MALTA BOXING COMMISSION - UK, SCOTLAND & IRELAND SANCTIONING

[spudder56]

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.

Yes mate first and foremost is the health and safety of the boxer just think on this if it is as Mr Di Caro states that MBC medical systems are the same and in some cases better than the boards how is it that some boxers who have been refused a board licence or had it withdrawn on Medical grounds have no problems getting a MBC Licence ?

[leejonesjnr]

I have not been subject to an MBC medical so cannot comment on how good or bad they are, however it is certain that the results are not viewed the same way even if the procedures are the same as a BBBoC. As has been said, some boxers refused BBBoC licenses on medical grounds have been granted MBC licenses.
I am also not saying that MBC is wrong to do so as I do not have either the facts of each case or the medical knowledge to make conclusions.
With regards BBBoC licensed boxers suffering financially due to not being allowed to box on MBC shows, I don't believe this is really an issue. There are hundreds of BBBoC shows each year and very few MBC shows. I don't think that I have heard any BBBoC licensed boxers complain that they want to fight on MBC shows.

[spudder56]

I have not been subject to an MBC medical so cannot comment on how good or bad they are, however it is certain that the results are not viewed the same way even if the procedures are the same as a BBBoC. As has been said, some boxers refused BBBoC licenses on medical grounds have been granted MBC licenses.
I am also not saying that MBC is wrong to do so as I do not have either the facts of each case or the medical knowledge to make conclusions.
With regards BBBoC licensed boxers suffering financially due to not being allowed to box on MBC shows, I don't believe this is really an issue. There are hundreds of BBBoC shows each year and very few MBC shows. I don't think that I have heard any BBBoC licensed boxers complain that they want to fight on MBC shows.

Very good post mate also they want boxers who have been refused a licence or had their licence withdrawn by the board on either medical or ability grounds to roll up on board shows with a malta licence and be allowed to fight as if there is no problem the whole idea is a joke really the board whilst nothing like perfect do not refuse or withdraw licences without having a good reason IMO

[Looking On]

I have not been subject to an MBC medical so cannot comment on how good or bad they are, however it is certain that the results are not viewed the same way even if the procedures are the same as a BBBoC. As has been said, some boxers refused BBBoC licenses on medical grounds have been granted MBC licenses.
I am also not saying that MBC is wrong to do so as I do not have either the facts of each case or the medical knowledge to make conclusions.
With regards BBBoC licensed boxers suffering financially due to not being allowed to box on MBC shows, I don't believe this is really an issue. There are hundreds of BBBoC shows each year and very few MBC shows. I don't think that I have heard any BBBoC licensed boxers complain that they want to fight on MBC shows.

Very good post mate also they want boxers who have been refused a licence or had their licence withdrawn by the board on either medical or ability grounds to roll up on board shows with a malta licence and be allowed to fight as if there is no problem the whole idea is a joke really the board whilst nothing like perfect do not refuse or withdraw licences without having a good reason IMO

From what i understood from the time when weaver was rejected by the board, it was said that experts offered qualified opinions etc but that the board were being overly cautious and refused to budge from their stance regardless of what the experts said, and that any other body in the world would have licensed Weaver but the board chose not to. So im not sure how much criticism can really be aimed at MBC on that if anyone else also would have licensed him. i cant comment on other cases but i just recall all the fall out at the time on these very forums.

[Wake up call]

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.

Hello Gianluca "Rio" Di Caro

[spudder56]

I am still waiting for dw01 to enlighten me as to who the owners of the board are that he says pays themselves such generous salaries

[Wake up call]

I am still waiting for dw01 to enlighten me as to who the owners of the board are that he says pays themselves such generous salaries

He clearly doesn't much about the board's set up and like Luca cannot make the distinction between a limited company by guarantee and one with share capital.

Also, he admits being involved in unlicensed boxing so he has every reason to dislike a proper, professional organisation. All the unlicensed lot hate the board because they a) cannot afford to have the best or b) have previously been refused a license.

Anyway, I'm bored off this thread now. There are only so many times you can tell people things and some of the these people clearly have the intellect of a cheese sandwich.

[bripez]

I have not been subject to an MBC medical so cannot comment on how good or bad they are, however it is certain that the results are not viewed the same way even if the procedures are the same as a BBBoC. As has been said, some boxers refused BBBoC licenses on medical grounds have been granted MBC licenses.
I am also not saying that MBC is wrong to do so as I do not have either the facts of each case or the medical knowledge to make conclusions.
.

Same here.

I am not qualified medically so can't comment on the specifics, however I think that the boxers you refer to have been sanctioned to box by other bodies.

Luca has said that his medical procedure is the same as used by the Nevada commission for example.

I remember at the time that Weavers dad (I think) made a number of posts on this site with detailed medical evidence. If I recall correctly they felt that the board made an initial decision without the benefit of the full medical evidence and when this evidence was offered the board refused to revisit the case or their decision.

[bripez]

Also, he admits being involved in unlicensed boxing so he has every reason to dislike a proper, professional organisation. All the unlicensed lot hate the board because they a) cannot afford to have the best or b) have previously been refused a license.

.

Unlicensed just means not licensed by the BBBofC.

The Board are not the "law" on boxing, they are just the first (and for the moment) only boxing members club in this country.

You are aware how other prominent boxing figures started out? Eg. FWarren ?

[Wake up call]

Also, he admits being involved in unlicensed boxing so he has every reason to dislike a proper, professional organisation. All the unlicensed lot hate the board because they a) cannot afford to have the best or b) have previously been refused a license.

.

Unlicensed just means not licensed by the BBBofC.

The Board are not the "law" on boxing, they are just the first (and for the moment) only boxing members club in this country.

You are aware how other prominent boxing figures started out? Eg. FWarren ?

Read my past posts on the matter. It's me that keeps telling people that the term "unlicensed" is a misnomer.

I used it this case as it's easiest way of people understanding is a non-board promoter.

[spudder56]

Wake up call I asked dw01 to name who he thinks are the owners of the board who pay themselves generous salaries I fully understand company law mate dw01 made a statement about the owners paying themselves generous salaries all I want is for him to name the owners that's all

[bripez]

Wake up call I asked dw01 to name who he thinks are the owners of the board who pay themselves generous salaries I fully understand company law mate dw01 made a statement about the owners paying themselves generous salaries all I want is for him to name the owners that's all

I am not sure what point you are trying to make mate?

Are you suggesting that the Board officials do not gat paid? Does Robert Smith work for free on a voluntary basis?

I have no idea how much they earn (or claim on expenses, go on official trips abroad etc.) let alone what is considered "generous".

[spudder56]

Wake up call I asked dw01 to name who he thinks are the owners of the board who pay themselves generous salaries I fully understand company law mate dw01 made a statement about the owners paying themselves generous salaries all I want is for him to name the owners that's all

I am not sure what point you are trying to make mate?

Are you suggesting that the Board officials do not gat paid? Does Robert Smith work for free on a voluntary basis?

I have no idea how much they earn (or claim on expenses, go on official trips abroad etc.) let alone what is considered "generous".[/quote

Of course robert smith and the staff at head office are salaried they do not own the board neither do the stewards etc dw01 was giving the impression that the board owners paid themselves a generous salary and I asked him to name the owners yes you are correct people who volunteer to work for the board get expenses but the area councils members give up at least one whole day a month and in the case of the Midlands and central areas this is a sunday plus do other interviews on the road during the rest of the month and the expenses for the whole sunday are unlimited coffee and a couple of sandwiches no travel expenses or indeed other expenses are paid if a council member acts as an area representative at a show he can hav a drink and a sandwich/snack to the value of £5 and also gets 40 pence a mile and that's it and if they are lucky they may get an added bonus of a load of abuse off licence holders lol also he is usually at the show at least an hour before the show starts and leaves about half an hour after the end I don't know what expenses stewards get but the robert smith will scrutinise every expense claim that goes into head office before it is paid

[gobbles]

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.

How are their claims provable by actions? Has anyone independent really invested time in comparing how their shows run compared to BBBoC shows? It's easy to say "we are the same as them", just as the WBU and WBF used to claim they were real world titles. All we have are their claims.

If you work for a company - in any industry - does that company not have the right to stop employing you if you decide work for a direct rival? If you in training a person and that person decides to go work for a rival, why should you be forced to continue to offer them work?
If someone worked for Sky on the boxing and they then decided to take a job with allegedly, do you think they would still have a job at Sky? Of course not. If you worked for a big city firm as a trader, or an architect, or a designer and wanted to take a Saturday job working for your rivals, do you think that would be OK? Almost certainly your contract would prevent you from doing that. Maybe if someone running a campaign for the Conservative Party decided to work for the Labour Party at weekends? That OK?

Any company has a right to employ who they want and most companies that employ you would have something That's not restraint of trade, it's basic terms and conditions.

[Looking On]

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.

How are their claims provable by actions? Has anyone independent really invested time in comparing how their shows run compared to BBBoC shows? It's easy to say "we are the same as them", just as the WBU and WBF used to claim they were real world titles. All we have are their claims.

If you work for a company - in any industry - does that company not have the right to stop employing you if you decide work for a direct rival? If you in training a person and that person decides to go work for a rival, why should you be forced to continue to offer them work?
If someone worked for Sky on the boxing and they then decided to take a job with allegedly, do you think they would still have a job at Sky? Of course not. If you worked for a big city firm as a trader, or an architect, or a designer and wanted to take a Saturday job working for your rivals, do you think that would be OK? Almost certainly your contract would prevent you from doing that. Maybe if someone running a campaign for the Conservative Party decided to work for the Labour Party at weekends? That OK?

Any company has a right to employ who they want and most companies that employ you would have something That's not restraint of trade, it's basic terms and conditions.

A big difference there is that the boxers arent employed by the BBBoC, they are effectively self employed.... a self employed plumber can work on any job he wants

[leejonesjnr]

Looking On - How many BBBoC licensed pros do you know who want to box on MBC shows?

[bripez]

A big difference there is that the boxers arent employed by the BBBoC, they are effectively self employed.... a self employed plumber can work on any job he wants

That is the whole point.

In theory I agree.

However ..... what if a self employed plumber works for Company A (who happen to be a big firm who provide him with the vast majority of his work), says "I don't want you working for company "B" - if you do, then you cant work for us any more".

That is effectively what the BBBof C are saying.

Well, they are not really - if you are a top high profile plumber (like say David Haye or Derek Chisora) then these rules don't apply - it is just the average lower level plumber that has to toe the line.

At least if they were consistent that would be one thing, but they are not.

[leejonesjnr]

There are many factors to this particular issue but the restraint of trade for a BBBoC licensed boxer is a none starter.
If a boxer can get a BBBoC license there are more shows available to box on than any boxer could exhaust.
Also, if a boxer makes the decision to box on MBC shows then they absolutely can, though to my knowledge no BBBoC licensed boxers have yet made the decision to choose MBC instead of BBBoC.
I suppose more of an issue is that if both were to work happily together, the BBBoC would either be in a position where they were allowing boxers that they felt should not be competing box on their shows OR every single show would create additional costs either to the boxer/promoter/BBBoC/MBC as every boxer would have to take medical or ability assessments before EVERY fight.

[bripez]

How are their claims provable by actions? Has anyone independent really invested time in comparing how their shows run compared to BBBoC shows? It's easy to say "we are the same as them", just as the WBU and WBF used to claim they were real world titles. All we have are their claims.

If you work for a company - in any industry - does that company not have the right to stop employing you if you decide work for a direct rival?

Any company has a right to employ who they want and most companies that employ you would have something That's not restraint of trade, it's basic terms and conditions.

Of course their claims are "provable" - if not by you or I, then certainly the BBBofC.

If the MBC are claiming that they have a certain medical procedure, then by their actions they either do or they do not - this would actually be an ideal opportunity for the Board to say "actually, the MBC are saying one thing however in reality they are not following their own guidelines".

Just because you or I cannot prove or disprove their claims does not mean that nobody can.

With regards to your second point, the Board are not a Company and the Boxers are not employees.

The Board are effectively a members club, and they are dictating to their members what other clubs they can (or rather cannot) box for.

[gobbles]

A big difference there is that the boxers arent employed by the BBBoC, they are effectively self employed.... a self employed plumber can work on any job he wants

That might work in the case of plumbers, but it wouldn't work in many industries. Freelance work in many industries comes with strings attached and non-compete clauses

[bripez]

A big difference there is that the boxers arent employed by the BBBoC, they are effectively self employed.... a self employed plumber can work on any job he wants

That might work in the case of plumbers, but it wouldn't work in many industries. Freelance work in many industries comes with strings attached and non-compete clauses

Yes they do - in the commercial world.

However, as the anti-MBC have pointed out on many occasions on this thread the Board is not a Limited company and the boxers are not employees.

[kamicazze]

http://boxrec.com/date_search.php?yyyy= ... &SUBMIT=Go

This card looks fairly competitive. Not bad in comparison to what has come before it

[Looking On]

Looking On - How many BBBoC licensed pros do you know who want to box on MBC shows?

The question should surely be... who would box on mbc shows if they was allowed to ? i know several who would....
Are you telling me that if a winnable and decent paid bout came up on an MBC show and you hadnt boxed in about 7 or 8 months, that you wouldnt take it if you was allowed to without repercussions.......

[Looking On]

There are many factors to this particular issue but the restraint of trade for a BBBoC licensed boxer is a none starter.
If a boxer can get a BBBoC license there are more shows available to box on than any boxer could exhaust.
Also, if a boxer makes the decision to box on MBC shows then they absolutely can, though to my knowledge no BBBoC licensed boxers have yet made the decision to choose MBC instead of BBBoC.
I suppose more of an issue is that if both were to work happily together, the BBBoC would either be in a position where they were allowing boxers that they felt should not be competing box on their shows OR every single show would create additional costs either to the boxer/promoter/BBBoC/MBC as every boxer would have to take medical or ability assessments before EVERY fight.

In reply to the Bold It shouldnt be a choice between the 2, thats the point.

[leejonesjnr]

There are many factors to this particular issue but the restraint of trade for a BBBoC licensed boxer is a none starter.
If a boxer can get a BBBoC license there are more shows available to box on than any boxer could exhaust.
Also, if a boxer makes the decision to box on MBC shows then they absolutely can, though to my knowledge no BBBoC licensed boxers have yet made the decision to choose MBC instead of BBBoC.
I suppose more of an issue is that if both were to work happily together, the BBBoC would either be in a position where they were allowing boxers that they felt should not be competing box on their shows OR every single show would create additional costs either to the boxer/promoter/BBBoC/MBC as every boxer would have to take medical or ability assessments before EVERY fight.

In reply to the Bold It shouldnt be a choice between the 2, thats the point.

Why not? When the stewardess comes around on a flight do you get stroppy and demand chicken AND fish?