you advocating it becoming even more marginalised.

Nice to see somebody gets it

[Dunstan]

@Wake Up Call

You make some good (and well researched) points in your many posts in this thread. Your motivation for this 'campaign' does concern me however; on several occasions you are highly (and with justification) critical of the MBC shows that took place in Leeds. As we both know these shows were 'promoted' by Lee Murtagh (who is also the EBF promoter in the area, hence the 'bouncers' on the undercard of these MBC bills)

But looking back through your old posts, I can see you were once boasting about 'training at Lee's gym' You sprang to his defense when he was criticized for TWICE withdrawing from Irish title fights with Anthony Fitzgerald and you once wrote a feature about Murtagh for the YEP.

So from being somewhat supportive of Murtagh and his activities, you are now highly critical about:

1. The credibility of the 'commission' he is a member of.

2. The shows he has promoted under MBC auspices.

3. The fighters he supplied (and presumably trained) on the under cards.

I could be wrong Andrew but it seems to me as if you've had a 'fall out' with Mr. Murtagh (like many others from what I hear) and this crusade is more about your antipathy towards him than any issue with the MBC (I seem to recall you interviewed Spencer Brown of the EBF few years ago, you let him say his piece about that frankly risible 'organisation' without subjecting him to your scrutiny)

[dw01]

Wow, what an interesting thread. I've read through the lot and loads of points come up which i'd be more than interested in finding out more about.
I've been involved with Kickboxing sanctioning bodies, and unlicensed boxing, although i don't believe in the 'white collar' stuff, i believe in proper fair matchmaking, and trying to get high skilled fighters. But that's just me....

From reading through all of the pages so far, it's quite clear that certain people are connected in some way to the BBBoC a lot more than they are admitting. But one interesting thing i noted is that the only person that seems to answer every point put to him, has been Di Caro. No name calling, no sarcastic or childish comments. I have not seen a point whereby he has avoided a question. Yet every question he asks, NOBODY has answered them. How come? Well, from experience, this is because people's minds have already been made up and they refuse to accept anything else. They don't want to hear the truth or be swayed.

Some Points:

1. For those of you supporting the BBBoC as the only body in the UK to act as a regulator. Why do you support only one? Lets forget about titles/title sanctioning, let's look at simply the licensing & regulatory side. If TWO organisations operate the same Health & Safety, but one (MBC) is cheaper, then what is wrong with that? People keep mentioning the Health & Safety side - both bodies seem to be the same. I would use an analogy of the US Athletic Commissions who oversee events - if an organisation can step into that role through licensing & regulating. What's the issue?

2. The BBBoC have refused licenses to boxers yet the MBC have issued them... Well, what period of time has to pass by before a fighter can reapply to the BBBoC? Any abnormalities or issues can clear up. If the boxer has been proven as fit, under the exact same criteria, who is anybody to knock the MBC about it? Would it mean that if the BBBoC has refused a licence then that's it, he can never reapply to them?

3. On what grounds are the BBBoC licence holders not permitted to fight on MBC sanctioned events in the UK? This is a big issue.

4. Why does the BBBoC recognise the IBO as a legitimate sanctioning body, when virtually none of the wider public do? We all know who the big 3-4 bodies are.

5. I've heard the name Suz Member character mentioned a few times. But what about Robin Deakin. Won his first fight then lost about 50 on the trot. Where was the BBBoC's safety precaustions during all of this time?

6. Criminal offences. The BBBoC won't licence ex-convicts until convictions are spent. What's the reason for this? What has this to do with boxing?

7. Comments about Mixed Fight Shows ie Boxing and Kickboxing on the same bill. It happens all over the World. When you watch TV you watch the product that has been sold to the TV channel, not everything on the fight card. GLORY Kickboxing - the world's largest kickboxing promotions, also has MMA on their undercard, but BT Sport doesn't show the MMA as they're only showing the Kickboxing product they've bought. No big deal.

8. Sanctioning/Regulating: If a sanctioning body gets asked to oversee 10 x pro boxing bouts on a show, then surely that's as far as their duties extend to. The show may have a separate fight card of unlicensed boxing/kickboxing/mma/balet or whatever, that's nothing to do with what the sanctioning body has been asked to oversee. Surely common sense shows this. Just because people in the UK have been force-fed certain criteria by the BBBoC, doesn't make it right. It just makes it familiar. I held a promoter's licence with the WBC's Thaiboxing division and they operate exactly like that. If i wanted a WBC Thaiboxing title, then all they would do was come along and oversee that single bout. No others, they left that to the promoter to sort out, either himself or via an alternative body. Are you saying a body such as the WBC is wrong?? WBC Muay Thai and WBC Boxing operate the same.

9. Quote: "The BBBoC are far from perfect"... So then why not accept another body to prove their worth? What's the issue?

10. What is the real reason why some members on this thread do not want the MBC in the UK? Is it because it is a threat to the BBBoC's attempt of a monopoly over professional boxing ?

11. Why is the BBBoC so closed-minded on co-operation with other organisations operating in the UK? Why do they feel that they should be the only company to be in that position? Elitism?

12. How many of the BBBoC's actual board, have boxed? I can't imagine many Lords/Lady's/Sirs having done so.

13. The BBBoC may be a not-for-profit company, but they make more than enough to pay generous salaries to its owners. What is the difference, either way, the money gets consumed by the operators.


These are all valid points i've noted in this thread alone. I am all for regulating safe events, i just don't think that one organisation should feel that they should be the only one on these shores when others can do the same job, at a lower cost.


PS I have no connection with the MBC at all.

[expe]

I fornicating give up, some people are far too stupid to ever understand this.

[bripez]

But one interesting thing i noted is that the only person that seems to answer every point put to him, has been Di Caro.

No name calling, no sarcastic or childish comments.

I have not seen a point whereby he has avoided a question. Yet every question he asks, NOBODY has answered them.

How come? Well, from experience, this is because people's minds have already been made up and they refuse to accept anything else.

They don't want to hear the truth or be swayed.

I agree with the above 100%.

[spudder56]

I would love to know who the owners of the board are who receive these generous salaries Who ARe THE OWNERS OF THE BOARD ?

[dw01]

I would love to know who the owners of the board are who receive these generous salaries Who ARe THE OWNERS OF THE BOARD ?

Exactly. And what is their history in boxing that makes them an authority?

[expe]

I would love to know who the owners of the board are who receive these generous salaries Who ARe THE OWNERS OF THE BOARD ?

Exactly. And what is their history in boxing that makes them an authority?

[spudder56]

I would love to know who the owners of the board are who receive these generous salaries Who ARe THE OWNERS OF THE BOARD ?

Exactly. And what is their history in boxing that makes them an authority?

Who are you saying are the owners of the board ?

[gobbles]

1. For those of you supporting the BBBoC as the only body in the UK to act as a regulator. Why do you support only one? Lets forget about titles/title sanctioning, let's look at simply the licensing & regulatory side. If TWO organisations operate the same Health & Safety, but one (MBC) is cheaper, then what is wrong with that? People keep mentioning the Health & Safety side - both bodies seem to be the same. I would use an analogy of the US Athletic Commissions who oversee events - if an organisation can step into that role through licensing & regulating. What's the issue?

Strange analogy. The New York Commission cannot oversee boxing in any other state. Neither can any overseas body sanction boxing in the the US.

The only people claiming the health and safety aspect are the same are the MBC. I do not believe that the numbers of people available to work shows for the MBC or their experience in the sport can be anything close to what the BBBoC provide.

[dw01]

1. For those of you supporting the BBBoC as the only body in the UK to act as a regulator. Why do you support only one? Lets forget about titles/title sanctioning, let's look at simply the licensing & regulatory side. If TWO organisations operate the same Health & Safety, but one (MBC) is cheaper, then what is wrong with that? People keep mentioning the Health & Safety side - both bodies seem to be the same. I would use an analogy of the US Athletic Commissions who oversee events - if an organisation can step into that role through licensing & regulating. What's the issue?

Strange analogy. The New York Commission cannot oversee boxing in any other state. Neither can any overseas body sanction boxing in the the US.

True. And they don't provide titles either. Their role is that of a regulator. The BBBoC clearly has a stringent Health & Safety police (allegedly. i say that as i haven't seen it in full). The MBC are claiming to have the same policy. Who has proven it different? New York Commission is a unique commission to be fair. Someone mentioned Kickboxing - the WKA is the only organisation that can sanction kickboxing in that State. They're the appointed 3rd party commission if you like. Which is odd. You can't do Thaiboxing or MMA in NY as a pro, i believe.

The only people claiming the health and safety aspect are the same are the MBC. I do not believe that the numbers of people available to work shows for the MBC or their experience in the sport can be anything close to what the BBBoC provide.

We all know the BBBoC have been around a long time, but let's face it. Boxing is two athletes getting into a ring and fighting each other under rules. The National Federations have made it complicated, and very expensive, almost unreasonable. Is this really about the safety and welfare of fighters, and development of the sport? What much more is there to say than if a fighter, and the event itself, is safe, and governed well, what's the issue? It seems to me it's all about licence fees and the Board wish to protect that..... That's looking at it from the outside.

Cue silly emoticons.

[dw01]

My main query is 'On what grounds are the BBBoC refusing to allow their licence-holders to fight on non-Board events in the UK?"

Simple question and a genuine query.

[Looking On]

Id jump straight in with mbc if i could guarantee no sanctions/ repercussions for BBBoc boxers who box on MC shows, between myself and two other guys we would be very strong locally if those guarantees where in place

[The Insider]

Pretty sure this goes back to the High Court on April 16th. Its a fascinating story thus far. I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash then.

[bripez]

The only people claiming the health and safety aspect are the same are the MBC. I do not believe that the numbers of people available to work shows for the MBC or their experience in the sport can be anything close to what the BBBoC provide.

So what you "think" carries greater significance from what the MBC "Claim" ?

The difference between the 2 is that if the MBC claim x,y,z - then surely this provable by their actions.

eg. for instance, if the MBC state that a certain medical is required for all boxers and this medical is of at least the same level as the BBBofC medical then this is easily measured (i.e. in reality, is such a medical undertaken - yes or no ?. if yes then fine, if no then the MBC will lose a lot of credibility).

With regards to your point about people working MBC shows - this is the whole issue : people should be able to work wherever they want (either on BBBofC shows or MBC shows, or both, as when they want to).

It is the BBBofC that is creating this (possibly illegal?) situation by effectively saying "if you work for them then you cant work for us" - I cant think of any other area of work / life where this would be allowed.

[bripez]

Pretty sure this goes back to the High Court on April 16th. Its a fascinating story thus far. I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash then.

I agree.

The problem is that who is going to take on the Board in a legal fight for "restraint of trade" if boxers are effectively blacklisted from their shows for taking part in MBC sanctioned shows ?

The people who will be affected are the ones less able to afford this financially - i.e. the novice boxers and those lower down the pecking order who just want to box and earn a few quid. Those at the top are happy as they are and wont want to get involved as it does not really affect them.

One interesting point, if the BBofC do go to court, then who will be paying their legal costs ?

I suspect that rather ironically it will be the members who pay - if not directly, then by their fees and subscriptions.

So, we could have a situation where the Board is using Boxers money to fight a case that may prevent Boxers from earning money in the future - the boxers lose out both ways !

Surely, whatever side of the fence you sit on, the boxer is paramount - firstly their health and secondly financially.